Democrats Align with Foreign Socialists

So I don’t know who Kerry is meeting with, but I’m going to stand by with what I said yesterday. I know Kerry has surrogates meeting with other surrogates like this is, and I’ll bet you they’re from France and Germany, I have no idea where it’s taking place, but he wouldn’t have said it. There’s something going on. He’s lying about it, it’s even worse, but it’s bad either way. Now we find out that all these European socialists in Norway and Great Britain and probably France and Germany too, are meeting with Democrats to discuss how to coordinate socialist views in Europe with Democrat views in America should Democrats win, and what views? World affairs, foreign policy. It is clear, it is no longer an assumption the Democratic Party as a whole, not just John Kerry, is aligning itself with international socialists, foreign country leaders in an effort to shape the world in their vision and in an effort to beat George W. Bush. It’s interesting they spend more time campaigning and soliciting support from foreign leaders than they are trying to win the hearts and minds of the American people. They long ago gave up trying to win your hearts and minds, folks; that’s not their gambit. Their gambit is to fool you. They don’t think that your hearts and minds are worth winning because you’re not that smart. All you’re worth is persuading to support them because you’re too incompetent and incapable to take care of yourself.
So leave it to Biden, leave it to Hillary, leave it to Kerry, leave it to Robin Cook, leave it to Dominique de Villepin and his Mr. Terrorism and whoever else, because they, the elites of the world, aligned with the elites of the Democratic Party, have what it takes to not only take what you’ve got, but ostensibly to protect you. And if you’re going to rely on this bunch to protect you, these are the people that opposed everything going on to make the world safer today in Norway, in Great Britain, these are the people on the outs. That’s who the Democrats in this country are aligning with, ladies and gentlemen. And I’m going to tell you something. I’ll tell you what this boils down to. Remember, Bush said this at the outset of hostilities following 9-11. You’re either with the terrorists or you’re not. If you are with us, you’re against them. If you’re not, you’re with the terrorists.

The Democrats better be very, very careful, because they’re getting dangerously close, if they’re not already there yet, to having the charge that they are allied with the interests of world terrorists being true. They are very close to that because they are seeking alliances with people who are against taking any action against the terror, any serious, real action, they are very close to it, folks, if they’re not there already. In fact, the charge is close to being made as we speak.
COMMERCIAL BREAK

RUSH: I was just saying, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democrats in this country are very close, if not there already, to being aligned with the terrorists, being aligned with anti-American interests. And in fact the question was asked last night of Richard Holbrooke by none other than Chris Matthews. It was on Hardball and Matthews says all right, we’ve set up a dynamic and I’m just going to ask you to check this, we’ve set up a dynamic whereby those who have opposed the action in Iraq, whether they be European or American or anywhere else in the world are somehow forced, almost forced on the side of the terrorists in Europe because those terrorists in Europe, assuming they’re Al-Qaeda, are opposed to our involvement in Iraq. How in the world can an opposition argument be made now in this environment? How can you argue against the whole force of the direction of U.S. foreign policy when you’re basically being put on the side of the terrorists in the argument?

HOLBROOKE: Well, who’s being put on the side of the terrorists?

MATTHEWS: The terrorists oppose our involvement in Iraq, those who argue against it rhetorically are on the same side of the argument. Isn’t that a conundrum for critics?

HOLBROOKE: Well, who’s against our involvement in Iraq?

MATTHEWS: Well, most of Europe.

HOLBROOKE: Well, let’s talk about America. Senator Kerry and President Bush both believe we have to succeed in Iraq. President Bush and senator Kerry have very different views on what success means. Senator Kerry has outlined that repeatedly. The administration and your last guest misrepresented Senator Kerry’s positions, but the fact is senator Kerry has a better way of doing it.

RUSH: Nice try. That, again, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Just to show you the incestuousness of things is married to Peter Jennings’ ex-wife, Kati Marton. [talking to program observer] Yeah, I found this out when Vanity Fair did their first profile of me back in the year — Peter Boyer told me, one of the best journalists — Peter Boyer for a mainstream press guy is one of the finest journalists — I haven’t seen him in a long time, but he is tremendous. Yeah, but everybody knows this.

The point is, it’s a nice try, Ambassador Holbrooke. A nice try. But John Kerry has a success formula for Iraq? John Kerry says this and nobody knows what he means. Everybody knows that John Kerry opposes President Bush. Everybody knows that John Kerry doesn’t think what we’re doing in Iraq is right. Everybody knows that he voted for it, and everybody knows he voted against it. Everybody knows he voted against it before he voted for it.

Everybody knows that he wants to be right and wrong at the same time. Nobody knows specifically what he believes. I’m going to tell you, Ambassador Holbrooke, and I’m going to tell the rest of you Democrats, this is what the world sees, as these stories come out that you are aligning yourself with the people who opposed us at the UN. What side do you think you’re going to be perceived to be on when you keep meeting with de Villepin and these socialist leaders in Europe to try to formulate a global strategy for when you take back America? What side do you think the average American is going to think you’re on? These people are against us, they are hoping and praying that Bush loses, as are you, you are hoping and praying Bush loses because of Iraq policy, and because of the war on terrorism, because this aggressiveness makes you look bad on national security where you’re weak. So, tell me, how are we wrong in our perception of you?
COMMERCIAL BREAK
RUSH: This is Kerry from the same speech yesterday. This is where he says, despite all this criticism, we can’t leave now.

KERRY: But having gone to war, we have, I think most of us understand, a huge responsibility now to keep, and a national interest to achieve, in a stable and peaceful Iraq. To leave too soon would leave behind a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists, an instable state which would create its own set of problems for the Middle East itself, a problem for the region, and a dangerous set back in the war against terror.

RUSH: This stuff puts people to sleep. I’m sorry, my liberal friends in the audience, but this guy is a yawner. Anyway, here he is after all of this now, we’ve got to stay. Now, tell me something. I’m just asking you liberals, you love your nominee, I mean you don’t know who he is, but you think he can beat Bush, and you’ve got it in your head that your nominee is going to get us out of Iraq and do the right thing, his policy, by the way, Kerry said that his plan is to gather more international support to rebuild Iraq. John, you think de Villepin and Schroeder are going to send French people over there in this hell hole to get shot at? What do you mean? How is an international force to rebuild Iraq going to stop what’s going on there? How is an international force to rebuild Iraq going to stop terrorist attacks? What are you going to do, indict ’em? You going to send them good vibes? You going to try to relate to them somehow? I’ll tell you what’s happening here. Kerry says now we can’t get out. He knows, folks. And you libs, you got to look at this and say, “gee, who is this guy, he’s saying we’ve got to stay now?” So you’re going to be voting for a candidate who admits that we can’t leave Iraq. He’s going to try to blame Bush for the mess, but we can’t leave. We’ve got to stay there, we’ve got to win this.

I mean the Bush team is forcing this guy into 180s every day. And I’m telling you who else’s heads are spinning are Democrats. The last thing in the world they thought they were doing was nominating a candidate that was going to end up saying, in March, no less, we got to not only stay in Iraq, we got to build it up, we can’t afford to get out. Do you think the liberal Democrats that nominated this guy had any idea he would ever say this?
END TRANSCRIPT