Speaker 1: Let's play audio somebody number sixteen CNN's Anderson Cooper one
Speaker 1: eight with hardly any audience, which is why we're going
Speaker 1: to play this bite for you. Spoke with the International
Speaker 1: Correspondent CNN Michael ware. Cooper said, everybody seems to admit, look,
Speaker 1: there's no military solution, and yet politically there's hardly any
Speaker 1: civilians on the ground in a lot of these areas,
Speaker 1: and the Afghan government is riddled with corruption. We're trying
Speaker 1: to bolster in these areas of government which is not
Speaker 1: represented its people were. Now where we could lose this war.
Speaker 1: The Taliban will continue to fight as long as U
Speaker 1: S troops for foreign troops want to be there. So
Speaker 1: the whole idea is to put enough military pressure on
Speaker 1: the Taliban war machine to polly that pressure at the
Speaker 1: gust Shadding table all to bring a political solution. Now,
Speaker 1: President Obama has to man up on the side. Is
Speaker 1: he going to fight this war or is he going
Speaker 1: to ovasey an American defeat? CNN reporters says to Obama,
Speaker 1: man up or lose Afghanistan, Man up or lose or
Speaker 1: is he going to oversee an American defeat? What do
Speaker 1: you think the answer to the question is he's willing
Speaker 1: to oversee an American defeat. He came out and said
Speaker 1: victories something. It's a it's a it's an uncomfortable proposition
Speaker 1: word in Afghanistan. So meanwhile, the general who Obama wants
Speaker 1: and who Obama appointed, who Obama got confirmed once some
Speaker 1: more troops. Mr President, you are not a state senator
Speaker 1: from Illinois. You are the commander in chief of the U. S. Military.
Speaker 1: Do your job. Dropped the politics. We got heroes on
Speaker 1: the battlefield giving their last full measure of devotion to
Speaker 1: this country, and you're voting present, all because he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to upset the apple cart, the precious balance in
Speaker 1: Congress on his healthcare bill, well on a healthcare bill
Speaker 1: because of the radical left. And now the politico is
Speaker 1: fascinated with who leaked this news that Obama is not
Speaker 1: going to come up with the troops that the general wants.
Speaker 1: Who leaked that the general wants the troops. It's the
Speaker 1: most the funniest thing, it's the most incredible story. President
Speaker 1: Obama wants more time to develop a new strategy in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: His general wants forty more troops. Otherwise, the general says,
Speaker 1: we and the Allies run the risk of losing the war.
Speaker 1: Would agreeing to forty more troops jeopardize liberals support for Obamacare?
Speaker 1: Stop and think about that. The President of the United
Speaker 1: States is teetering. He's flirting with the actual concept of
Speaker 1: defeat in Afghanistan. Forty thou troops, the general says, makes
Speaker 1: the difference forty troops in one hand, or losing or
Speaker 1: jeopardizing support of liberals for Obama air in Congress. What
Speaker 1: does this tell you about the man? These are the
Speaker 1: domestic political questions that hunt Barack Obama. He's playing politics
Speaker 1: when he ought to be fighting and winning a war,
Speaker 1: acting like a commander in chief who gives a damn
Speaker 1: about his troops in the field. He's playing golf. He's
Speaker 1: yucking it up with Letterman. He's got his stupid Health
Speaker 1: and Human Services Secretary telling people how to sneeze on
Speaker 1: their sleeves. He's sitting on a report from his commanding
Speaker 1: general Afghanistan that says we are boost troop numbers there
Speaker 1: faced the distinct possibility of defeat, and he wants more
Speaker 1: time to study a new strategy. He's doing nothing. He
Speaker 1: has the reports, he won't make a decision. He's voting
Speaker 1: present to their election of duty. What what are we
Speaker 1: going to do in Afghanistan? I thought that was settled,
Speaker 1: now now it's not. Afghanistan was a central theater. That's
Speaker 1: where we had to go. That's we're gonna beat these guys.
Speaker 1: Taliban ala Qaida Wish made a mistake. Should have gone
Speaker 1: in there. Wasted all this treasure, all these resources. Now
Speaker 1: we're there in Obama flirting with defeat, all to make
Speaker 1: certain his Obamacare is not jeopardized in the House. This
Speaker 1: is what you get when the radical left runs. Every
Speaker 1: branch of the federal government isn't on the golf course.
Speaker 1: He's making jokes on Letterman Lamb jokes at that, and
Speaker 1: now he's spouting additional lies, threats, end of the world.
Speaker 1: We're all going to die at a climate change conference,
Speaker 1: which is nothing more than a meeting of worldwide leftists
Speaker 1: to seek to implement a worldwide government that has control
Speaker 1: over every aspect of every person's life on this planet.
Speaker 1: That's the end game. Now, this Afghanistan report, this this
Speaker 1: is this is this is Hilary us in the Political
Speaker 1: to Day, Bob Woodward's Monday Morning exclusive on the sixty
Speaker 1: page report from General McCrystal to Obama about Afghanistan policy
Speaker 1: was a rite of passage for the new administration, the
Speaker 1: first major national security league, and a sure sign that
Speaker 1: the celebrated Washington Post reporters penetrated yet another administration. So
Speaker 1: now the story is who leaked this, Who did it,
Speaker 1: and why did they do it. The simplest theory, and
Speaker 1: one most administration officials Monday were endorsing, is that the
Speaker 1: military or civilian Pentagon official who supports mccrystal's policy put
Speaker 1: it out in an attempt to pressure Obama to follow
Speaker 1: the suggestion and increase troop levels. But not everybody in
Speaker 1: Washington believer in in this theory, so all manner of
Speaker 1: other theories flourished. There are believers in the reverse leak,
Speaker 1: in which the League itself has meant to damage McCrystal
Speaker 1: um or his position by inducing White House anger at
Speaker 1: the general. There's the fake leak in which the White
Speaker 1: House may have been trying to back itself into a corner.
Speaker 1: They actually right this, that the White House did this
Speaker 1: on purpose to back itself into a corner, or what what?
Speaker 1: There were constant leaks during the Bush administration about Iraq
Speaker 1: war policy, and there was never this hand ringing. Why
Speaker 1: who's doing this? Why are they doing this? Who wants
Speaker 1: to damage our beloved President Bush? Now? Oh no, the
Speaker 1: first major foreign policy leak. Who's trying to do this?
Speaker 1: And why? For what purpose? Could it be? Obama leaked
Speaker 1: it himself to back himself into a corner. It actually
Speaker 1: says that, yeah, he wants to back himself into a corner,
Speaker 1: So he's got his buddies at CNN openly telling him
Speaker 1: the man up or risk losing the war in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Or I totally believe, by the way, I totally believe
Speaker 1: the possibility that somebody in the White House leaked discredit McCrystal.
Speaker 1: Remember these guys the left, the far left, they don't
Speaker 1: like a victorious America. That's imperialism. They love it when
Speaker 1: the US military loses. Look at look at their their
Speaker 1: efforts to secure defeat during the Iraq War. They're all
Speaker 1: about the America, American military being humbled and being defeated.
Speaker 1: So it's entirely possible to me that somebody would leak
Speaker 1: this to make McCrystal look bad, uh as as a
Speaker 1: way of damaging him and making Obama look good to
Speaker 1: the left, as he's trying to do by not caring
Speaker 1: about defeat or victory in military conflict. We'll go to
Speaker 1: Hilliard in Florida and Roger, thank you for calling, sir.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the E I B Network. Hello, Rush, how
Speaker 1: are you? I'm very well, sir, Thanks much as pleasure
Speaker 1: to talk to you. Yes, I think basically what's happened
Speaker 1: there is the White House didn't leak a thing. It
Speaker 1: was the General himself for one of his staff members
Speaker 1: to be sure that Obama wasn't gonna sit on his
Speaker 1: bluots because he considers Afghanistan and distraction right now, Well,
Speaker 1: it's possible. I I'll tell you what's what's fascinating to
Speaker 1: me about this is it all during even Watergate, Let's
Speaker 1: go back to the number one leaker was Deep Throat,
Speaker 1: and nobody cared what his motivation was because they all
Speaker 1: knew he was out to destroy Dixon, which was fine,
Speaker 1: that was cool. They all focused on the substance of
Speaker 1: what deep Throat had to say. And you know what
Speaker 1: deep Throat really was. You know, I'll tell you the
Speaker 1: real lesson that nobody draws, the correct lesson that nobody
Speaker 1: draws the deep Throat. Deep Throat was not so much
Speaker 1: bringing down a president, although he did. What Deep Throat
Speaker 1: was doing was actually manipulating and controlling media, and he
Speaker 1: showed how easy it was to do it. Woodward and Bernstein,
Speaker 1: of course, have these great journalistic reputations as the as
Speaker 1: the two kings of investigative journalism. They are the models
Speaker 1: there what's taught in journalism schools that Deep Throat manipulated
Speaker 1: those guys. He had them going everywhere he wanted them
Speaker 1: to go. They would they found out nothing on their own,
Speaker 1: a very little other than what he led them to
Speaker 1: or fed them. And the real lesson of deep Throat
Speaker 1: is how leakers can manipulate the media. But in this case,
Speaker 1: in this case of the leak about the need for
Speaker 1: more troops in Afghanistan, uh the drive bys or other,
Speaker 1: who is doing this and what is their motivation? Who
Speaker 1: is tampering with our beloved president? You want to hear
Speaker 1: some of the other theories about this, It's um It's
Speaker 1: most likely somebody who has or is cultivating a personal
Speaker 1: relationship with Woodward and positioning himself to look good in
Speaker 1: Woodward's next book. So the leaker might just be engaging
Speaker 1: in that because he wants to be a star in
Speaker 1: Woodward's mind. The Pentagon hasn't changed, and there are a
Speaker 1: lot of people within the Pentagon who understand the strategic
Speaker 1: use of the leaks and Heather Hurlbert, the executive director
Speaker 1: of the Democrat leaning National Security Network Democratic Anyway, one
Speaker 1: possibility have to look at is this being leaked by
Speaker 1: somebody who is in league with the neo connassault on Obama,
Speaker 1: where anything short of all in is framed as wee
Speaker 1: can defeat. So of all the theories, three of the
Speaker 1: four are going to nail Obama somebody and the other
Speaker 1: the other theory is Obama's backing himself into a corner.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing you have to remember. Let's get
Speaker 1: back to the substance of this. Not only was Afghanistan
Speaker 1: the war the liberals said we should fight. We are
Speaker 1: fighting it exactly the way they said we should and
Speaker 1: the way they wanted us to. That is, we have
Speaker 1: given charge of the thing essentially to NATO, and NATO
Speaker 1: is now screwing it up. We have begged other countries
Speaker 1: to go in with us, and very few have, and
Speaker 1: those who have only have set trainers or medical or
Speaker 1: other support personnel, very few troops and now most of
Speaker 1: this wonderful multinational force are pulling out or threatening to
Speaker 1: And we're fighting the war with both hands tied behind
Speaker 1: our backs. We're not even allowed to attack the enemy
Speaker 1: near houses. It's it's the left dream war. If this
Speaker 1: is this is this is the prototype. This is the
Speaker 1: way they wanted us to find the war. This is
Speaker 1: where they've taken us. How could we possibly lose? The
Speaker 1: world was asked to participate a world buddy or a
Speaker 1: multinational body. NATO is running the show, not the United States.
Speaker 1: Uh that We're gonna show Buny House. Now, we're gonna
Speaker 1: capture a Sama and we're gonna kick Butter. We're gonna
Speaker 1: show that Bush was wrong to go into a rock
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah blah blah, and we're on the
Speaker 1: verge of defeat and Obama. Look, I told you yesterday.
Speaker 1: I was in Coach Zorn's sweet at the Redskins Rams
Speaker 1: on Sunday and he had as his guests and his
Speaker 1: wife Joy four handsome young Marines who were being deployed
Speaker 1: soon They were then put A fifth buddy of theirs
Speaker 1: was on the phone with me in twenty nine Palms, California,
Speaker 1: and some of them are going to the hell Hall
Speaker 1: areas of Afghanistan summer, going to Camp le June. People volunteered.
Speaker 1: They're out there defending and protecting the U. S. Consta
Speaker 1: tuition in this government and the people of this country.
Speaker 1: They're fighting for freedom. And we got this guy fighting
Speaker 1: the perfect war the way the left said we should
Speaker 1: do it. And we're on the verge of defeat. And
Speaker 1: the balance here is, oh gosh, do I send forty
Speaker 1: more troops and risk losing my base in the healthcare debate?
Speaker 1: Or do I not send forty loseing Afghanistan but get healthcare.
Speaker 1: That's the question our commander in chief is asking himself. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the media is obsessed with who leaked this and why
Speaker 1: are they out there trying to damage our beloved young president.
Speaker 1: In the Washington Post, get this, I love this is
Speaker 1: uh an editorial wavering on Afghanistan. That's the headline. I
Speaker 1: get this subhead Washington Post. President Obama seems to have
Speaker 1: forgotten his own arguments for a counter insurgency campaign. Obama
Speaker 1: forgot his position. This is constructive criticism. Obama seems to
Speaker 1: have forgotten his own arguments. Why yes, it was only
Speaker 1: last March, Obama outlined in a major speech what he
Speaker 1: called a comprehensive new strategicy for Afghanistan that he said
Speaker 1: marks the conclusion of a careful policy review. That strategy
Speaker 1: unambiguously stated that the US would prevent the return of
Speaker 1: the Taliban government and enhanced the military, governance, and economic
Speaker 1: capacity of the country. Washington Post says we strongly supported
Speaker 1: the President's conclusion those goals were essential. So it was
Speaker 1: a little startling to hear. Obama suggested several TV interviews
Speaker 1: on Sunday that he had second thoughts where the process
Speaker 1: working through that strategy. First question is are we presuming
Speaker 1: the right strategy on NBC with supporting Afghan national government,
Speaker 1: building capecitive in the army. Well, we'll move forward if
Speaker 1: it doesn't. I'm not interested in being in Afghanistan being Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not thumping the table. My arm
Speaker 1: is just hitting it. Are you hearing it? I'm not
Speaker 1: stumping on the table. I've been very good about this.
Speaker 1: So basically, we have incompetence on parade, we have indecision
Speaker 1: on parade, we have an inexperience on We got a
Speaker 1: man with a five minute career who has no experience
Speaker 1: running anything but a bunch of community agitators and organizers
Speaker 1: now in charge of victory or Dafeva and Afghanistan, and
Speaker 1: he is forgotten. The Washington Post allows that he has
Speaker 1: forgotten his own argument, forgotten his own argument. Not only
Speaker 1: is it naive, it is dangerously generous and will encourage
Speaker 1: more of this kind of indecision. And if the media
Speaker 1: is knowing he just forgot, I guess he just forgot
Speaker 1: his policies. We're a little troubled by this, but maybe
Speaker 1: he'll end up doing the right A p in USA today,
Speaker 1: Obama may change Afghanistan course again. Now the headline suggests
Speaker 1: that Obama changed policy from Bush and has to change again. Uh,
Speaker 1: say that means he's already failed. The White House is
Speaker 1: looking at expanding counter terror operations in Pakistan as an
Speaker 1: alternative to a major military escalation in Afghanistan. Oh, so,
Speaker 1: I guess the March policy, which Obama has forgotten, according
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post, is already a failure. So now
Speaker 1: we got to go to a different policy, this one
Speaker 1: counter intern insurgency, counterintelligence, insurgencies and Pakistan they're going to
Speaker 1: branch out. Don't forget. During the campaign, am I the
Speaker 1: only one to remember this? Obama said he'd knew come
Speaker 1: over there even if the Pakistani government didn't nobody. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: we had to dial that back because, folks, the man
Speaker 1: is a walking threat to this country as we've known
Speaker 1: it in every way possible domestic foreign policy. This is
Speaker 1: incompetent Buddism on parade. Elaine in Battle on New York. Thanks,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the e I B Network, hira Us.
Speaker 1: How are you just fine? Thanks? I wanted to go
Speaker 1: back to the leaking problem from the White House. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I think that it's obvious who's doing the leaking. I
Speaker 1: think it's the White House itself because it's they can't
Speaker 1: come out and say, Amantha, what should we do? Because
Speaker 1: he's so indecisive that he has to try to It's
Speaker 1: a roundabout way of pulling the public to see what
Speaker 1: the reaction will be. So you think there's maybe a
Speaker 1: trial balloon. Put the leak out to see if the
Speaker 1: American people even care about Afghanistan. Well, to see how
Speaker 1: mad the left is going to get if they'll let
Speaker 1: him do it or not. Uh, well, that it could be,
Speaker 1: that's what. It's always a possibility. But I think I frankly,
Speaker 1: I think they already know. I mean John Kerry and
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi last week and a couple others, some of
Speaker 1: the California congressional delegation delegation I think the week before
Speaker 1: that warned Obama if you, if you ramp up troop levels,
Speaker 1: we may not pay for no more expansion in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: That's that's uh that what preceded it. Now the now
Speaker 1: the leak comes, and it could be it could be
Speaker 1: a trial balloon. Who knows the It's one or two
Speaker 1: things the leak there. Either Obama is trying to help
Speaker 1: his position of not expanding, sitting tight, rethinking the strategy,
Speaker 1: or the leak is to embarrass Obama and protect the military.
Speaker 1: Here people's lives on the line. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: not we don't playing bean bag here. You know, we're
Speaker 1: not leaking about a proposed new piece of legislation on
Speaker 1: the snail darter. Well, hell, even if we did that,
Speaker 1: we're gonna ruin people's lives. People's lives in California being
Speaker 1: ruined because of attention to animals the water has been
Speaker 1: shut off, the farmers in this in this in the
Speaker 1: central Valley. I mean, uh, it's crazy. So I you know,
Speaker 1: the leak probably purposeful, well, no doubt it was purposeful.
Speaker 1: The the end result of it will is still unknown.
Speaker 1: But watching the media coverage is still what's laughable. Oh,
Speaker 1: Mama forgot apparently forgot his previous position on afghanistand that
Speaker 1: he announced in March. And maybe Obama is trying to
Speaker 1: back himself into a corner here, uh with by leaking
Speaker 1: his own indecision on what to do about whether or
Speaker 1: not we win. How silly is all this Datona Beach, Florida.
Speaker 1: This is his friend. Great to have you with us,
Speaker 1: Hello than well, thank you. I just want to make
Speaker 1: a quick point about this whole Uh who sent the memo?
Speaker 1: They sent the memo to me, it's a non issue.
Speaker 1: And as the United States timmy veteran, it outrages me
Speaker 1: that people see this situation. They see we need forty
Speaker 1: is a more troops, we need more supplies, and it's
Speaker 1: even a decision to him, there's no decisions. Our general
Speaker 1: on the ground has said, we may suffer a loss,
Speaker 1: we may sail this war effort. If we do not
Speaker 1: get this support, there's no issue. There's no decision. The
Speaker 1: only decision that needs to be made is what units
Speaker 1: get a phone call to start the buffle? Bad dragon,
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, that in the in the America. You
Speaker 1: and I grew up in in the America, your parents,
Speaker 1: my parents and grandparents grew up in, of course, but
Speaker 1: that's not America right now. This country is being led
Speaker 1: by people to whom victory in foreign conflicts sometimes is
Speaker 1: a sin. Uh. Sometimes it's imperialism and not what it
Speaker 1: is what it is, you know. Bill Parcels used to
Speaker 1: say of a football team, you are what you are
Speaker 1: your record. If you're four and twelve or four and twelve,
Speaker 1: and are were any moral victories in there? It is
Speaker 1: what it is. Obama has got a request from a
Speaker 1: general underground forty troops or I don't think we can
Speaker 1: win this in Obama only re examined the strategy. Didn't
Speaker 1: A're gonna worry about the left wing base voting on
Speaker 1: my domestic I mean he's dialing back our nuke arsenal.
Speaker 1: He withdrew the missile shield that was going to be
Speaker 1: placed in Europe to defend the Czech Republican poland. Uh,
Speaker 1: he's making deals with Ruschet's propping up dictatorships in in
Speaker 1: Central and South America. It is what it is, friend, H,
Speaker 1: I agree with you. Infuriates the heck out of me,
Speaker 1: like you don't even know. I think. I think it
Speaker 1: infuriates the heck out of millions of Americans that we
Speaker 1: don't yet know are infuriated because nobody's covering him, nobody's
Speaker 1: talking about when we get these they still get these
Speaker 1: mythical poles or Obamas percent approval and fifty two percent approval.
Speaker 1: I don't believe it' anywhere near that high. I think
Speaker 1: people are shocked. I think people are outraged. I think
Speaker 1: when Biden speaks up and says, if we if we
Speaker 1: lose thirty five season in the House, that's the end
Speaker 1: of the road for what Barack and they know, they
Speaker 1: know exactly what's that. And they were counting on Acorn,
Speaker 1: you know, to be the balance and fraudulent elections. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're counting on acorn to help over and now the
Speaker 1: acorn has been exposed. I mean this, this is Uh.
Speaker 1: They know the problem that they're in, and yet their
Speaker 1: arrogance is such it's not gonna take them off their
Speaker 1: game at all. They're gonna ram whatever they want down
Speaker 1: our throats, whether we want it or not, because that's
Speaker 1: who they are. Now, you couldn't have said it. You
Speaker 1: couldn't have said it better. There's no there's no question,
Speaker 1: General says the forty troops or we lose. Okay, but
Speaker 1: that's not Remember, for the first time in my lifetime,
Speaker 1: and maybe not in the country's history, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I haven't been alive for the entire two hundred plush years,
Speaker 1: but in my lifetime, I have never seen a political
Speaker 1: party spend years trying to secure defeat in a military
Speaker 1: conflict like the Democrats did in a Rock. So it
Speaker 1: shouldn't surprise you at all that now that they're running
Speaker 1: the show that victory is not a big deal. And
Speaker 1: remember Obama said in Afghanistan the whole concept of victory
Speaker 1: troubles him. Yeah, but up until now is we need
Speaker 1: to get out of Iraq. To Afghanistan is the big issue.
Speaker 1: And now it looks like Obama wants to turntail and
Speaker 1: run from that. And I'll play I'm red right and
Speaker 1: blue to the bone, all right, we don't run, and
Speaker 1: the President I let us run and secures the defeat
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. I feel sorry for his chance is coming
Speaker 1: up in twelve. Well, we don't have We don't have
Speaker 1: time to wait till we got a rebound in twenty
Speaker 1: ten in the mid term congressional elections. Robert and Staten Island.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you waited, sir. You're next on the E
Speaker 1: I B Network. Hello, are you good? Listen? I've got
Speaker 1: the dilemma, aarent dilemma. So here I am. My son
Speaker 1: is joined the military and h as the next marine,
Speaker 1: former marine where never the next marine. I was all
Speaker 1: for it, Uh, you know, I think it would be
Speaker 1: good for him. But right now I feel that it's
Speaker 1: sort of I feel like they're gonna do to these
Speaker 1: boards they did to them in Vietnam, and the same
Speaker 1: party that was in charge then is in charge now.
Speaker 1: And I just see that Dave fifty five, thou American
Speaker 1: boy has died in Vain over there because of their
Speaker 1: humanityans that they pulled over there, And I see to say,
Speaker 1: I see history repeating itself, and I don't As a father,
Speaker 1: I don't know what to tell my son. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm proud of him. But I'm like, you know, Rob,
Speaker 1: you sure you want to you want to do this?
Speaker 1: At this point in time, I'm in a dilemma. I
Speaker 1: don't know what to do, and it's like it's really
Speaker 1: bothering the inside as a as a you know, a
Speaker 1: very patriotic person. I'm sure that there Yeah, probably a
Speaker 1: lot of military families with family members either in root
Speaker 1: or already in Afghanistan or scratching their heads over this
Speaker 1: and say, well it is you know, if we're not
Speaker 1: going to have the backing of the commander in chief,
Speaker 1: you know, is it is it? Is it worth it?
Speaker 1: I think frankly a lot of people are asking that
Speaker 1: question about Obama on everything. Is this worth it? Is
Speaker 1: the historical relevance of his president, the first black prisit
Speaker 1: worth all this? As clearly there are there are designs
Speaker 1: on the traditions and institutions that have defined this country's greatness,
Speaker 1: and one of those is the United States military. So I, um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think this is even worse than Vietnam.
Speaker 1: In Vietnam they were trying to win me. They're bumbling around,
Speaker 1: and they were in competent, and the micro managing it
Speaker 1: and everything, and they they they were, they were trying
Speaker 1: to win, and even when we did win, we let
Speaker 1: Walter Klondike talk us out of it. In this situation,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's even any pretense of trying to win.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think Obama ramped up Afghanistan simply to
Speaker 1: follow through and what he was talking about during the campaign,
Speaker 1: ripping Bush, ripping the surge, ripping a rock. That's a
Speaker 1: bad move. We need to be focusing on Afghanistan. That's
Speaker 1: where we need to go. We need to capture Obama
Speaker 1: some whatever, and what's where we need to go. Okay,
Speaker 1: So put some troops in there, announced a big bull policy,
Speaker 1: appoint a new general, and uh and and do it.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the left dream war. You got
Speaker 1: NATO running things, You've got a few other nations participating.
Speaker 1: We've got rules of engagement that penalize our own troops,
Speaker 1: can't hit the enemy if they're in houses. And so
Speaker 1: for that's a perfect war. And what does it get us.
Speaker 1: It get us, gets us on the brink of defeat.
Speaker 1: So that's um just another in a long line of
Speaker 1: illustrations of what happens with these people end up in charge.
Speaker 1: Stephen in New Orleans your next on the E I
Speaker 1: B Network. Hello, sir rush what and what and a hunter?
Speaker 1: I just I mean, I'm listening to all this and
Speaker 1: I can't believe we've We've got the general on the
Speaker 1: ground asking for more troops and they're doing the two
Speaker 1: steps that the Tony two steps. I mean, if they're
Speaker 1: not gonna send them, why don't we get them the
Speaker 1: hell out of there. That's that's pretty much my comment.
Speaker 1: But this is this is that's a mistake too. I
Speaker 1: know what you're saying. If we're not gonna win, get
Speaker 1: out of there. And there are, by the way, there
Speaker 1: are there are a lot of people who, um look
Speaker 1: at Afghanistan as the place empires die. A lot of
Speaker 1: people think Afghanistan is the armpit of the world and
Speaker 1: it's not worth going in there. The well, look, the
Speaker 1: Soviet Red Army, the only place ever lost was in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: We're gonna lose. We're gonna to get out of their rush.
Speaker 1: I get emails with people like this a whole time.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get mired in there, We're gonna lose, A're
Speaker 1: gonna ruin our empire. We are not the Soviet Union. Well, uh,
Speaker 1: to take that but may be closer to it than
Speaker 1: we ever thought we would be. But traditionally, now we're
Speaker 1: this is the United States of America. We don't lose.
Speaker 1: But this is certainly not how you engage in. If
Speaker 1: you show up, you don't cut tail and run. That's
Speaker 1: not who we are. That's not what we are, and
Speaker 1: that's not who we've been. So it's a little late
Speaker 1: to say, well, if we're not gonna win, let's get out.
Speaker 1: That's to me, not the question. Unfortunately it is with
Speaker 1: this administration. But it's the wrong question. Can you actually
Speaker 1: believe that we're discussing whether or not we can win?
Speaker 1: I mean, who are who are the enemy? Who are
Speaker 1: we finding? Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ring a bell, the
Speaker 1: people that we just had this big terror bust in
Speaker 1: New York, They're still out there, they're plotting future attacks.
Speaker 1: That's who we're Oh, we're gonna quit, We're gonna we
Speaker 1: said we can't win this. We're gonna pull back so
Speaker 1: we can do healthcare, and so we can do global
Speaker 1: warming cap and tax, so we can do all this
Speaker 1: other regular, roll nonsensical left wing radical crap that is
Speaker 1: not at all what it pretends to be. It's just
Speaker 1: the opposite. It's a crying shame. It is a crying shame.
Speaker 1: What is happening to this country into the leadership of
Speaker 1: these boobs. I have an idea. I have a way
Speaker 1: that Obama can maybe pull is out of the fire
Speaker 1: on this afghanistanding. Rather than call a troop build up
Speaker 1: a surge, call it a stimulus. Maybe that'll fly with people.