Posted on 04/24/2003 12:47:57 PM PDT by presidio9
WASHINGTON – Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh is breaking with the Bush administration on its post-war approach to Syria. In an exclusive interview with WORLD magazine that will be published in next week's issue, Limbaugh says Secretary of State Colin Powell should not go to Damascus as planned. He also warns that Syria is a "terrorist Disneyland" that "must eventually be dealt with," perhaps even militarily. Secretary Powell says President Bush asked him "to go to Syria in the very near future" to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has stirred controversy at the State Department and White House by saying it would be "ludicrous" for Powell to take such a trip without obtaining major concessions from Syria first.
Limbaugh also tells WORLD how President Bush should use his 73 percent approval rating, and comments on the the political winners and losers from the war in Iraq and the media's coverage of the war.
WORLD: Should Secretary of State Colin Powell go to Syria?
LIMBAUGH: No. How many visits to Damascus were made by Clinton-era secretaries of state? How much change was there as a result?
We should in no way send Powell to Damascus with a "Don't worry, we aren't coming for you next" message unless it is intended to deceive, which I am fully in favor of, by the way.
In my book, Syria has done absolutely nothing to deserve a visit, even from Bill Clinton ... er, let me rethink that one. In the meantime, Syria must earn such a visit and earn it two or three times before we go calling.
WORLD: If Rush Limbaugh were president, where would the U.S. military go next and why?
LIMBAUGH: This question implies active use of the military, and I will answer it thus, keeping in mind that it is of course arguable that there should be a "next" mission. It seems to me that our mission to defeat the world's terrorist networks is more than a just cause. It is imperative and we find ourselves with a rare momentum in this venture.
The defeat of Iraq should be viewed as a continuum, begun in 1991 and concluded in 2003. In fact, to those who say we defeated a non-existent Iraqi military, or that Iraq collapsed and did not fight, I say this is because we rendered them unable to fight with the destruction of their Air Force and air defense systems, and the total demoralization of their conventional forces in Gulf War Won.
'Obvious Targets'
But waiting 12 years for the next phase, in light of September 11th, and our current momentum, seems impractical and dangerous. The despair and incredulity of our stunned enemies - and make no mistake, they ARE our enemies - positions us well should we decide to capitalize on our victory in Iraq.
Obvious targets are Syria, Iran and North Korea. Iran could topple without our military involvement, so exempt them from the list.
Syria not only has provoked with their Iraq partnership but they continue to provide a terrorist Disneyland that must eventually be dealt with, and diplomats, doctors, nurses and clean water will not accomplish it.
Remember, ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force and that aggression was mounted against us throughout the '80s, '90s and, of course, 9/11. We are, finally, responding to this aggression, and it seems to me that a continued response is called for.
To those who say we have made no case for such action, I suggest rereading President Bush's speeches on September 20, 2001, the State of the Union speech in 2002, and his speech to the world at the U.N. on September 12, 2002. It is all there.
WORLD: How bad is it for Bush politically and the U.S. internationally if U.S. forces don't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
LIMBAUGH: Not nearly as bad as some are hoping it will be and not as bad as the usual pessimists predict. That Iraq was producing them is not a matter of debate in any circle of honest, responsible people.
My fear is not political at all but practical. If they are not found in Iraq (and I am confident they will be when the people who know where they have been hidden are captured and controlled), the question then becomes, "Where are they?"
One of the troubling aspects of our one-year run-up to the war was that those 12 months afforded the Saddam regime plenty of time to get them out of the country and into the hands of those who are capable of and likely to use them.
I disagreed with the fatalistic prediction that Saddam would use such weapons on our invading forces. Why do that when we are expecting it and are prepared for it? If you are Saddam and are planning a Clinton-like eternal legacy, what better way than to get those weapons in the hands of people who can use them over and over again in Saddam's memory? Sort of a Saddam "Forget Me Not," if you will.
WORLD: What surprised you most about Operation Iraqi Freedom? What encouraged or inspired you the most?
LIMBAUGH: What continually surprises me are those who predict defeat for our armed forces. We simply do not lose, yet the usual suspects were blathering about body bags, setbacks, ill-conceived plans and quagmires. (The only quagmire of consequence is the United Nations.)
Leftists Hoped for U.S. Defeat
We have since learned that many on the Left, including many prominent liberals and Democrat staff members, were actually hoping for an American defeat so as to inflict political damage on President Bush. I must admit that the seething rage of personal hatred and contempt many on the Left have for President Bush goes beyond any partisanship I remember in my lifetime.
New Respect for the Troops
Many things encouraged and inspired me. The coordinated cooperation of the military branches was striking. The embedded reporters, many of whom hail from the elite universities and other similar institutions, actually saw in the American fighting forces, up close and first hand, the type of people who make this country work. There was a newfound respect and admiration for people formerly laughed at and impugned because of where they are from, how they speak and how they worship.
These sons and daughters are the backbone of this country, people who do not seek fame or notoriety but rather have learned early in life that there are things bigger than themselves. These embeds witnessed people in action who are willing to die for their country and formed a bond with them. As a result, the American military, and the American soldier more specifically, have a newfound and long overdue respect from a sector of the country that perhaps took them and their work for granted for way too long.
And one more thing: Despite the permissive pop culture of American youth these days, the young men and women of the U.S. military highlight the fact that we can count on the young people of this country to grow up and continue the great traditions and institutions that made and keep America great.
Despite more destructive temptations that have ever faced a youthful population, the "kids" in the U.S. armed forces clearly demonstrate that values such as discipline, honor, commitment and responsibility can and do triumph over the seductive and alluring traps they see constantly. They ARE an inspiration, more so than even they will ever know.
WORLD: President Bush now has a 73 percent approval rating. How should he use it?
LIMBAUGH: The president has built an enormous bond of trust with the American people on a matter of utmost concern to all of us: our safety and the security of the nation. And for a simple reason: He was right in everything he said and promised. The last person on earth of whom it can be said that he misled the people of the world is George W. Bush.
Conversely, all his critics, particularly his liberal Democrat "friends" in Washington, were wrong. And they have been wrong for years, but spectacularly wrong since Bush took office.
What Bush Should Do Now
It is time for the president to marshal this trust on his domestic agenda. He has asked for and earned the trust of the American people in the matter of their security. He should ask for the same trust on matters of the economy and other matters not so specifically related to foreign policy. If he believes his tax cut is crucial to reviving the economy, which he does, it is time for him to vividly remind Americans that his opponents have been wrong on this issue for years and are wrong now.
He will have no better opportunity than the present to openly ask the American people, "Whom do you trust?" This stuff matters every bit as much as the war on terrorism and is in point of fact directly linked to it. If you question that, ask business owners in the Washington metro area how things were when the Beltway Snipers were roaming free?
WORLD: Why is it easier for the American people to defeat the fourth-largest army in the world than to see a major, pro-growth tax cut passed through the United States Senate?
LIMBAUGH: Imagine how difficult it would be for the American people to defeat the fourth-largest army in the world (or the 10th largest, for that matter) if the United States Senate was running that war.
This tax-cut struggle is obscene when opponents equate the tax cut with budget deficits, which are NOT caused by tax cuts. They are caused by excessive spending and slow economic growth. Opponents of the tax cut are whining that the sum total of the cuts will create deficits as far as the eye can see, which is poppycock.
This is a scheduled 10-year phased-in tax cut. Whatever the total of the tax cut in 10 years, it will literally pale in comparison to the size of American GDP. Besides, tax cuts INCREASE economic activity and thus enrich the Treasury. Why this has not been learned by enough Americans is an answer requiring a book, which I don't have time to write and you don't have room to publish.
WORLD: Who were the biggest political winners of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
LIMBAUGH: The Iraqi people, the American people and - oh wait, you said political winners. Hmmm, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
WORLD: Who were the biggest political losers of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
LIMBAUGH: The Democratic presidential wannabes, Kofi Annan and the whole of the United Nations, the French-German-Russia triumvirate, and the worldwide so-called peace movement, which actually organized itself around the premise of keeping the sadistic Saddam Hussein in power.
WORLD: How do you account for the ratings of the three major cable news networks increasing by 300 percent or more, and even NBC seeing higher ratings, but ABC and CBS seeing their ratings fall?
ABC and CBS Not Dead Yet
LIMBAUGH: While this is indeed encouraging, don't get too excited and bury the conventional networks just yet. Despite the accuracy of your question, the fact remains that the three conventional networks still reach around 30 million people on a nightly basis while the sum total of the cable audience is in the neighborhood of 7 million.
One of the factors is that the networks did not expand much beyond their nightly newscasts, save for a few specials and live events such as the Saddam statue being ripped down. Had they gone wall to wall with coverage as did the cable nets it might have been a different story. But ABC and CBS specifically can blame their unashamedly liberal stance on this war for their decline, as much as anything else.
Still, the bottom line is a definite trend away from the conventional over-the-air networks, and their days of the liberal news and commentary monopoly ARE OVER. About this I am as optimistic as anything else right now, and if you were in my shoes you would be, too.
Back in 1992, for example, when Bill Clinton was describing the '80s and the puny 1990 and 1991 recession as the worst economy in the last 50 years, my radio show was IT as far as opposition and national conservative media were concerned. Now look at it. All of talk radio is dominatingly conservative, the Fox News Channel appeared in the mid-to-late '90s, and the Internet is likewise populated with intellectual conservative superiority.
Now I don't even read their articles.
RUSH LIMBAUGH INTERVIEW
RUSH'S ROADMAP: Where do we go from here? An exclusive interview with talk-radio titan Rush Limbaugh
by Joel C. Rosenberg
limbaugh has gotten old, stale, routine. yeah rush, tell us again how great you are, how you know it all, blah, blah.
Bound to happen...way of the world ...even the Gratefull Dead once underground music only -is now elevator and athelete's foot creme theme music..
Who to trust, who to trust?
Someone who has demonstrated honor, integrity and a canny ability to achieve his goals?
or
Naysaying handwringers?
I'll choose goodness over spite.
Sorry, but the dislike of the right for Clinton IMO was far less pronounced than the sheer displays of blind hatred we see from the left. And most of the complaints of the right against Clinton - that he was as crooked as a three-dollar bill - ended up being borne out by the antics of Slick himself, as Clinton's politics ended up being forced to the center in many cases. The charges that the left levels against Bush are basic on animosity against Bush and his politics, not on shortcomings of Bush's character.
Perhaps it the "Keep your friends close, but enemies closer" strategery.
Even crazier: in 2003 there are people who call themselves "Conservatives" listening to it.
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.