Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

RUSH: This is from The Politico. ‘Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) traveled to New York on Monday,’ nobody knew this at the time, ‘and huddled with leaders of the anti-Iraq-war movement, his latest effort to reassure this increasingly restive group that Democrats are doing everything they can to end the war. Reid’s session…’ By the way, the name of this group is not ID’d. It’s just a bunch of anti-war people. There’s a group name. I don’t know who. MoveOn.org? I don’t know who it was. But at any rate, ‘Reid’s session, which was not publicly disclosed, comes as he and other congressional leaders are trying to maneuver between two conflicting political goals: enlisting enough support from Republican lawmakers to force the Bush administration to change its strategy…’ They’ve lost this. The Democrats have failed to lose, folks. They have given it everything they’ve got. They are invested in defeat. They wanted to lose. They wanted to pull as many Republicans away from Bush as possible, but they have failed in their effort to lose. I know that sounds like a double negative to you, but it’s not. Another appropriate headline would be: ‘Democrats Can’t Find Enough Republicans to Help ’em Surrender.’ So Dingy Harry is up there telling the anti-war crowd: We got two political goals here. We gotta siphon off Republicans to help us here ‘without compromising so much that anti-war activists will complain of a sell-out.’

Now in this secretive ‘Monday session, according to several people who were either present or briefed by attendees, Reid tried to explain his limitations,’ to the anti-war mob, ‘and pleaded with anti-war leaders to keep their energies focused on Republicans, not Democrats.’ (Laughing). He went up there with his tail between his legs! They were going to have us out of Iraq by now! Did you see the new congressional poll numbers? They have 11% approval. So the Democrats and the anti-war crowd, fringe kooks and their blogosphere base, thought they were going to be out of Iraq now. It didn’t happen, and Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi have failed to lose. They have failed in everything they tried to do here. They get fewer votes every time they bring one of these resolutions up. So Dingy Harry had to slink up to New York under cover of darkness, great secrecy and security, to beg these lunatics not to hold it against them, to explain the limitations. You know what the limitations are? I can tell you. ‘Well, we need 60 votes and we don’t have 60 votes, and we don’t think we’re going to get 60 votes. We don’t have 66 votes to override a veto.’ Do you think that’s going to please the anti-war crowd? You know, if you’re on a football team, you don’t want the coach coming up to you making excuses why you can’t win. (laughing) ‘Hey focus on the enemy, will you? Don’t focus on me.’ (interruption) Well, of course they qualify as a special interest group. That’s why I find it curious.

This is from Politico.com, and I find it interesting that the name of the group’s not identified. Maybe there isn’t… Maybe it’s just an amalgamation, if you will, of several anti-war groups. But, ‘The Reid mission reflected the paradox bedeviling the anti-war movement. It is powerful enough to command constant care and feeding by the Democratic Party’s presidential candidates and congressional leaders. But so far it has proven largely impotent in forcing policy changes. What’s more, five years after the congressional vote authorizing Bush’s march to war, opponents still have had only mixed success in mobilizing a mass protest movement.’ You know, there were more protests over Iraq when it began than there are today. There were more anti-war protests. They weren’t big by Sixties standards, but there were far more protests when the Iraq war began in 2003 than there are today. This is a movement that is losing steam. It’s been made to look huge. This is how totalitarians succeed at things, folks. They’re very small in numbers, but they get allies in the Drive-Bys to make ’em look huge, and then when you have this idiot Harry Reid who decides to go up there and powwow with them, all he’s doing is elevating their stature and empowering them, and it’s a cowardly thing to do. This is not leadership. There is none on the Democrat side of the aisle. That’s the dirty little secret nobody is talking about but me.


RUSH: You know, the left in this country says that military victory is meaningless in Iraq. Military victory doesn’t mean anything; it’s not solving the political situation. We need political victory, say the Democrats. Well, look what happened to our own left politically in this country. The military success of the surge, and what did it lead to? A political victory for the president in the Democrats’ own Senate and House. Now, if military success can lead to political success in the United States of America, then why can’t it in Iraq? You’d have to say the success of the surge led to a political victory in this country. The Democrats were stopped. It’s not the political victory they like, but let’s face it, they were forced to cooperate. The military victory, military success, and the report of it, delivered by General Petraeus, pour all kind of cold water on the Democrats mounting their get-out-of Dodge movement. And it led to what? Dingy Harry slinking up to New York to meet with the anti-war movement in private under the cover of darkness and beg them not to hold him and Pelosi accountable, instead they should start attacking Republicans. So I would say a military victory or military success in Iraq has certainly had a profound political impact here in the United States. It hammered the left. Ha-ha! Unreported story, but it’s true.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This