RUSH: You want to hear even more absurdity? What is the focus of militant Islamism today? It’s Yemeni Al-Qaeda, is it not, Mr. Snerdley? Al-Qaeda in Yemen is the new focus. They’re the guys that supposedly blew up Charlie Hebdo and all that. So what’s Obama doing? He’s releasing Al-Qaeda from Yemen prisoners at Club Gitmo in the middle of all this.
I’m watching Fox News today and of course they’re trying to understand it because nobody can come to grips — I’m listening to them ask questions of each other. “You know, is it possible that maybe, uh, you know, Obama’s so far off the beaten path of where most Americans are. Is it possible that maybe — oh, it couldn’t be, but I know a lot of people are — is it possible that he’s, like, really doing this on purpose?” We’re into our seventh year and there are still people that can’t get their arms around all this. “Is it possible that Obama might be, oh, no –” Let me ask you a question.
Why, when the focus of the most recent terror attacks happens to be Al-Qaeda in Yemen, why the hell is Obama releasing Al-Qaeda from Yemen from Club Gitmo? Why is he doing it? Two reasons. Yeah, in your face is part of it. But I’m gonna give you the charitable reason, and it’s gonna be pretty close to right. Obama really believes that the prison at Guantanamo is responsible for all this. I think Obama and a number of leftists actually believe that when a terrorist says, “Yeah, I saw those pictures at Abu Ghraib, yeah, that’s what made me a terrorist.” I think he believes it.
They’re so invested in Bush being the devil. They’re so invested in Bush being to blame for all this. They’re so invested in having the convenience of being able to blame George W. Bush and Gitmo’s Bush. I think Obama can tell the world, “I’m just trying to stop this stuff. I’m just trying to stop these attacks.” He doesn’t realize that by releasing Al-Qaeda in Yemen prisoners they’re free to go perform jihad. He thinks releasing them is akin to appeasing them. That’s the charitable view, Snerdley, that’s the charitable view. That’s being as charitable as I can… (interruption) I’m just telling you I’m being as charitable as I can be. I’m not telling you I believe this. I’m just telling you that’s the most charitable I can be to explain it.
He really, really believes that our prison at Guantanamo Bay is the reason these Islamists hate us and the reason they keep attacking people. He promised he’s gonna close it and he hasn’t done it and he’s gonna keep trying to get prisoners out of there as a means of stopping terror. (interruption) You don’t think he’s that stupid? Then why else would he be doing this? Unless he wants these people to act the reason they got imprisoned in the first place, is he releasing them so they’ll go continue to perform militant acts of terror?
You really want to say that? Is that what you want to level as an accusation? Of course you don’t want to say it. Well, we do know there’s a recidivism rate. We do know that many released terrorists go back and join their buddies on the battlefield. He knows it, too. Exactly right.
RUSH: We’re gonna start in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Gary, I appreciate you waiting, and welcome. Great to have you here.
CALLER: Great to talk to you, Rush. Yeah. I have a quick question. You there?
CALLER: I have a theory. That the reason we opened communications with Cuba and he’s getting rid of all the terrorists from Gitmo, is he wants to close that base down and give it back to Cuba and say that we took it from ’em, and he makes everybody happy on the left.
RUSH: You think that’s all there is to this is just giving Cuba Gitmo back?
CALLER: Hey, there’s more to it than that, but that’s my theory. That’s how he operates. He can close down Gitmo, be the big hero and give it to Cuba and everybody’s happy on the left.
RUSH: So you think — I just want to make sure I understand here before I comment. The main reason he wants to normalize relations with Cuba is to ultimately close Gitmo, that that’s a the fastest, best way to close Gitmo, is to normalize relations with Cuba and then give them the prison, the area, the territory back and receive accolades from the left for finally closing it down?
CALLER: That’s what I say, yes. That’s my theory.
RUSH: Okay. Well, I think he can close Gitmo without reopening channels to Cuba. I think he could shut it down. If he wanted to, he could have shut it down any time he wanted. Now, he’s run into real-world circumstances which made it hard to do, but the people in there are not Dick and Jane. The people in there are hardened SOBs, and the people in their home countries often don’t want them back. There’s nowhere to put them. Nobody wants them. If you’re gonna close the place, if you’re gonna let ’em out of jail, if you’re gonna release them, you release them to allied nations, and if they don’t want them, then there’s not much you can do, other than give them back to Al-Qaeda.
Now, that would pose all kinds of PR problems, which are major problems to Democrats. Public relations and image is a much more important thing to them than substance is. He wanted to close Gitmo on day one and found out the problems involved. But I think normalizing relations to Cuba, normalizing relationships with a dictatorship is about much more than just Guantanamo Bay. He could close it down, he could use the base closure procedure, he could use any number of things. I mean, if the Constitution doesn’t matter, and if none of the other behavioral or policy protocols matter, there’s nothing to stop him from just closing it, whether we normalize relationships with Cuba or not.
I think the normalization of a relationship with Cuba fits perfectly in the theme that Obama believes much of American history is flawed and mistaken and unwarranted, and I think he believes the Cuban embargo was something that never should have happened. I think he’s part of the crowd that believes it is one of the primary reasons the Cuban people are suffering. The people Obama sidles up to around the world are authoritarians. (interruption) You’re surprised that none of the Democrats are a little bit upset at this? You mean the normalization, because this is sort of mocking JFK’s — (interruption) Well, I don’t know how much of a hero JFK is to these people anymore. I mean, in reality.
He’s an election-time hero. He’s a good hero for pictures and speeches and stories at a convention. But in terms of JFK policy and what he did, Obama’s not gonna cite JFK as a role model. JFK, if he were intellectually honest and still alive today, wouldn’t even have a home in today’s Democrat Party. But I think the normalization of relations with Cuba is about much more than Guatemala anyway. But clearly I don’t doubt that Obama would love to get rid of Guantanamo Bay as a US installation. I don’t doubt that at all. I just don’t think he has to normalize relations with Cuba to do it.
Brandon Acworth, Georgia, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Great to be on your show. I’ve been listening to you for a long time. This is my first time actually getting through.
RUSH: Well, I’m glad you made it. Thank you.
CALLER: All right, well, the point I wanted to make is this. We’ve seen people like Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, talking about these terrorists and how they’re not really Islamic. You know, Howard Dean went so far as to call ’em cultists, not even Islamic cultists, but just cultists. So my question is, why is the US government giving these people that we detained Korans, prayer rugs, Halal meals and all the things that conform to Islam —
RUSH: Hey, you’re not supposed to ask that. You’re not supposed to bring that up.
CALLER: Inquisitive minds want to know. It seems to me that the left wants it both ways.
RUSH: If they’re not Islamist, why are they demanding Korans? Right.
RUSH: And if they’re not Islamists, why do they need prayer rugs?
CALLER: So when these guys commit their acts of terrorism, they’re not Islamic and in no way represent Islam, but when they’re detained, they are Islamic and absolutely must be afforded everything their religion requires.
RUSH: Absolutely right, which, to me, asks another question. Why is it these names you mention, Howard Dean and whoever else, but he’s not alone, you can pick any Democrat, why — honestly, now — why are these Democrats who are saying this so insistent that these terrorists not be thought of as Islamic, when they clearly are? Your question is a great illustration of that. They demand prayer rugs. They demand Korans, all the prayers at the right times of day. And they’re granted all of it. Dietary conditions, those requests are met. Yet they’re not Islamists. Clearly they are.
So why is it so important for Howard Dean and whoever else, why is it so important that we not believe this? Why do they not want to believe it? That’s what intrigues me. We can all provide answers. We can all come up with possibilities. They’re either afraid to intimidate them, or, alternatively — and don’t discount this — “Islamic” in front of “terrorism” discredits it. There’s nobody tolerant of Islamic terrorism. But if they’re just a bunch of cultists — I think in the modern day Democrat Party, and I’ve thought about this and I’ve referenced it in roundabout ways during campaign years.
But I think in the Democrat Party, you know and I know, that in their world the United States is and has been the destabilizing force in the world, be it our superpower status, be it our large economy, be it our racism, be it our bigotry, be it our exclusionary policies, whatever, there’s a large segment of the Democrat Party and its voting base that considers the United States the problem in the world. We don’t liberate; we conquer. We force ourselves on people and we steal resources from these countries that we supposedly are liberating and defending. We’ve taken their oil. We take their minerals. We take everything, we steal it, and people get rich.
The Democrat Party is just infested with people who do not believe the United States is good for the world. Well, if a bunch of people over here in Yemen think the same thing, well, there’s a bond. I’ve always — and I’ve made mention of this before. I have always — and I’m not just trying to be funny with this or be jocular, make a joke about it. It’s always stunned me when I listen to somebody like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad criticize the United States and then listen to a Democrat presidential candidate criticize the US, and it’s almost identical. And if there’s a Republican president involved, I know that, you know, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rips into George W. Bush or when Hugo Chavez did it, it sounded like Democrats criticizing Bush.
They sound like Democrats criticizing America. I always said to myself, my gosh, if I were Democrats, I’d be embarrassed. These reprobates sound just like me or I sound just like them. But it clearly didn’t bother them. It didn’t stop. You know, politics makes strange bedfellows. And if you are of a mind-set that your country is the problem in the world, no matter how illegitimate or legitimate your view, no matter how insane, stupid, whatever you are, if you believe that, if you really believe your country is the problem in the world and then some group of malcontents come along like Al-Qaeda or like militant Islam and think the same thing, well, there’s a little bond of agreement there.
Maybe you don’t want to upset that bond. So when Howard Dean and these guys say, “Don’t call ’em Islamists,” there’s a parentheses. “You know, they may be right about some things. We don’t want to discredit these people. You know, the Islamists, they’re not the problem. These cultists are.” Do you see or hear from Democrats routinely, do you hear, do you see words, speeches, TV appearances detailing how we need to wipe these people out? You really don’t, do you? What we hear is criticism of how we’re trying to, but we don’t hear stem-winders, barn-burners. We don’t see fist pounding from Democrats about how this threat’s got to be dealt with. “We must take care of this.”
There’s no Churchills out here. And of course Churchill was alone, too. You know, Churchill identifying the Nazis for the Brits, 1938, 1939, ’40. They all thought he was the kook, that Chamberlain was the brilliant. Churchill, perhaps the greatest statesman in 200 years, before the peak of his renaissance was considered an absolute lunatic for thinking what he thought about Hitler, for thinking what he thought about Islamists. He properly identified them way back in the 1800s. I’ve been doing a little reading on Churchill lately. He was way ahead of the class on virtually everything, but especially on Hitler. Nobody wanted to believe it, and so they didn’t. So Churchill ends up being castigated as a kook, warmonger, I mean, you name it.
Well, today the evidence is clear who the warmongers are and who the terrorists are. I mean, the voices that stand up and say, “No, no, you can’t say that about –” they’re all Democrats. He was right about the communists, too. The famous Iron Curtain speech at Fulton, Missouri. That’s where he gave the Iron Curtain speech, state of Missouri, Fulton, Missouri. And two days before that he was in Miami and made a speech, a predecessor for it. Oh, he had the communists nailed. He had them nailed way, way back in the thirties as well.
The point is that it’s not just today that people who correctly identify things are considered oddball kooks. Churchill was, too. And he was perhaps the greatest living Brit there’s ever been, in many people’s view. But it just strikes me that here we are in the middle of Islamist militant violent Islamist death, bombings, attacks, and there are people standing up almost immediately saying, “Don’t criticize ’em.” And they’re almost all Democrats doing it. So I, naturally curious, say why? Something has to explain it. What is it? I don’t know.
RUSH: The question that I just raised, what is this reluctance on the part of leftists to properly identify militant Islamic terrorism? And one theory is that they’re scared. No, no, don’t discount this. One reason is these people are scared, and they are trying to mollify, that they believe the best way to mollify and calm these people down is to be nice to ’em and not demonize ’em.
Before you pooh-pooh that, try to remember what you know about conflict resolution 101, as it has been taught to our young kids now for decades. And remember everything you’ve heard over the last 20 years about liberals and bad guys. Let’s not criticize them. Let’s not demean them. Remember Mrs. Clinton: We must empathize with our enemy. We must understand what their grievances are. This is called smart power, and this is what we have brought to the State Department.
They believe that saying anything which is critical or demonizes them is not going to bring peace. But I also think there’s a little personal — Jim Clancy has left CNN after a controversial series of tweets he found himself involved in with Charlie Hebdo. He’s quit. Wait ’til you hear this. That’s coming at the top of the hour, too. By the way, I think there’s another factor here. You look at Howard Dean and some of these guys, I really do believe with, and I’m dead serious, I do believe that some of these liberals just can’t believe that these groups are that evil, that they’re that mean.
It’s conservatives who are the problem. It’s any religion other. Christianity is the problem. Conservatives are the problem. And then there’s the old saw, how much of this are we responsible for, meaning Islamic terrorism, with our support for Israel. So there’s a whole bunch of just bat excrement lunatic reasons that might explain these people’s idiocy.