Limbaugh Calls for 90-Day Iraq Ceasefire

Rush Limbaugh Show ^ | June14, 2005 | Rush Limbaugh

[Matchett-PI]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Today, I would like to join the chorus of those calling for a cease-fire in Iraq. I don't mean a truce and I don't mean a surrender. Don't misunderstand me. I'm talking about a cease-fire.

I, your host, El Rushbo, on today -- Tuesday, June the 14th -- call for a 90-day cease-fire in Iraq.

I call on the New York Times to lay down their arms. I call on the Democrats in Congress to stop the assaults. I call on weak-kneed Republicans to lower the temperature for 90 days, three measly months.

Lebanon is in the middle of a crucial election sequence. Iran is about to have an even more crucial election. Syrian and Saudi terror backers are losing for signs.

So for 90 days, no attacks on our war effort. Somewhere, deep inside, there has to be something -- a memory of patriotism, a stirring of some national pride -- some remaining sense of right and wrong.

A loose wire in the brains of the left and the media that can be connected if only temporarily, to bring about a 90-day cease-fire because the upside for the United States is enormous.

Positive news, upbeat spirit, a seemingly united United States would send a warning to our enemies, a rallying cry to our allies and a signal to those nations shirking responsibility.

Just a 90-day cease-fire. There's no downside to this. You still have a full-year plus to return to playing politics, to bashing the president, to bashing the administration, bashing the Republican Party, to even bashing America if you want. So much to gain and so little to risk from a 90-day cease-fire.

After all, it could take two years or two decades for the wisdom our Middle East policy to bear fruit. Is it too much to ask you on the left to give unity a chance for just 90 days?

No, my friends, I'm not living in a dream world. I know it won't happen but I wanted to put it out there. I know it won't happen because the left in this country considers Christians to be a greater enemy than militant Islamist terrorists.

END TRANSCRIPT

[Alas Babylon!]

As I said earlier in this thread, we'd be a lot safer if we hadn't invaded Iraq but instead spent the $300 billion on protecting our borders.

And that's where everyone else is disagreeing with you. 9/11 happened here. We're fighting Al Qeada now over there. Not here. Better.

Saddam's continued presence was exposing our flank to an attack that would have serious consequences in supporting and continuing the war against Al Qeada. We minimized that risk while turning it into the playing field of our efforts against them.

We started WWII with the Japanese attacking us. The Germans didn't, but we ended up fighting them both. Their respective political philosophies were totally different, yet they put them aside to ally themselves. We didn't give Saddam that chance. I say good.

[jan in Colorado]

'In the name of God,' a voice wailed. 'In the name of God. In the name of God.'

This wasn't the start of the war, it started way before September 11th, but it should have been a wakeup call to EVERY American!

Old Hoosier, I'm NOT here to debate the war effort here with you! You are entitled to your own opinion.

We were attacked and I'm thankful that we have a President that has enough courage to be on the offensive to protect us! I never said the invasion was for elections, but the spread of democracy is a great benefit. I wonder if YOU were one of the Iraqi's living in terror under Saddam, would you still say it wasn't worth it? I would rather die than be a woman living under those conditions. You mention it's not worth 1,700 of our soldiers lives. If we shouldn't be there, then it isn't worth the loss of ONE life! What is sickening to me is knowing we have brave men and women fighting over there, doing their duty, and there are people over here second guessing them, telling them they shouldn't be there! Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

This war having to be fought in an age of Political Correctness is a travesty! If WWII had been fought this way, we would NOT have had the outcome that we did. A war should NOT be fought in the media. I am thankful that President Bush did what was right...although the handling with kids gloves of the prisoners and mosques is a mistake, but he has to play the game.

How do we win a war when we are NOT "allowed" to KILL the enemy? Freedom IS worth dying for. If these extremists aren't stopped, they will be here next! The goal of Islam is to dominate the world. They have almost taken over Europe, and with the help of the MSM, the ACLU, CAIR and the democrats, it won't be long before this Country is also a slave to Islam!

The enemies "within" our own Country are the ones who are the GREATEST danger to our freedom. Not only do we have to be willing to fight FOR freedom, we have to be willing to die to remain free!

God Bless our President and ALL our troops!

[The Old Hoosier]

This war having to be fought in an age of Political Correctness is a travesty! If WWII had been fought this way, we would NOT have had the outcome that we did. A war should NOT be fought in the media. I am thankful that President Bush did what was right...although the handling with kids gloves of the prisoners and mosques is a mistake, but he has to play the game.

There, we can agree.

[ohioWfan]

What is sickening to me is knowing we have brave men and women fighting over there, doing their duty, and there are people over here second guessing them, telling them they shouldn't be there! Talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy

This is the point I agree with most, and this is where I take the greatest issue with Old Hoosier.

The second guessing he's doing about the incredible work of our military, by calling it a 'disaster' is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.........whether that's what he means to do, or not.

[The Old Hoosier]

I'm not second-guessing the work of the brave men in our military. I'm second-guessing the use to which politicians put them. It's an entirely different question. Was support of Kosovo compulsory, under pain of being "unsupportive" of the military? Does this make you "unsupportive" of the military if you opposed it, as I would guess you did?

I'd just like to note that the scraggly, hippy, Anti-American protestors only make me wish I could support the war. But although I could never stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those America-hating leftover Soviet Marxists in any demonstration, I cannot support this war on its merits.

[ohioWfan]

Correction. You cannot support this war on your perception of its merits.

And it doesn't matter if you get your information from Ron Paul, or Howard Dean. It's the same information, and its wrong.

Of course, you're free to believe what you want, but I'm one of those who doesn't believe you can support our military when you believe their mission is a 'disaster.'

They know it's not a disaster. They know what they're doing is accomplishing great things. And the vast majority of them would say that someone who called their mission 'a disaster' was not supporting them.

Sorry, Hoosier. But that's the way it is.

[USF]

Excellent post Jan.

Showing the enemy that the "kuffar" is weak or divided, only makes them bolder and more dangerous. Pulling out in defeat would be an absolute disaster that will haunt us for many decades, even centuries, to come. These people have long memories, unlike the average westerners concept of "history."

[Austin Willard Wright]

Limbaugh wants us to put on a happy face!

[The Old Hoosier]

The military exists in order to break things and kill people -- or as George W. Bush said it during the 2000 campaign, "to fight and win war." It is not for nation-building, as he said at that time.

Now nation-building is practically all we do. Our new "democratize-the-whole-world" policy has turned the military intoa social program for foreigners.

[The Old Hoosier]

...which, I'd add, is bad for the military. I'm supporting the military by opposing its misuse.

[roses of sharon]

Imagine Afghanistan without taking out Saddam and Sons.

Saddam would be warring against us in Afghanistan, just as he openly did with Israel all those many years of funding/hiding/sending Islamic cults into kill innocent Jews.

No way Bush could fight the in Afghanistan and the WOT with Saddam and Sons over his shoulder, no way.We would have been surrounded.

[ohioWfan]

If that makes you feel good, Hoosier, go ahead and think that....

(I'll have to admit that was a nifty rationalization).

Next time I want advice as to what is and what is not 'misuse' of the military, though, I'll consult someone who actually knows what he's talking about............like, say, Tommy Franks?

Nice talking with you. Thanks for being polite, even though we completely disagree on this subject.

[Allegra]

Excellent post, Jan.

[ohioWfan]

Hey Old Hoosier............I just had to come back and point out to you that Ron Paul has teamed up with Ohio's own Dem nutcase, DENNIS KUCINICH, to end the war in Iraq by resolution.

Good job, Ron! Way to 'support' the military. LOL!

Peace, baby, PEACE!

[The Old Hoosier]

This is a fallacy. Just because Kucinich is for it doesn't mean it's wrong.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

[The Old Hoosier]

I'd still love to hear you explain whether opposition to the Kosovo war would have been treasonous.

[ohioWfan]

Well, he's not right this time. He's a nutcase peacenik that's an embarrassment to this state, and the country for that matter.

And this is one of the nuttiest areas of his politics.

[The Old Hoosier]

I'd still love to hear you explain whether opposition to the Kosovo war would have been treasonous.

[ohioWfan]

Opposition to war, in and of itself, is not treasonous. Sometimes war is opposed on moral grounds because people have the conviction that killing another human being is always wrong. I disagree with them, but do not criticize their right to have that opinion.

However......undermining our troops, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy by calling their important work and their incredible accomplishments 'a disaster' is problematic, IMO.

Dick Durbin has committed treason with his words, in my opinion. Ted Kennedy has as well. What the left is saying is creating more danger for our troops, and costing lives by emboldening the enemy. I consider that treason.

I am not calling U.S. citizens who oppose the war traitors. They have little power to affect things. But those with power who say slanderous things against the President and his administration, and our troops (those in the political arena, and in the media) are endangering the lives of our soldiers.

You may think that's fine. I don't.

[CMOTB]

I'm tempted to get Rush 24/7 so that I can burn his shows on to CD/MP3 so I can listen to them on My Sony Disk/mp3 player after work. I miss a lot of his show. I hope the commericals are removed from them IE: "Pod Cast" which, but they way I hate that term Pod Casts.