RUSH: Dover-Foxcroft, Maine. This is Bryce. Nice to have you on the program, sir.
CALLER: Hi. Nice to speak with you. I hear we’ve got Iran sending terrorists into Iraq. Do you believe that gives us the right to invade Iran?
RUSH: Well, I’ve thought since the president identified Iran as one of the three members of the axis of evil, and since his post-9/11 speech, that we will go anywhere, anyplace the terrorists are harboring in the war on terror to wipe ’em out. I’ve always thought that Iran is a target as well as Syria.
CALLER: Very well. Thank you.
RUSH: Is that it?
RUSH: Are you writing a paper or something?
CALLER: No, just wondering. I’ve been pondering that for a while now.
RUSH: Well, it ain’t going to happen. In fact, you’re probably familiar, you people out there, with this North Korea deal. A lot of conservatives are very upset with this North Korea deal. They see North Korea doesn’t have to do anything to earn this. There are no incentives. They don’t have to disarm. They don’t have to get rid of anything first before they get the first shipment of goodies from us. (summarized remarks) John Bolton says, “I’m not loyal to the president. I’m loyal to the first policy, and the first policy was working, the tightening of sanctions, tightening down.” Elliott Abrams, who is in the administration or has been, is upset. A lot of people think this is just a boondoggle. The president’s reaction to that is, “Well, got six-party talks here. If they renege on this, they’re reneging against the ChiComs.”
So what? The ChiComs are our enemy, too. So little of this makes sense to me, folks. I’m just a plebe. I’m just an average, ordinary, common Joe citizen like you. Then I get up and I read this in the LA Times today: “Iran Inspired by North Korea Nuclear Deal? — Iran is quietly accelerating efforts to negotiate a deal on its nuclear program, using this week’s agreement to freeze North Korea’s program as a model. In the North Korea pact, the Bush administration signed a deal that provides significant incentives to Pyongyang even before the country completely steps back from its nuclear weapons program. The administration’s willingness to agree to that probably will harden Iran’s demands that it too should get tangible benefits as part of any agreement, analysts in Iran say. Those rewards could include guarantees for the security of Iran’s government, an end to economic sanctions and the right to continue developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes…. [T]he debate in Iran now appears to focus on how hard Tehran should press for favorable terms. ‘The hard-liners, perhaps impressed by North Korea’s achievement, are now inclined to be more resilient and more uncompromising,’ said Sadegh Zibakalam, professor of politics at Tehran University. ‘They say if North Korea could do it, why shouldn’t we?’ …
“Iran has signaled it might be willing to compromise on enrichment, either by limiting it, suspending it or operating centrifuges with an inert gas instead of uranium. Iranian negotiators say a genuine agreement can be achieved only through open negotiations without preconditions. A subtle upping of the ante in Iran’s public position was evident shortly after the North Korea agreement was announced. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hossaini, declared Tuesday that Iran would never accept suspension of uranium enrichment as a precondition for negotiation.” So the Iranians are looking at this North Korea deal and saying, “Hey, we’re going to hold out for the same thing!” And who could blame ’em? Whether we’re going to attack Iran? That is the absolute last thing I see as a possibility happening. Nobody, nobody, is talking about that — militarily, anyway — as having any chance in hell. If you’re thinking that’s going to happen, I’d wash your mind. We’ll get rid of torture before we attack Iran.
RUSH: Jonathan in Fort Leonardwood, Missouri, welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. What an honor to talk to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: US Army Rush baby dittos. My question or point, I don’t know, I found this really frustrated me when I read the book by Bill Gertz called Treachery, there was quite a bit in there about how the Russians had helped Saddam Hussein get a lot of his WMD components, research, manufacturing components, all that stuff, they helped him get it out of there. I don’t know. Obviously I’m no expert, but I just wonder. Why hasn’t President Bush made more of an issue of the fact that other countries may have helped Saddam get the stuff out of Iraq?
RUSH: This is an excellent question, and I have thought about this and I’ve asked some people this, and I’ll tell you what I was told. One of the theories about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is that Russian trucks, tankers and so forth helped remove some of the stuff. We all know it was there. It’s another one of these frustrating falsehoods that’s a “reality.” There were weapons of mass destruction! “Well, we didn’t find any so they were never there! We must have been lied to,” all of this. One of Saddam’s favorite generals has testified the Russians helped get the stuff out. I forget who I asked, “Why wouldn’t the president make mention of this?” The answer I got, Jonathan, is that that would upset the diplomatic apple cart; that we’re trying to forge peace and good relations with Russia because of the relations they’re having with Iran and with India, and then some of the fire-breathing rhetoric coming out of Putin’s mouth, and we just don’t want to provoke them.
Plus we need their vote in the Security Council of the United Nations to gain favor. Now, this is not documented; this is not something that’s on the record. It was a theory postulated to me when I asked the question. If this is true, if it’s accurate, if it’s true that we know full-well the Russians helped Saddam Hussein clear the weapons of mass destruction out of there, but we don’t dare say anything about it publicly for fear of upsetting other apple carts. We know the administration has got a big credibility problem in the rest of the world because of weapons of mass destruction, it ought to tell you that there are things far more important going on than just the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, because that fact — How could I put it? — the incident of not finding any weapons of mass destruction has fueled, it was the spark plug that got the whole anti-war movement going.
It’s the basis for all the, “Bush lied! Bush made it up! There was no truth to it. He just wanted to get Saddam out of the way for whatever. Cheney lied! Halliburton was going in for Big Oil.” It spawned all of this stuff, and if Bush could wipe that off the slate by saying, “Yes, there were weapons of mass destruction and we know the Russians helped them move the stuff out,” I would think he would do it. But if there are concerns even larger than that, then it just means there are things going on you and I have no concept of — and again, all this is speculation anyway. I don’t know if the answer I got is fact. I want to make that plain. But it was fairly high up that I was told this, because I asked the same question when I heard that the Russians helped Saddam get the stuff out of there, to Syria, wherever else, and we know it. But we don’t want to embarrass the Russians because we’ve got too much at stake with them in the future.