President Bush Can't Attack Iran, Syria
January 11, 2007
RUSH: Just a couple more things that I want to mention here in reaction to last night's program, and particularly something Tony Snow just said, he reiterated -- we all know this, though -- he reiterated that whatever action that we plan against Iran and Syria does not involve invasions, does not involve troops or any other kind of military movement into either Iran or Syria. A lot of people are asking, why? If this is the focal point of the war on terror and this is a wider war that we've gotta actually deal with these countries at some point, why not do it now?
Folks, there are some realities here that we have to face. Elections have consequences. They mean things. All of you people who thought it would be best for the Republicans to lose to learn a few things, keep this in mind. Elections have consequences. Bush is in a position now where he just simply can't launch attacks against these regimes. The Democrats just took the Congress. The Democrats are threatening to cut off funds even for a relatively small increase in troop levels. They are threatening to cut off funds for reinforcements. What do you think they would do if Bush launched attacks against Tehran and Damascus? How many congressional Republicans do you think the president could count on to stick with him to prevent the cutting off of funds? I can tell you right now, overboard would go Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, John Warner, any number of them would go overboard. Then we'd get impeachment proceedings, after they de-funded Iraq.
You can say this is something should have been done a couple years ago, but you have to deal with the here and now. You can go back and play TiVo all you want, but all we can do is deal with what exists to now. You might want to be able to criticize the president for not taking action or talking about these external threats, Iran and Syria more often and over a long period of time. He hasn't done that. He started last night. I haven't heard any other politician in Washington doing it either, including McCain. Ah, there have been a couple, but I mean they're not prominent. I know this is what's so frustrating, because we have the military power to stop all this right now, but we don't have the political will.
Look it, folks, can we be honest again? The Democrats today are so craven in their demand for defeat, it is an incessantly, increasingly loud demand for defeat. They won't even support the president sending reinforcements to the troops on the ground, and they all at the same time claim that they support the troops. Frankly, not enough has been done outside of talk radio to expose their sabotaging and that's exactly what has been going on. The Democrat Party has been sabotaging this war effort as soon as they felt comfortable making the move. They were always going to. It just required a little work in advance on the part of their buddies in the media to start ginning up anti-war support, and they could make it look like they were reacting to the American people. That's what all those polls way back in 2002, '3, '4, and '5 were all about. Creating enough anti-war sentiment, Democrats could pretend that they were listening to the will of the people, when in fact it was all a strategy designed to give them the freedom and opportunity to make statements which are, for them, honest and who they really are, no matter what the time frame.
So there has been an effort here to sabotage victory, and nobody talks about it. They drew the line in Iraq years ago, and they drew the line in Iraq because they don't want us to win this war at any level, because they don't want us to win a war at any level. They draw the line on Iraq because any successful military incursion, while George Bush is president, just dooms them in the future in one of their fundamental beliefs, and that is the US military is the focus of evil of the modern world. They're doing the same thing when it comes to internal security from external threats. That's why they've taken the ACLU's litigation agenda, adopted it as their own policy. So, anyway, I totally agree, I understand we need to take out the Iranian and Syrian regimes, but it's hard to see how that's done when the Democrats, who would most certainly be joined by Lugar and Warner and Collins and Hagel and Snowe and Specter and several other Republicans would cut the executive branch off.
That's the problem that we need to overcome now. I think I've got this figured out. I think I know what's going to happen. It's going to be left -- we got a Democrat Congress now, with all the threats and all the hearings, all the investigations coming up -- it's going to be left to another Republican president, maybe ten years from now, to take care of this. It's going to fester all this time. Democrats aren't going to take care of this. We know how they deal with this. After these ten years or so that we get another Republican president, the problems are going to have gotten worse, after we've left, after we've gotten out of Iraq, after we are attacked again, the reality will set in and not before. Then we're going to have to go back, we're going to have to go back somewhere, Iraq, I don't know where, at a far greater cost to us and our allies in the region such as they are, it's going to be far more dangerous. But right now neither the Democrats nor some queasy Republicans or the public accepts generally the enormity of what we are dealing with, despite 9/11 having happened, which is what's so frustrating to those of us who see this clearly. In fact, it may take a Democrat president to deal with this years and years and years from now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
No comments:
Post a Comment