Rush Backs Hillary As A Potential Warmonger

Rush didn't quite use the word "warmonger" but he did support Hillary and Barack as adequately militant on Monday:

On Mr. Limbaugh's program today, he said people should not be rushing to back Mr. McCain over issues of national security. The talk host said America's direction in Iraq would not be substantially different even if Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama were elected. "They are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq," Mr. Limbaugh said after mentioning the two Democratic senators by name. "They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says."

Mickey Kaus suggested something similar on Jan 30:

I find it hard to believe that either of my party's likely candidates is going to snatch defeat from the jaws of satisfactory in Iraq.

I want to believe!  But especially in the event of a President Hillary, if she backslides into staying the course on Iraq won't her co-Presidency go Failed On Arrival?  I would think she wouldn't get nearly as much latitude from her base on this issue as Barack "I was right since 2002" Obama.

Ahh, well - the notion that we will elect a Democrat secure in the belief that their anti-war rhetoric is just idle posturing for their base strikes me as bold; I can't escape the fear that they actually believe some of the words coming out of their mouths.

That said, the situation in Iraq may look a lot worse a year from now.  Dems, Keep Hope Alive!

Comments

[MayBee]

I can just see the pressure for Hillry to nominate anti-Surge anti-Iraq cabinet secretaries.

[Other Tom]

I keep waiting for someone to ask either Hillary or Obama: WHY do you want to bring the troops home as soon as possible?

Is it because we shouldn't have troops anyplace where they are at risk of getting killed? (If so, why do we have them at all?)

But I don't believe this question is going to be asked of them.

[hrtshpdbox]

"Is it because we shouldn't have troops anyplace where they are at risk of getting killed? (If so, why do we have them at all?)"

That is an incredibly astute questions and you're right, no one will be asking candidates that one. I can imagine Bill Buckley asking it of a guest on Firing Line, 30 or 40 years ago.

Great news, though, Mike Huckabee wins WV (I don't care how) and gets good press the rest of the day to help him in Georgia, Missouri, and elsewhere! Amazing.

[Anon]

Well wonder why voting machines have gone "missing" at schools in Los Angeles precints?

The California Majority Report painted it as a rank-and-file Obama uprising, calling it an "outright mutiny." In the blog's comments, a member of the CTA board of directors pooh-poohed that interpretation, stating that "what happened at CTA's State Council of Education was a postponement of a vote, and that's it."

New West Notes called the vote postponement a rebellion, but incorrectly reported that delegates voted "overwhelmingly against the Clinton endorsement."

It appears the San Francisco Chronicle's Matier and Ross have the true explanation. They note the importance of getting the endorsement before the primary:

"Getting the teachers' backing would have opened up the union's substantial checkbook to Clinton. It also would have led to mass mailings to voters, including to the union's 360,000 members, plus the potential for major phone-bank help and other get-out-the-vote efforts on election day."

And then give us the punch line:

"Word is, it didn't help that Clinton's union forces had blocked the affiliated United Teachers of Los Angeles from endorsing Obama a week earlier - and that many of its members were on hand for Saturday's vote."

link

Field Poll (very reliable) shows it to be a "virtual tie" with a two percent difference within the MOE.

Ghee wouldn't take much to make the difference...

Union hijinks?

[LYNNDH]

Don't bet the farm that the Dems, whichever it is, would not pull out. To think otherwise is VERY wishful thinking and down right dangerous.

[TexasToast]

If the purpose of the surge was a reduction in violence, it has succeeded (in a post hoc ergo propter hoc manner). Bravo.

If the purpose of the surge (as articulated by its supporters) was Iraqi political reconciliation, it has failed. Ooops.

The congress has already prohibited the use of funds for bases in Iraq in the defense authorization bill (despite the administration's "pocket veto" and "signing statement"), so there is no consensus for permanent occupation, either here or in Iraq.

Are you prepared to stay in Iraq for the next hundred years (a la McCain)? For what?

Why don’t we declare "victory" and get out if and when we can do it without all heck breaking loose? If we can get out without breaking anything else, it will be a victory.

[clarice]

You can bet that whatever the explanation there will plenty of people out their fanning the flames and contending that the otherside (probably Hill) cheated. I wonder why reps keep moaning..The Dems are primed for a civil war it seems to me.

[clarice]

You can bet that whatever the explanation there will plenty of people out there fanning the flames and contending that the otherside (probably Hill) cheated. I wonder why reps keep moaning..The Dems are primed for a civil war it seems to me.

[Rich Berger]

The Dems tried to bluff Bush into making the first move and failed. Their goal was always to acheive a pullout without having their fingerprints on it (Bush did it!) The game becomes a bit stickier for them if they are in charge and the pullout leads to bad results. I believe that is what Rush is alluding to - he's probably right, but it's not a a sure thing.

Texas Toast - gotta update that logic. It's so Late Summer/Fall 2007.

[boris]

as articulated by its supporters

This supporter articulated thus:

Better to have elected representative government backed my US military than Taliban rule, Terrorist state, or Sunni Dictator.

Better to have growing economy than all parties with nothing to lose and nothing to gain.

Want political reconciliation? Economic incentive is probably more effective than platitudinous sanctimony.

US military can provide: (1) elected representative government (2) security necessary for economic growth. So, why do you hate the Iraqi people and want to deny their chance for peace and prosperity?

[Syl]

Amen, boris!

[MarkJ]

Scenario:

It's late 2010 and President Obama is in the Oval Office. An Al Qaeda-Taliban alliance now has the Pakistani government on the ropes and controls larges swathes of the country.

Meanwhile, Iraq has returned to chaos after Obama, fulfilling a long-time pledge, pulled out all U.S. forces within a matter of months despite the pleas of the Iraqi government and even many within his own party.

Suddenly, in a YouTube broadcast, Al Qaeda announces it has acquired at least one Pakistani nuclear device and will use it unless the West "comes to Islam" and immediately submits. Obama quickly meets with the Joint Chiefs and, reluctantly, directs them to draw up a plan to invade Pakistan.

However, Obama is stunned when the Chiefs uniformly tell him, "Yes, Mr. President, we'll do it, but, first, we want iron-clad guarantees of 1) unconditional and continuing support for the war effort from you, Congress, and the American people, 2) our total control over strategy and tactics while conducting operations, and 3) veto power over all future military deployments. Otherwise...we're not going anywhere."

What does Obama do? If he and Congress agree to these demands, then they will have just made the Armed Forces the fourth branch of government. If they refuse, then the Armed Forces simply won't go: the military will be in open rebellion and any attempt by Obama and Congress to sack its leadership could be met by a sit-down strike...or even a coup.

Interesting to think about, huh? What would you do?

[rplat]

Limbaugh is a flaming ass. He's willing to back a die hard Marxist (Hillary) because McCain hurt his fragile feelings. What an incredible, loud mouth jerk.

[RichatUF]

MarkJ-

Interesting to think about, huh?

Too Hollywood-the JCS would draw up a plan to invade Pakistan that would make the most bloodthirsty neo-con shy away. Obama is Bill Clinton without the deep character flaws-an indolent prince in love with the sweet sound of his own voice and a true believer in a transnational progressive agenda but unwilling to take the risks necessary to defend the nation [or even stay true to his own rehtoric]. How that plays out in Iraq, I'm not sure, but I doubt that we'll be out of Iraq by 2012, even if he is in the Oval Office.

Also, Rick, did you see some economists have made it official-we are in a recession. The checks must have finally cleared.

[Cecil Turner]

If the purpose of the surge (as articulated by its supporters) was Iraqi political reconciliation, it has failed. Ooops.

Ah, more on the "surge failure" meme. And if we can't call it a failure on the merits, we'll call it one on interpretation. There is no way any "supporter" claimed instant "Iraqi political reconciliation" was a likely outcome; and even the specific benchmarks were a compromise with the defeatist Democrats (never a good policy, that). The military purpose of the "surge" was to enable Petraeus's COIN efforts and provide improved security . . . and it's been wildly successful.

Why don’t we declare "victory" and get out [. . .] ?

Why the fascination with defeat? Is the concept of actual victory so distasteful? Or is it just that it's politically inconvenient?

[Anon]

Well the "conservative" Punditocracy is so busy chasing their own vanities tha they missed this BEAUT-

... a nation coming together to meet challenges and find solutions; to share sacrifices and share prosperity; and focus, once again, not only on the individual good but on the common good.

Who said it?

Lenin?

Marx?

Uh-no!

Sebelius during the Democratic response to the President's State of the Union address.

{Of course that was only after, Russert and Williams, Obama and Clinton got to respond...}

[Other Tom]

Here's some essential Victor Davis Hanson:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRkNzI1NDk5M2I4MDVkM2NjZWQ3MmZjZDUxYmJhNDc=

As for the nonsense above about the surge, I'd say the Iraqis are doing about as well with the deadlines some want to impose on them as the Congress is doing with the "stimulus package." And the purpose of the surge was to rout Al Qaeda in the very place it had declared to be the front line in the jihad against the West. There are a number of people in this country who hoped for its failure for that very reason, and Texas Toast is one of them. Now he has lost, and will have to accommodate himself somehow to the unpleasant fact of an American victory. How bitter it must all taste for such losers.

[hit and run]

I don't care anymore. Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama, Huck...

I have as of this day become a single issue voter.

First candidate who can make the trains planes run on time will have my vote.

[Other Tom]

As for 100 years in Iraq, why the hell not? We've been in Germany and Japan for more than sixty--you got a problem with that?

[Other Tom]

Jesus--some sage earlier today said to watch the futures markets as a leading indicator of what the yet-unpublished exit polls were showing. Dunno if that's true, but there's been a big swing in a few hours in favor of Obama. He's up 53-47 just now.

[Topsecretk9]

WOW - I've been robo'd a bunch by McCain - he and Cindy called earlier today - just got a McCain robo making sure I'd heard things Romney has said with Romney soundbites - including "did you hear what Romeny said today?" - the Bob Dole soundbite.

[Anon]

Other Tom-

Same thing happened in the future trades during New Hampshire.

The exit polls where shat there too. FWIW.

You're talking about California?

[Anon]

*were* shat there too.

Cripes talkin' shat I'm off to go check my pants, erh the "futures".

[Topsecretk9]

NRO Campaign spot has some EARLY exit polling data

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yjk1ZTlmOWM3YzcyMTk1MTFjMGE5NDA5YzBjYzExOWY=

"The early wave in Utah: Romney 91 percent, McCain 5 percent, Huckabee 1 percent.

I think I’m ready to call that one."

[RichatUF]

Cecil-

Why the fascination with defeat? Is the concept of actual victory so distasteful? Or is it just that it's politically inconvenient?

Don't taunt them like that-the Dems will take credit for success in Iraq and cash in the 'peace dividend' with the reduced cost associated with bases, a "short term" SOF agreement [say 20 years], and a reduced presence [I'd throw in training, new equipment, and pay as well as costs that will be pocketed]; also she'll pocket the security premium in oil associated with the Iraq War.

Its Springtime for the Red Witch, free health care for everyone.

[Sue]

Why are voters who think the economy is the #1 issue going with McCain? What does he bring to the table on that issue? I'm missing something others are seeing, apparently.

[Topsecretk9]

Via Drudge

--WARNING: EXIT NUMBERS EARLY AND DO NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL VOTES:

OBAMA: Alabama: Obama 60, Clinton 37... Arizona: Obama 51, Clinton 45... Connecticut: Obama 53, Clinton 45... Delaware: Obama 56, Clinton 42... Georgia: Obama 75, Clinton 26... Illinois: Obama 70, Clinton 30... Massachusetts: Obama 50, Clinton 48... Missouri: Obama 50, Clinton 46... New Jersey: Obama 53, Clinton 47...

CLINTON: Arkansas: Clinton 72, Obama 26... California: Clinton 50, Obama 47... New York: Clinton 56, Obama 43... Oklahoma: Clinton 61, Obama 31... Tennessee: Clinton 52, Obama 41... --

Larry Johnson's head explodes

[granny]

FYI - Don't know what this means, but I just voted in a high school gym that holds at least 3 precincts in one of the most Blue areas in the State of CA and there was only one other voter there. I asked the poll watchers about the size of the vote so far and they could only come up with "pretty good". I'm surprised, thought it would be heavy.

[vnjagvet]

Other:

And we're going on 55 years in Korea:

For some perspective:

Troops Deployed in former war countries:

Germany: 63,958
Italy: 11,693
Japan: 48,844
Korea: 26,477

Folks, these are not small numbers.

[Anon]

I think Arizona is a caucus and Obama was expected to do well there due to his organization's skill with caucuses-the surprise might be New Jersey...

California is showing up in Hillary's column and that was suppose to be tighter.

[syn]

My take from what Rush is saying is that the Democrat Party needs to Happy America so that they can completely lock down in their agenda; there is no way a Democrat president will do something to disrupt the the 'Happy Days are Here Again' imagine in the first term.

Islamic Jihad might however alter that Happy.

It was 81/2 years between the first attack and the second so who is to say when the next Happy disruption will come.

[Rick Ballard]

Vnjagvet,

The total is 150,972 - isn't that more than are currently in Iraq?

Interesting.

[hit and run]

Cnn calls GA for Obama.

Did vnjagvet pull the lever for hope and the end of cynicism?

[Paul]

Assuming the capability, wouldn't it seem reasonable to expect the Jihadis to hit us again to test the new Dem administration? I mean it's not like it's a big secret the Dems are appeasers and weaklings. We all saw them celebrating the results of the '06 elections.

[arrowhead]

"Limbaugh is a flaming ass. He's willing to back a die hard Marxist (Hillary) because McCain hurt his fragile feelings. What an incredible, loud mouth jerk."

Sadly, too true.

[Anon]

Rush-

well since I know more active duty military than he does easily they remember the drawdown of Bill Clinton, they remember the stories of how the Clintons treated the military on the tarmacs...

I asked them point blank-

Hillary or Obama.

Obama. everytime because they'd rather roll the dice on an unknown entity rather than a "known quantity"-Hillary.

[Rory]

Absolutely scary.

[Elliott]

I don't think Clinton will do that badly. This is could be election 2004 redux (in which, so the story, goes young and/or excited Kerry voters were disproportionately willingly to speak with young exit pollsters), terribly sinister yet effective expectations management by Clinton allies, or a bit of both.

[VIEH: And your considered vast, right-wing, conspiratorial opinion is?

Elliott: You have to ask?]

[Other Tom]

My comments about voting this morning were indeed about California...

Very serious Tradesports meltdown for the Crass Vulgarian--it's now Obama 60, HRC 40. Oh, how Sidney Blumenthal must be feeling now! (Wasn't there some kind of wife-beating rumor about him?)

Vnjagvet, those are interesting numbers, and worth contemplating. There is some number still in Bosnia and/or Kosovo (a decade and more down the road), but I have no idea what the figure is.

Here's an even better idea for our Leftist friends: why not declare victory and stay?

[Other Tom]

Elliott, you surprise me: didn't you get the memo? The exit polls are the only "real" polls; the results you see from those phony voting precincts only come after Team Diebold has massaged them. Everyone knows Kerry won Ohio.

[Elliott]

Got it, OT.

Should have checked my email before I posting.

[boris]

If Rush is serious he is basing that comment on how well he "knows" the Clintons and IIRC he was wrong about Hillary running in New York.

If elected (1) she would not suffer losing under any circumstance (2) she would respond to any challenge aggressively (3) she would defer to no opposition domestic, foreign, nor UN (4) there would be little or no effective opposition to any action she took.

[Elliott]

Apparently, that's not the only thing I should have checked before ***I posted.***

[Brainster]

The way I see it, there are two possibilities. Either Rush is lying, or he doesn't understand beans about politics. Either way, he's lost me as a listener.

[Syl]

Is Rush immune from the dictates of CFR?

[vnjagvet]

Rick:

It will be when the first drawdown takes place.

I suspect there will be far fewer before the election.

[Rick Ballard]

"Is Rush immune from the dictates of CFR?"

I believe that McCain-Feingold's First Amendment restrictions don't come into play until 60 days before the general. Incumbents feel a greater need for protection after the Muddle theoretically wakes up. I don't believe that the free speech restrictions really apply to talk radio hosts, much to McCain's regret, I'm sure.

[Ann]

Brainster, I don't think you have ever listened to RUSH. He does have a website where you could easily find your answers.

[glasater]

Am watching the returns--for now--on CNBC. Connecticut and New Jersy are being called for McCain. For the primaries I don't mind networks calling states and their winners ahead of time but it is awful in the general election.
When was that universal closing supposed to take effect? It can't be soon enough.

[Ann]

Rick, you are correct and the first thing President McCain will do is go after RUSH and talk radio.