Rush Limbaugh: Another Terror Strike Won't Help Democrats

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | Dec. 19, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I think ABC is also setting up this story to support the leftists' new lie- we are no safer at home now that Saddam is captured.

They took the earlier warning and transformed it into what they hoped would be perceived as a full blown threat. Hyped it up.

Now look for Dims to use this as "proof" that we are in danger.

A new low for the media, if you ask me..

[demkicker]

Momar Qhadafi evidently got the hint.

Bush was looking very "Reaganesque" to Momar. He's noticed what happens to terrorist foes & evidently wants to live to a ripe old age.

[I still care]

I remember people screaming for blood following 9/11.

If another attack were to happen like that, there would be no holding back the American people. They would want total destruction of any enemy.

[Paul Atreides]

Oh yeah! Notice the new mantra is "Where's Osama?". When Osama is produced, they'll begin trying to tear that down, as well. I hope, as the election gets closer, the left will begin voicing what they really feel: that they hope that we will be attacked, and that they don't consider the lives lost on 9-11 be any big tragedy, that they want more of our military personnel to die in Iraq, and the fact that the lives of the Iraqis are of no consequence, when compared to getting one of their own back into the Oval Office.

[Uncle Miltie]

If another attack were to happen, I would drive to D.C. to meet with my Reps and protest in favor of invading Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria simultaneously. Exursionary forces could take care of SA and Syria. We might need a little local help by arming the students in Iran.

Hello Al Qaeda. If you want America to conquer the whole Middle East, just try 9/11 again. (Rush is Right...)

[cwb]

Those democrats who pretended to support the war before Nov. 2002 did so for one reason: The mid-term elections. When they saw the results of those elections and their loss...despite their support, they returned to their true colors. Their denial makes them believe that this position is the one that will win them their power back...when they will only lose by more. Democrats seem to think that being the opposition Party, means they have to oppose everything, regardless if it's right. So they think they lost because of their support for "Bush."

And here's something I wish were asked of the Democrats: If multilateralism and UN support is so-o-o important to them, why is it that in the 1991 Gulf War, when we not only had UN support, but one of the largest coalitions in world history, only 10 Senate Democrats (who were the majority party) could muster support for GH Bush and that war (and Gore's vote was bought)? Democrat's don't object to unilateralism; they object to a Republican-led war. If this wasn't true, Kosovo would've never been fought, because Clinton intentionally avoided a UN resolution on that war. I think people are finally beginning to realize that it is the Democrats who play politics with everything, including our national security.

[expatpat]

The ignorant Islamofascists, isolated in their crummy countries, have no idea how big and powerful this country is. While terrible for the victims and their families, and a shock to all of us, 9/11 was a mere pinprick in terms of damage to the country.

While AngloSaxons are relaxed and easy-going if not harassed, they are fierce, implacable, and unrelenting when attacked or forced to fight. The militant Muslims need to realize that before it is too late.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Right. Playing down the capture hurts Iraqis too. After Saddam kills a total of 1,000,000, 20 average US cities' worth, Dims and their media defend him at the risk of more Iraqi and US deaths. It is hard to believe.

And because they control 95% of the media, they can get away with ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. This is what bothers me most about the future. They are emboldened, and will now do more to undermine the US in every way possible.

As far as BL goes, I say he is dead, and if not, AQ has been destroyed by Bush and is no longer a threat. We DID destroy them in the Afghan campaign (and have captured their leaders, etc... and the left is spinning it into a near loss (or a push).

I do not speak rationally to leftists anymore. It's war. As the days go by, I cannot believe what they continue to get away with.

[Orangedog]

If another attack were to happen like that, there would be no holding back the American people. They would want total destruction of any enemy.

Hard to forget that time. For a few weeks we stopped being Republicans and Democrats, or divided by the usual hyphenated descriptions that divided us. I'm still moved by the clips of congress singing God Bless America on the Capitol steps. I think the terrorists were taught a lesson after 9/11...and not just the one we dished out in Ashcanistan...that when they attack us, they unite us. The enemy that they hoped to splinter was made stronger and more determined. I think Toby Keith summed it up well with the line "We'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way." They will come at us again...that much is certain. But when they do it won't be with hi-jacked planes. They know that one more 9/11 attack, and even the soccer moms will be screaming for mass deportations and internment camps. If it can be tied to another country, nukes will be a very real option. That ups the stakes for them, meaning that their attack will have to be an order of magnatude higher. I'd be concerned about what happened to the several dozen old soviet era suitcase nukes that went missing a few years ago, or something along those lines.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"If another attack were to happen like that, there would be no holding back the American people. They would want total destruction of any enemy."

Which is why they have not attacked on US soil since 911. Not even a gunshot or suicide killing.

[PhilDragoo]

Heard Rush say this today and felt a sense of relief.

The only way Hitlery can have her coup would be another terror attack--something to flaunt while chanting, "Are you safer?"

But Rush reminds us how we were ready to go get some--Let's Roll--after 911.

Should another such attack be launched, the public reaction will incinerate the blow-dried dwarves and send a message to Hitlery:

Get thee behind me, Satan.

[Paul Atreides]

The left has acted far worse than I ever would have given them credit. And, I don't give them much credit.

[Nick Danger]

If, God forbid, we will be attacked, people will want a president who has demonstrated that he is doing everything humanly possible to keep us safe

And that may not be Bush. If we are attacked again, the political danger to Bush is not from Democrats. It's from a demagogue who promises to do what Bush won't do.

If it happens again, especially if it involves biological or chemical weapons, the American people are going to demand that the threat be neutralized, in its entirety, right now.

Anybody remember that Star Trek TNG episode in which an immortal, omnipotent being is confessing to having killed the creatures that attacked his planet, where he was enjoying life with his human wife? Picard says it's understandable that he'd be angry, and the immortal being says "You don't understand. I mean I killed all of them. Everywhere." That's the mood people will be in.

[Gritty]

Rush must be reading Victor Davis Hanson lately...

"If we have another 9/11, our response would be too terrible to contemplate"-Victor Davis Hanson

[GOP_Proud]

I am a 52 year old female. If my country needs me anywhere I will fight.

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping Phil.

We did it before and we can do it again.

[Orangedog]

Anybody remember that Star Trek TNG episode in which an immortal, omnipotent being is confessing to having killed the creatures that attacked his planet, where he was enjoying life with his human wife? Picard says it's understandable that he'd be angry, and the immortal being says "You don't understand. I mean I killed all of them. Everywhere." That's the mood people will be in.

I remember that one. That was something Reagan had going for him in spades...the universal belief that "Yes, I will reduce all of your cities to glowing rubble!" In fact, I remember seeing interviews with people in his adminstration who were instructed to quietly play to that behind the scenes foreign relations. In fact, Bush 41 made sure that Baker communicated that to the Iraqi foreign minister. Something along the lines of "the American people will demand a nuclear strike" and that he would give them what they wanted if our troops were gassed. Dubya needs to get that point across.

[Orangedog]

We did it before and we can do it again.

That's the message I wish Truman would have used on China during the Korean War. If anyone at the time had the credibility to do that, he did, but chose not to. If he would have said to China "In 1945 I had two atomic boms and I gave the order to incinerate two Japanese cities...I have more than two atomic bombs now. Stay the hell out of this if you know what's good for you!"

[snippy_about_it]

Get thee behind me, Satan.

Good phrase for her or her scumbag husband.

[workerbee]

If multilateralism and UN support is so-o-o important to them, why is it that in the 1991 Gulf War, when we not only had UN support, but one of the largest coalitions in world history, only 10 Senate Democrats (who were the majority party) could muster support for GH Bush and that war (and Gore's vote was bought)?

Here's my question: The left loves to squeal about our "unilaterialism" in this war, and scoffs at the 60-nation coalition because it's "all those unimportant countries that aren't really contributing anything anyway." Well, then how come when it comes to U.N. approval, whenever some diplomat from one of those same podunk countries votes against us, all of a sudden we're supposed to stop dead in our tracks and honor his opinion? When they're against us, all of a sudden they're important and "count".