Posted on 07/31/2004 10:36:21 AM PDT by Maria S
We hope top Bush Cheney strategists Karl Rove and Mary Matalin were tuned into Rush Limbaugh's Friday radio broadcast, especially the segment where the top-talker debuted what he called, "The Commander-in-Chief Test."
If Bush campaign officials were listening in, what they got was a slam dunk argument for President Bush's reelection that framed the case against John Kerry more eloquently and compellingly than anything so far offered by the White House. And we mean by miles.
"The Commander-in-Chief Test lets you be the history maker," Limbaugh began.
"First question: You're George Washington in 1776. You've lost every battle. The Revolution seems a bust. Your spies tell you that the British officers are wintering in Trenton. You think that means that the Germans are going to get falling-down drunk on Christmas Eve and sleep it off the next morning. However, they are the world's best soldiers and they'll beat you if they're awake, sober or not. Also the Delaware River is full of ice, and your guys have no food or shoes. Many New Jerseyites are Tories who might rat you out. Do you roll the dice to change the course of the war, figuring the Germans don't like fighting on Christmas, or do you wait for springtime rather than risk what little is left of the Continental Army?
"I just want to stress," the top talker interjected, "the answer to none of these [questions] is 'Call the United Nations.'
"Second Question: If you're Abe Lincoln in 1863, General Lee has crossed into the North, but no one knows where he's going. The Union Army has been beaten in most every battle so far, and if you lose on your own ground, the Union is likely lost to the South. Do you keep the Army away from Lee until he gets tired and heads back South, or do you send General Meade out looking for Lee even if they find that rascal in some cross-roads town in Pennsylvania called Gettysburg?
"What do you do? What would Senator Kerry have done? "Third Question: You are the duty officer in Honolulu, December 7, 1941. Two soldiers manning the newly invented radar call to report a lot of blips on the screen. Headquarters had already advised you to expect a flight of American bombers from California that morning. So do you sound the alarm to the fleet?
Do you scramble the fighter planes and hope Rear Admiral Kimmel and General Short don't yell at you if you're wrong, or tell the radar guys their shift is ending anyway and not to worry about it?
"If you're John Kerry manning the radar, what do you do?
"Fourth Question: You are Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1939. You've received a letter from the famous quirky physicist Albert Einstein recommending building an atomic bomb in order to beat the Nazis to the punch. Not really knowing what an atomic bomb is and not yet at war, do you ask Congress to study the matter and ask your intelligence operation to confirm if the Nazis are building one of these weapons themselves, or do you order secret development with money skimmed from other projects and hidden through phony congressional appropriations? Do you do the Manhattan Project?
"What do you do if you are John Kerry? Remember now, you can't call the UN. At this point, it's the defunct League of Nations anyway.
"Fifth Question: You are Admiral Nimitz in 1942. Navy intelligence intercepted coded messages they reveal shows Japanese plans to steal the American island of Midway, but they also tell you Japanese could be planning attacks elsewhere. You know that banking on Midway would leave the door open elsewhere. Do you risk your aircraft carriers that escaped the Pearl Harbor attack perhaps leaving no U.S. Fleet in the Pacific, or do you try catching the Imperial Fleet with the kimono open and reverse the course of the war at Midway?
"What do you do if you're John Kerry? Remember now, you can't call the United Nations. You can't call the French.
"Sixth Question: You are Dwight Eisenhower in June of 1944. Your weatherman tells you he sees a break in the bad weather and a narrow window for your landing forces to get on the beaches of Normandy. You hope, but you can't confirm that allied disinformation has convinced Hitler the real invasion will be north. Do you risk a quarter million troops and the possibility of a stalemate in Europe, or do you say, 'Let's go,' rather than wait another month or two for D Day? (Remember, you can't call the United Nations.)
"What do you do if you're John Kerry? Remember, there's no turning back.
"Seventh Question: You're also Eisenhower in December 1944. Intelligence says the Germans are on the run. They're low on gasoline and ammo. The men deserve a break, and many officers want to leave for Christmas in Paris. How can the Germans possibly break through that dense forest? and knowing what we know from test question one, the Germans don't like to fight on Christmas. Do you ignore the intelligence and figure that Hitler will try to catch you with your pants down and inflict on the American Army its worst-ever disaster?
"What do you do faced with the Battle of the Bulge if you are John Kerry?
"Eighth Question: You are Harry Truman in August of 1945. FDR's atomic bomb recommended by Einstein is tested successfully, and you have two more of bombs ready to use. The scientists who build the bomb are opposing its use. Intelligence reports suggest the Japanese are starving and on their last legs ready to talk turkey. American bombers are already turning many Japanese cities into cinders. Do you secretly advise the Japanese they can surrender now before you drop the bomb, or do you drop the bomb and ask questions later?
"What do you do if you're John Kerry?"
Limbaugh cited several other examples where presidents took critical risks that saved both America and the world, before delivering the coup de grace: "You are President Bush in early 2003, just months after September 11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had indicted Osama bin Laden citing ties to Saddam Hussein and had bombed a suspected bioweapons in Sudan with ties to Iraq . . . .
"Intelligence suggests that terrorists met with others in Prague. UN weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. British intelligence says Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Saddam invaded Kuwait a decade before. He had used chemical weapons on his own people.
One of the perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad. Families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq. The CIA Director originally appointed by Clinton tells you it's "a slam-dunk" that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
"The French are opposed to war with Iraq, saying their intelligence service believes Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction. Russian President Putin, [also] opposed to war with Iraq, tells you Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults in the US. Most of the CIA contacts in Iraq are murdered.
"Do you wait to get more spies in the country to confirm the other intelligence, or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use the force and then use the force?
"What would you do if you are John Kerry?" [End of Excerpt]
If team Bush were smart, they'd borrow Limbaugh's "Commander-in-Chief Test" verbatim and simply repackage it as a campaign commercial. Or better yet, adapt some variation of the radio host's eye-opening national security history lesson for Bush's closing remarks in the final debate against John Kerry.
To listen to Limbaugh's "Commander-in-Chief Test" in its entirety, go to: www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_073004/content/eib_pop_quiz.guest.html
Most of the great unwashed that vote Democrat wouldnt know. Even many of the NEA teachers would think that Washington was the commander in Vietnam and Kerry fought at the Battle of the Bulge.
This was SO cool when I heard it. It's a test that Kerry would miserably fail. Well, maybe I shouldn't say "miserably," because that states that his fail would merit some pity. As it is, he merits no one's pity. I think "contemptible failure" would be more suitable.
She worked for Cheney for the first 2 years or so.
To kerry or do you do like clinton and carter did, reduce our air defenses so much to the point where Air Defense was Almost nonexistant by September 11th, 2001!!!!
See Below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182225/posts
Best FReegards,
Defender2
"Excellent, but making it short enough in a commercial or in the debates for the relatively ignorant and unstimulated American citizens will be tough."
Right. But how about getting historian Newt Gingrich to give this in a speech or other venue? It's devastating, maybe the best thing I've ever heard Rush do. And I'll bet Rush would agree for it to be used.
Mary Matalin is a low class slut who latched onto the ugliest man who trolled past her rv camp.
How can you respect a woman who would have children with a reptile??
Yuck!!!!!!!!!!!!11
Something that many of us on FR have been saying for well over a year. However, RUSH by listing PREVIOUS examples of the DECISION MAKING courage of our past Presidents and Military Officers has pointed out that CONNECTING THE DOTS after 911 make ANY DECISION OTHER than destroying Saddam's regime, irresponsible.
"This was already posted this morning..."
I'm sorry! I ran through 'search' and came up empty! I always hate posting something that someone else has already posted!
You know, Matalin says a lot of the right things, but I have yet to hear someone like Rush wonder aloud about her loyalty to the conservative cause. How can you you have a strong marriage when your spouse holds views that are diametrically opposed to your own? I don't get it.
Well, since Rush went to her wedding, I doubt that he'll ever say anything critical. What I don't understand is why the Bush camp keeps bringing back these retread losers to the campaign. Isn't there anyone else?
Once their marketability is completely spent, they'll probably get divorced and reinvent themselves as a CNN Point/Counterpoint routine.
"I just want to stress," the top talker interjected, "the answer to none of these [questions] is 'Call the United Nations.'
No doubt because the UN didn't exist in the eighteenth century. Sorry, Rush, but this is a stupid non sequiter.
Not at all. The point being made is that a president's job is make the tough decisions, and one cannot call on the UN. In this scenario, he is merely putting Kerry in the position to make these decisions--he's not saying Kerry WILL be in these situations.
It's called a hypothetical, and if it's a stupid non sequiter, then we might as well toss out all teaching at military academies, too, because the instructors don't know the specific situations the students will be facing in the future.
BUMP
This was the frightening example:
"Not really knowing what an atomic bomb is and not yet at war, do you ask Congress to study the matter and ask your intelligence operation to confirm if the Nazis are building one of these weapons themselves, or do you order secret development with money skimmed from other projects and hidden through phony congressional appropriations? Do you do the Manhattan Project?"
Any President who did this would risk ending up like Nixon, and many of his staff would end up in prison. If it were a Republican who did this, well we know what would happen.
What a surprise to learn that a Democrat big shot is a phony, huh?
I listened to W's speech this morning (well it was morning in CA), and heard many "Karen-isms." I smiled from ear to ear, and felt my comfort level rise. This woman knows how to speak to the American people. Tweeking a word here, and a phrase there, she can weave brilliance into verse.
I heard "The era of ownership" and "results matter" to name a couple key phrases.
I heard stories with REAL people analogies coming out of the President's mouth, and felt her presence.
He's more at ease now, than I've seen him lately, too. He's also been in TX for a bit, which adds to his relaxed manner & casual, but chic, dress; and handsome, tanned look (which--like it or not--this IS a visual society we live in, and when the Pres looks hot, it helps).
W is simply giving GREAT speeches lately; delivered with a sense of calm, confidence--not apprehension prior to nearly every word.
Welcome back, Karen!!! Thank goodness for you and your gift for America.
I also don't agree with those of you who blankedly blame Karl for everything, and offer no praise when he completes his very difficult job of being the James Carville for OUR side. His task is that of being the one without the conscience, that must achieve the objective--a strategist. I personally think he does a lot more good than he's given credit for, and I'm grateful he's on our side.
That said, these points of RUSH's are good, but I agree with the poster who mentioned that most Americans do not remember the details of most of what he's saying about history. Heck, have any of you listened to Sean Hannity's or Jay Leno's, "Man on the Stree" interviews? It's scary.
Yet another reason for Karen's translating abilities!
WELCOME HOME, KAREN! GOD BLESS YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE BUSH CAMPAIGN, AND AMERICA!
P.S. Christmas Babies Rule!
Not only that, but a significant portion of the rats who are aware of history will still vote left due to their parasitic nature or inherent perversions.
Rush isn't exactly hiding under a rock. Everybody at the RNC knows what happens on his show. What Rush read was very powerful and very long. You can't stuff it into a 30 second commercial and you can't make people listen to what they don't want to listen to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.