Posted on 02/01/2007 4:13:00 PM PST by pissant
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Get this. USNews&WorldReport.com, the website, the link here says: Bulletin. “The US News political bulletin has learned Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly concerned that President Bush will order air strikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks. They cite as evidence the tough warnings from senior administration officials, including the commander-in-chief that Iranian help for insurgents in Iraq is leading to the death of US troops and Iraqi civilians. Democrat insiders tell the political bulletin here at US News that they suspect Bush will order the bombing of Iranian supply routes, camps, training facilities, and other sites that administration officials say contribute to American losses in Iraq.”
Now, keep in mind, this whole thing is a bulletin at US News because Democrats called them up and said this is what we fear. “Under this scenario, Bush would not invade Iran with ground forces or zero in on Iranian nuclear facilities, but under the limited bombing scenario, Bush could ask for a congressional vote of support, Democrat insiders predict, which many Democrats would feel obligated to endorse or risk looking like they weren't supportive of the troops.” This is about the dumbest preemptive thing I have ever heard of. “Bombing Iran will also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq, Democrats told US News and cause a rally-round-the-president reaction among Americans, fretted Democrats to US News, at least for a while. But Democrats add in their call to US News that an attack on Iran would probably be condemned around the world and would precipitate an Iranian response that could dramatically worsen Mideast turmoil and have unseen consequences that could be extremely damaging to the United States of America.”
You know, this is possibly a classic case of projection. The Democrats suspect this because this is what they think they would do and maybe already have done, but I suspect it's more than that. The news coming out of Washington, be quite honest with you, on this is not heartening. There are more and more Republicans in the House and the Senate who are rolling over on the nonbinding resolution not supporting the surge. By the way, what is this, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the surge could actually be 48,000 troops. Yes, you heard me right. The Congressional Budget Office, which has nothing to do with troop deployments. So the CBO is saying, “Bush is tricking us. The amount of money he's requesting would actually pay for 48,000 surge troops.” So that's out there. But you've got John Warner who is caving with Carl Levin, you've got McCain trying to broker it, you've got Republicans in the Senate and the House – and in the Senate it's more problematic because the Republicans don't have any power in the House, but in the Senate they do. They can stop anything in the Senate. They've got 49 votes. That means that Dingy Harry's got one Democrat in the hospital, so he has to go out and get ten votes from somewhere to pass anything.
The Republicans really do, if they just had the gonads, could control anything, but they're caving. One by one we keep hearing about it. It is troublesome. Here come the Democrats, and look it, the way you have to understand this wag the dog Iran attack worrying Democrats story that's in US News is very, very simple. They are invested in defeat; they cannot survive victory. If the surge, whatever the number is, 21 1/2, 48,000, if the military action works, they are so far gone, they are so far out, they cannot take credit for it. Pelosi has blown whatever little chance they had of taking credit for it by heading over to the Middle East and coming back and saying it's even worse than she thought while she was here. So this business about Bush might be in the process of studying various forms of action to take to stop the Iranian pipeline of aide, assistance, personnel, and so forth into Iraq really scares them, because that might rally the country. That might get people understanding how serious this is. It might put them in the untenable position of having to vote for it because they can't afford to actually demonstrate they don't support the troops.
What they're really afraid of here is that Bush will take action that will be meaningful here. Now, Dick Morris wrote a piece the other day and said that Iran clearly is a problem and if the war on terror is a serious matter, Iran has to be dealt with. But his caveat was that if Bush makes it look like any action we do or might take in Iran is related to Iraq, then nobody will support it because nobody supports Iraq. I disagree with this profoundly, particularly since the news is out now that the Iraqis are daily infiltrated by Iranians, and we've known this for quite some time. You have to think military commanders and others on the ground who are serious about victory over there cannot achieve it unless the aspects in which Iran is involved are dealt with. The Democrats are petrified. They are scared to death. They have wagered almost everything on being able to get Bush to kowtow to them. They have wagered everything on maybe being able to get Bush to change policy, to start withdrawing troops, to listening to the American people, and it's just the opposite. He is not wavering or caving in any way. It's got 'em troubled, because they've put all of their chickens in this basket, all their eggs, whatever the phrase is.
So, US News & World Report, their bulletins page has learned, quote, unquote -- I wonder how – “Democrats on Capitol Hill increasingly concerned that President Bush will order air strikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks, and they're really worried that he will ask for a congressional vote of support, because Democrats feel obligated to endorse the support or risk looking like they aren't supportive of the troops. They also worry that bombing Iran would take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq.” See, this is cool and interesting because this, if US News has got it right here as far as what the Democrats have told them, the Democrats have done everything they can to isolate Iraq as something totally unnecessary and unrelated to the war on terror.
Anyway, things are heating up. And while this is happening, Republicans in the House and Senate are in the process of caving. It's not just on the war. There's a story here in the stack, the bottom line here is that the Democrats in the House have just passed a sweepingly large spending bill, one of the largest in history, and right along voting for it with them were the Republicans.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, I want to go back just to make one point, make it indelibly in your mind, ladies and gentlemen. This is US News & World Report, the bulletin. US News political bulletin has learned, blah, blah, blah, blah. This one passage in this. This is Democrats as sources, unnamed Democrats talking to the people at US News. “Bombing Iran would also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq and cause a rally-round-the-president reaction from many Americans, at least for a while.” So the translation of this is the Democrats are worried that any action against Iran might get the country behind the president. Did I just say that? Yes, I said it, because I am quoting them. They said it. Now, if that doesn't tell you -- and I know most of you already have figured out what their motivation is -- then I don't think anything else will. Here we are in the war on terror; here we are dealing with people who have it out for us, there's no other way to put it, and Democrats are worried that bombing Iran might get the country behind the president. Proves I know what I'm talking about. They cannot afford victory. They cannot permit it. They cannot allow it.
When is that article on the "100 Worst U.S. Senators" supposed to come out? I wonder if there will be any surprises.
I can think of about 6 that are great. The rest are in a race to the top of that list.
That's a keeper.
See tag. Looks like we share the same view.
We are all going to pay a terrible price for this. Of that, there is no doubt. We evidently lack the courage to purge the traitors and haters from our midst. History will not judge us kindly.
At the rate we are going there will not be a history to judge us. We are storming down the road to self-destruction.
I agree. I think that it will be sooner rather than later.
I'll buy that!
Unless we get a Reaganesque leader at the top of the ticket to drag the GOP back to its proper place, we are gonna be in trouble.
I'm with you on the Vietnam analogy only as far as the Left is concerned. The war is going reasonably well by my calcualtions and is very winnable, even within Bush's balance of his term.
When I say it's going like Vietnam I am referring to the Left explicitly! The same play book, but this time they are being so much more overt and making no pretense of hiding their hate for our troops, etc.
I can name three. Senator Sessions, Senator Coburn, Senator Kyl.
Others in the good column would be Allard, Chambliss, Cornyn, Inhofe, McConnell, and Shelby. Probably a couple others, but after that, its slim pickens.
Once it is determined how many of the the stupidest 100 senators enter the race (both parties) I'll be glad to send you a complimentary bumper sticker on my dime.
So where are we?
'Calves Pantsuit' Clinton
B. Hussein Obama
UnChris Dodd
Foot 'n mouth Biden
McPainiac
Brownback
Clearcut forest Edwards
Maybe Kerry, (don't believe the flopper)
Gore anyone?
Who did I forget, and who else is going to jump in from 'The Gang Of Stupid?'
Cantwell, Snowe, Collins, Murray, Feingold, Dodd.....it goes on and on.
The senators are a reflection of their constituencies.
Sometimes yes, other times no. Jesse Helms and John Edwards served at the same time. Night and day.
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.