Rush: Iraq Surrender Group Aims For "Bipartisan Consensus" To Unite Country In Defeat

RUSH: We will start with the Iraq surrender group, big press conference today chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker. I think one of the best ways to share with you my thoughts on this is to read to you an e-mail I got from an Air Force friend of mine, a veteran in Iraq watching this this morning.

"Hey, Rush, I'm climbing out of my skin here, watching the Iraq surrender group unfold on TV, but they're missing the point. Iraq is not the problem. The hatred our enemy has for us, that's the problem. Iraq is only a battleground in the global war on terror. The enemy continues to provide resources to fight for the battle in Iraq. Whatever happened to holding those nations to account who harbor and support terror? In my view, and not until we fully mobilize our nation like we did in World War II and take this war seriously like we did in World War II, only then will we successfully snuff out terror and win. If we didn't do what we did in World War II, Hitler would have had, in time, developed weapons, nuclear perhaps, and used them. I see the same situation today as our enemy tries to acquire similar capability."

Now, I've said all this to you before, but I think having you hear it from an Air Force vet with a couple of tours in Iraq makes it more powerful. Why don't we take that seriously? Why is the battle for Iraq the only focus here and we continue to ignore the forces feeding that battle? That's right, we're going to talk to those forces that feed the battle, we're going to talk to Iran and Syria. Jim Baker today said, "Hey, we talked to the Soviets for 40 years." There's a little difference here when you've got a competing superpower with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at you and tanks all over the world, then dealing with these -- it's a comparison that just doesn't make any sense. Besides, we never talked to the Soviets. We never went to Gorbachev or Brezhnev or Khrushchev or Yuri Andropov or any of these guys and asked them to bail us out of a problem that we were having somewhere in the world. You know, we didn't go to them and say, "Hey, could you help us out with the Sandanistas?" "No, we're not going to help you out, we're going to destroy you. We are surrounding you."

The thing that bothered me most about this, here we've got this Iraq study group, 79 recommendations, and there were two words that just kept pounding out, and I heard them over and over and over, and each time I heard these words I was climbing the walls here. One was consensus, and the other was bipartisan. This document is not even a military document. There's nothing in it about winning the war. As we thought, as the leaks suggested, there's nothing in here about winning the war. You know what this document is? These commission members, the ones I heard -- especially, Sandra Day O'Connor, boy, I wanted to puke. We have that coming up. I've got these sound bites I'm talking about. She's out there saying to the media, it's up to you now to take what we've done and take it to the plebes out there. Because this document and this group has one objective, and that's to unite the American people in defeat, to unite the American people in withdrawal, to unite the American -- bipartisan and consensus. Well, I remind you again what Lady Thatcher said about consensus. It is the absence of leadership.

This group was specifically put together by Congress. Congress requested it. I think the president asked Jim Baker to be part of it, but it's irresponsible. This is all about trying to bring the American people together, bipartisanship, make sure that everything is just hunky-dory and kumbaya here in the country. You know, a lot of people are saying, like my Air Force friend who wants to know in his e-mail, says, "I'm incredulous why are we so blind to the truth? Why do we continue to ignore the forces that are feeding that battle?" Sir and the rest of you, I will explain this. This group, to show you just how they operate, this group was not going to recommend or urge the president to take out the regimes in Iran and Syria. They would have put the president in a bad place since they know he's not in any way inclined to do it right now. So they didn't put that in there. I mean, they're not going to make suggestions he's not going to do in an affirmative way like that because it puts him in a bad position.

I think what people aren't understanding here is this report really is of little consequence. I don't want to put down the members here. The president is still going to decide what will or won't happen. So a lot of people reluctant to criticize the president for not taking a tougher stance, will keep off of this group. This group is basically in existence in their minds to unite the American people. That's the thing that needs to happen, we need to unite the American people, Leon Panetta made that point, and it's clear that their objective here has nothing to do with obtaining any sort of victory in Iraq or in the war on terror. Let me play you a couple sound bites here. Jonathan Karl, who used to be at CNN, the best question of the day. He might have been the fourth or fifth question. Best question of the day, and after he asked this question, there was a stunned silence for at least 20 seconds while Baker and Hamilton figured out what they were going to say in answer.

KARL: I understand you went to Iraq once. With the exception of Senator Robb, none of you made it out of the green zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?

RUSH: That's the question. Why should he listen to you guys? You went there once. You never got out of the green zone, except for you, Senator Robb. You never got out of the green zone. Why should he listen to you guys and not the commanders on the ground? And it was met with stunned silence. Both Baker and Hamilton were a little miffed at this show of disrespect for this august group of blue-ribbon panel members. Here's Hamilton's answer.

HAMILTON: The members of the Iraq study group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record. We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start to have expertise. We've put in a very intensive period of time. We recognize that our report is only one. There will be many recommendations. But the report will stand on its own and will be acceptable or rejected on its own.

HAMILTON: We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war --

RUSH: All right, so there you have it. Well, what we really want to do here is bridge the divide in this country. We're public servants and we work very hard. How dare you ask that question. Here's Jim Baker's answer.

BAKER: Let me add to that, that this report by these -- this bunch of has-beens up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.

RUSH: See? See, ladies and gentlemen? Its value is that it's bipartisan and they're attempting to achieve consensus like the new castrati. And they're doing everything they can to unite the American people -- in what? Unite the American people in defeat, unite the American people in surrender, the Iraq surrender group, unite the American people in getting out of there. Now, this is not a cut-and-run document, but it does say we've gotta get combat troops out of there, and we gotta train the Iraqis, and then we gotta get out of there. This whole thing has somehow evolved into this is just about Iraq, and it's not about who's feeding Iraq and keep Iraq alive as an enemy. I have to tell you, well, I'm not stunned. You know, I held out hope for this. I hoped that some of these leaks were wrong, but I know blue ribbon panels -- look, I have hope. I hope I get my hearing back.

You know, I have a lot of hope out there, ladies and gentlemen. You know, but I, nevertheless followed my instincts. Baker said, by the way, during this press conference, hey, we talked to the Soviets for 40 years to justify talking to Syria and Iran. Yeah, we talked to the Soviets, we gotta talk to Syria and Iran, which is simplistic nonsense. Did we negotiate with the Sandanistas in Nicaragua? Did we negotiate with Noriega in Panama? To compare Iran and Syria, which are two Third World police states, with a superpower like the Soviet Union, had nukes, tanks, tens of thousands of missiles, two million soldiers in uniform, is mindless. It's a silly comparison. We didn't ask the Soviets to help us solve problems in places where we were engaged around the world. I mean, the Soviets marched into Hungary in the 1950s, we didn't do anything. When Hussein sent his troops into Kuwait, we attacked him.

There's a difference between dealing with another superpower and dealing with Third World police states. We're making these nations much bigger than they are. We're giving them much more status than they deserve. They are not superpowers. We can't win anywhere we go, and why is that? Because of Iraq. And this report pretty much confirms it. So now we can't beat Syria, we can't beat Iran, we can't beat Iraq, we can't beat anybody, the left wins. The US military is incapable of achieving victory. It's immoral in its very existence. I mean, Jimmy Carter, does Baker remember Jimmy Carter talking endlessly with the Iranians, begging them to release our hostages? Does he not remember that? Does Baker not recall that under his stewardship we talked to the Syrians, too, to no avail, we've been talking to the Palestinians, to no avail. Talk to the enemy, talk to the animals, Dr. Doolittle. Let's make a play out of it. You know, I don't think we needed the Iraq surrender group. There is one man out there who could have gone up, conducted a press conference and answered questions and said the same thing, and that's Jimmy Carter.

What do you expect? She works for CNN. Snerdley thinks the question of the day during the press conference came from a CNN info babe. "Uh, tell me, Mr. Baker, uh, does the president have to implement all of the recommendations or can he pick and choose from the 79 recommendations you have made in your report?" Baker was as diplomatic as he could be. "Look, this isn't legislation. This has no force -- he can throw it in the fire if he wants to." But these idiots in the Drive-By Media think this is like a Bible. This is the bible on Iraq, and this is the 79 Commandments and the president has to accept all of them or he goes to Hell. You know, it's stunning. You know, Winston Churchill, to parliament, 1940, "You had the chance to vote for appeasement or to vote for war. You have voted for appeasement, and you shall get war." (Laughing) He said that. And that's what we're doing. We're appeasing here as many places as we can. There's something else funny, too, about this.

The New York Times story today: Iraq Panel Presents Its Report to Bush. The Washington Post reported today that the group recommends that Mr. Bush threatened to withhold economic and military support unless the Iraqi government led by prime minister, as Biden says al-Maliki, meets specific milestones for progress on security and political reconciliation. Boy, are we not a brave bunch of people. We'll go threaten our allies all to hell, we will threaten this Maliki guy, we'll threaten the Iraqis, "You guys, you're making us look bad, you incompetent boobs. You guys, you better pull it together, pull up your bootstraps or we're outta here and we're taking our money and our tanks and everything else supporting you with us." Now, who do we need to be talking to like that? North Korea, Syria, Iran. I mean, the liberals won't even threaten North Korea. It's easier to threaten your allies, I guess. Go tell the Iraqis, "Hey, pal, we're not sitting here and propping you up anymore." Here's Sandra Day O'Connor. Oh, there was another word.

There was another word that emanated from the oral cavity of the various commission members today, and that is success. Somebody asked him, "What about victory?" Well, of course victory isn't in our report, no, but success is. Well, whoop-de-do. Yip yip yip yahoo. Success is in the report. Well, how do you define success? Well, victory is fairly easy to define. It's right there in the Limbaugh Doctrine. You defeat the enemy. They lose. They surrender, they give up, and you have dominion over them. Success could be whatever you want. Success in this case is getting out of there and having the American people at one with that concept. One, o-n-e, not w-o-n. At one. Make no mistake, it's not a military document, it's not about victory, it's not about how to achieve anything, it's about how to get out of there with the total support of the American people. Sandra Day O'Connor, she's a little bit miffed at the question about why should the president listen to these guys, and at the end of her answer she went another direction.

O'CONNOR: This is not an ongoing commission. It really is out of our hands, having done what we did. It's up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You're there interpreting this and talking to America, and I hope that the American people will feel that if they are behind something in broad terms, that we'll be better off. I think we will, and I hope in general others think so, too.

RUSH: Yeah, this is a woman who doesn't think the courts ought to be criticized, that judges ought to be criticized. And look, hey, our work's done. We wrote the book, we got our 79 Commandments here, our recommendations have been done, but we're not an ongoing commission, damn it. I mean, if we had chartered ourselves properly we'd become a fourth branch of government here, the Iraq surrender group, and we would continue to go out and make press conferences and so forth, but we can't do that, so it's out of our hands now. It's up to you, frankly, you in the Drive-By Media. You are the people who speak to the American people. You're there interpreting this and talking to America and I hope the American people will feel that if they're behind something in broad terms that we'll be better off.

So what she's saying is to the Drive-By Media, look, take what we've said, the Iraq surrender document, go out there and convince the American people that all is lost, there's no hope, cherry-pick what we've said to fit your agenda because we gave you plenty of things in there you can cherry-pick. Go ahead and take them out of context and get the American people unified once and for all on the fact that we had no business being there in the first place, no business going there in the first place, and that we need to bring everybody home and so we can have consensus and bipartisanship. Jerry in Cookeville, Tennessee, we'll go to you first on the phones today. Hello.

CALLER: I don't believe that these people on this panel have any clue at all about Islam. They don't. The teachings of Mohammed, these are his words. Jihad cannot stop until all the world is submitted to Islam. All nonbelievers' lives can and will be taken by jihad. Only those who submit to Islam will be spared. That's what these people over there today are doing.

RUSH: You are very shrewd, sir, but you understand that's not what this document is about. This document is not about the enemy.

RUSH: That's right. Well, it's not that we're the enemy, we're the reason for all this distress and discord over there. As I said earlier, this is not a military document. This is not a strategical document. This is not about the war on terror. This is simply about what these people consider to be a crumbling nation brought about by our ineffectiveness and we gotta get out of there while they fix their problems themselve. This may as well in fact have nothing to do with the war on terror, as far as this document is concerned. The whole point of this is being missed. I don't know if it's being missed purposely or if you're right, these guys just don't get it. These people are not stupid. Well, wait. They're educated. They could be stupid. Hell, who knows. None of it makes any sense, does it? It just doesn't make any sense. Makes me believe in the Trilateral Commission.

Lo and Behold! Washington's newest conventional wisdom, CW - a "bipartisan consensus" for American surrender. The Baker Study Group should be more aptly named "The Iraq Surrender Group." Rush really ripped into that blue ribbon commission today. Its report makes no sense whatsoever.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

The Dems and RINOs on this commission's real message is: "America's the enemy, Boobs." Get that through your skulls full of mush. Just as theirs are.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

Regardless what the MSM and Rats say this President is committed to winning and will cherry-pick what he likes out of the recommendations but I guarantee he won't pick them all. I get this feeling that Gates was a black sheep of the group and that's why President Bush picked him for DS.

Thanks for posting. I don't get to listen to Rush and I was wondering what he had to say about the study. It definitly lived up to my expectations! ;-)

Washington's newest conventional wisdom, CW - a "bipartisan consensus" for American surrender....

pretty much right on target...."turnin' tail...runnin' like greased lighting"

6 posted on 12/06/2006 3:44:38 PM PST by dcrider182 (we may be a super power.. but if we don't have the ability to use it.. are we still a world power?)

7 posted on 12/06/2006 3:46:33 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)

While I am an ardent fan of FreeRepublic, it does get soooo discouraging reading an article such as this (and many, many others) and knowing we're just preaching to the choir. We can stand up and yell "Bravo" to Rush's words and to so many others who make sense and tell it like it is...but who's listening except us? Sometimes I wish we could just cut and paste the common sense, brutal truths we read here to the whole country in a medium where everyone could and would see it. In any case, kudos to Rush et al.

James Baker III: Anti-American pro terrorist and just like those that surrendered to Hitler he and the other anti-Aemricans are going to surrender to Islam with the help of the Democrats in the US Congress.

13 posted on 12/06/2006 4:01:46 PM PST by Gritty (Iran and Syria will stabilize Iraq the way Germany and Russia stabilized Poland in '39 - Ann Coulter)

Some days in America are definitely darker than others!!!

This has NOT been a good day as we now start slouching to surrender!!!

NBC's news tonight was just attroshus!!! (I know I mis-spelled it!) Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert and the 5 other pukes gleefully gloating that they've got Bush painted into a corner just like LBJ!!!

Good Lord, Gritty!

A prize winning cartoon and a priceless tagline all in one reply?

Holy Toledo!!! (America's only holy city)

that is correct, and that is exactly the right play. and to be honest, talk radio shouldn't be leading the way into tossing out this WHOLE report en massse. toss out some parts of it - yes. but this is the last chance Bush has to reframe the iraq issue, we all know a course change is coming anyway, there are some points in this ISG document that are going to be adopted, that were going to happen anyway. embrace those. and on the issues that are objectionable (and we know what they are) - reject them, and pin them on the Dems as being "surrender".

but it would be a mistake for Bush to dismiss EVERYTHING in this report. because the media and the Dems will just use an outright rejection, to bash him daily.

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.