RUSH: To the phones, we’re going to start in San Antonio, Texas. This is Mark. It’s great to have you with us, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Good afternoon, Rush. Lone Star dittos from the great state.
RUSH: Thank you very much.
CALLER: You bet. Hope you had a great weekend.
RUSH: I did. I really did. Thanks.
CALLER: Good. It’s really not surprising at all that the person who leaked the WikiLeaks about the covert operations in Afghanistan, it’s not surprising that they’re so stunned that we actually engaged in covert operations because that means that there has to be secrecy on our part and the thought process behind this administration is everything has been in a legal framework, you have to deal with discovery so everybody has all the same information, it’s really not a surprise at all that they would be stunned that we’re doing something in secret —
CALLER: — want to prosecute in a courtroom.
RUSH: Wait a second. You say it’s not at all surprising that they would — who do you mean they?
CALLER: I mean whoever is critical of the fact that we actually had covert operations in Afghanistan. They seem shocked that we’re actually doing something in secret and not telling our enemies what it is we’re going to be doing. That’s the same thought process a lawyer has in a courtroom with discovery so that both sides have all equal information, and it it’s the typical —
CALLER: — of these people who want to prosecute this war in a courtroom and not on the battlefield.
RUSH: All right. I see your point. So the people who leaked this and gave it to WikiLeaks and then WikiLeaks by extension —
RUSH: — think that somehow it’s just unfair that —
RUSH: — we should have covert operations. If we’re going to have something secret we should tell the enemy because that’s what’s necessary to make it fair because that’s what you have to do in court.
CALLER: That’s right.
RUSH: You can’t pull surprise witnesses or evidence out of your hat. You have to share it with either the defense or the prosecution, depending on who you are?
CALLER: Exactly right. It’s against court procedure to hide evidence. Everybody has to have the same information, and this bunch wants to win this not on the battlefield, that they process every through a legal framework. That’s why they want to try sheik Khalid Mohammed, whatever his name is, they want to put him in a courtroom and not in the electric chair.
RUSH: I understand. I understand what you’re saying, that essentially we need to have discovery on the battlefield.
RUSH: I know that’s what you’re saying. I frankly do not think that’s what this is about. What I think this is about is what it’s always been about with the American left, which is discrediting the US military. This is nothing more than an attack on the US military. And the very fact that there’s not one mention of the Obama administration in 91,000 pages, is that what we’ve got? Ninety-one thousand pages with more to come and not one mention of the Obama administration. Now, not to say there won’t be in forthcoming releases, but it’s awfully suspicious. And if you look at the New York Times and Der Spiegel and The Guardian and the way they’re writing all this up, the US is guilty of crimes just like Mark says here. We made a point of pointing out, we did covert operations, we did covert Special Forces operations, this is leaked, this is big news. You know, we’re slinking around in secrecy. The effort here is really to discredit the US and to get us out of Afghanistan. That’s what the ultimate objective is is to get us out of there, to either embarrass this regime so much that they can’t go on, or for all I know somebody in the regime’s behind all this stuff being leaked. It’s just curious.
And then you have the regime supposedly expressing outrage when the leader of the regime, Barack Obama, once brought Daniel Ellsberg to Columbia to speak when he was a student there, and Ellsberg was a hero to the American left for divulging the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War. Now, the WikiLeaks founder, whoever this little waif is, depending on the picture you can’t tell you whether this guy is male or female. You really can’t tell. The recent pictures, recent video you can tell he’s male, but a ten-mile-an-hour wind would blow the guy over. Julian Assange is his name, I don’t know how he pronounces it, but this guy is not so lawyerly, he’s a subversive. He was a member of a hacker group called International Subversives. To think this guy has our best interests at heart, to think this guy has the US interests at heart, this is, folks, a great illustration of the ruling class: the US is guilty, we are evil, our military has been the focus of evil in the modern world, it has spread our imperialism all over the world, and here’s a chance to get back — and within the context of getting at Bush, too, as well.
I mean WikiLeaks, you know, they’re trying to make it tough to have any leniency on the Rules of Engagement . That’s a big thing going on now, Rules of Engagement , they were they stringent, we couldn’t pull the trigger if there was a civilian within 10,000 miles, and I think they’re trying to take us back to that. Petraeus wants to relax those ridiculous rules, now here come these leaks and what’s at the top of the list? Civilians being accidentally killed. It used to be back in the days when we fought wars to win them that civilian deaths were the object. It was folks, as hard as that may be to hear.
RUSH: Let’s talk about this Rules of Engagement business. General Jim Jones of the regime has been very vocal here about all this. When he refers, as he has in his objection, of course, to what’s been leaked, to the past strategy that these leaks represent, what he’s saying is that those things aren’t going to happen anymore because we got new Rules of Engagement . So these leaks are about all the covert secrecy and accidental civilian deaths, no, no, no, that’s old stuff, that happened with Bush, ain’t going to happen anymore. We got new Rules of Engagement . That’s what Jones is saying. So this might be a way — and this is why it wouldn’t surprise me if somebody in the administration’s responsible for making this stuff available — this might be a way for Obama to do an end run around Petraeus and keep these suicidal Rules of Engagement we now have on the books, which Petraeus wants to change.
These Rules of Engagement Petraeus wants to change are what led to the discussions of creating a new medal, the medal of restraint, give somebody a medal for not pulling the trigger. Ever heard of that? That’s something that would only be awarded posthumously. It would have to be because the military person not pulling the trigger would obviously die. Obama might not feel that he has enough power to overrule Petraeus right now on changing the Rules of Engagement . So now how handy all of a sudden we get thousands upon thousands of pages of leaks about civilian casualties? Now, let me speak about that for just a second. I always must keep in mind that people of a certain age will be ignorant of the past because of the horrible state of our education system. Before the break I said, you know, back in the days where we actually were serious about winning wars, civilian deaths was one of many objects. And I’m sure that many of you, ‘Rush, what are you talking about? Did we ever really do that?’
It wasn’t just us. Throughout the history of the world — this is why, you know, people talk about war crimes, war itself is a crime, it’s a horrible thing, but it happens because there are bad guys in the world. War is always started by the bad guys. The good guys always have to defend themselves. And wars are always about one of two things, money or expanding and conquered territory. That’s what’s been amazing about the United States. We don’t conquer anybody. We liberate, but we don’t conquer new land, we’ve not been out to expand our empire. But let’s use Germany and Japan as two recent examples. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were explicitly bombings targeted at civilians who lived in those cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not well-known and exclusively military headquarters for the Japanese. In World War II, the Germans had all these bombs on London.
Now, they had military installations nearby in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we didn’t surgically strike them, not with a nuke. I mean there’s no such thing as a surgical strike with a nuke. You think Hitler was just trying to kill military people bombing London? When we retaliated and bombed Dresden and Berlin, were we just trying to target the SS and the Nazis? No. We wanted the civilian population to demand that their government surrender. That’s how you win wars. The other guys give up. The other guys surrender because they’re losing too much. War is a terrible thing, which is why I have always resented the American left suggesting that the military is a bunch of warmongers who love it. Nobody loves it, but there are professionals who know what it takes to win them when they’re necessary. But you don’t do it anymore. The whole notion of surgical strikes — Afghanistan, people say, ‘Why can’t we win this and get out of there?’ Do you know what the Rules of Engagement are? Do you know how the terrorists fight wars? They dress up as civilians, they hide in mosques, they hide in private homes where there are women and children because they know our Rules of Engagement do not allow us to hit those targets.
The Taliban kills civilians. Who died at the World Trade Center? Did Osama Bin Laden target just the Pentagon? No. Osama Bin Laden targeted the citadel of capitalism and 3,000 innocent civilians died. And now here we are in retaliation with these handcuffing Rules of Engagement , and I’m here to tell you no nation would have ever succeeded in winning a war had they been bound by them. This is the new reality of the day, the new reality of political correctness is that you must have surgical strikes, our weapons are much more precise and accurate now, and we got drones and missiles where we can take out just the bad guys and no innocents will die. So it’s changed dramatically. Now, I don’t want anybody to misunderstand. This is where people can easily take things out of context and promulgate them all over the world in the media and have people misunderstand.
None of this that I’ve said is with relish. I’ve said it with passion to impress upon people the factual nature of it. Nobody likes it. Nobody likes war, and certainly not the people who lead them and prosecute them. But, the great leaders who have won wars know what it takes in something that’s horrible and distasteful. My brother and I would constantly ask, ‘Daddy, how many Germans did you kill?’ or how many Japanese, and he wouldn’t tell us, he wouldn’t tell us, would not talk about it. Now, my father and some of his friends were in the China-Burma theater of World War II. He flew P-51s, and they were not peace missions. But he wouldn’t tell me. It’s not something that people brag about in that sense, being victorious and turning away aggressors and bad guys, the people that want to take over your country, being victorious in a circumstance like that is worthy of celebration, but the actual act of what it takes, that’s not who we are.
We are a defensive nation, we are reactionary, we defend, or used to, liberty and freedom around the world and stand up for anybody in the world who wanted it, supported it. That’s not so much the case anymore. But the attacks on the US military which have been institutional for decades have taken a toll, and now we have these silly Rules of Engagement to the point that we have 91,000 pages of leaked documents which supposedly are the worst indictment of the US military in history. And why? Because civilians have been accidentally killed. It used to happen on purpose. It used to be the objective. We’re doing covert Special Forces operations, as though that is a crime. The people leaking this stuff, the people interpreting it are pointing fingers at the US and talking about how evil we are and how mean, that we’re doing secret operations, covert operations against the enemy and that innocent civilians are being killed.