Kerry Admits Failure Before Winning Office
October 6, 2004
Listen to Rush…
(...talk to callers about John Kerry's non-presidency's failures already)
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Senator Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he's elected president. Now, of course he's made "broadening the coalition" and trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign. We "need to put together new alliances," need to get friends. Everybody knows he always means France and Germany. We left them out! If only they were there we'd have peace! In fact, Kerry has led everybody to believe if France and Germany would just say now they're going in, that the terrorists would give up. The terrorists would be so frightened that France and Germany are coming in they would give up and we'd win the war if France and Germany were still there.
Well, French and German diplomats have said, "Whoa, we're not committing troops, especially if Senator Kerry says he's pulling American troops out." So Senator Kerry had to concede yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute. He said, "Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they're not. I know that." Asked about the statement later, Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, well, I know... I referring..." I forget what he said, but he flip-flopped on it, and is now out there. Given this statement, what I'm curious to see now is if he will continue to talk about rebuilding alliances.
It seems to me that his concession, that he knows France and Germany are not going to send troops, means he's got to wipe that issue off of his agenda. But he won't. He'll continue to blame Bush for not being able to get them. Even though he said that, he'll probably blame Bush for the lack of Germany and France going, but then the question will be, "Well, they're not going to join when you're president, either, and that's one of the primary reasons you claim you're running." So we'll see if this survives. He may say, "Well, you don't know how diplomacy works. That's what they say now, but wait till I'm in the Oval Office."
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: John Kerry, uh, ladies and gentlemen, is failing as a president even before he's president. He's now admitting he's failed to get France to join the coalition. He has admitted he's failed to get Germany to join the coalition, and his failed scheme to trade, you know, nuclear secrets with Iran for whatever deal he wanted to get. I mean, he's not even a president yet and he's already admitting his failures. Not even president! This guy's giving a true service here. He is admitting and announcing his failures before he's elected. It's very few presidential candidates that have done that for us, folks, as voters, but Kerry's out there doing it.
Here's Kelly in Montclair, New Jersey. Great to have you with us. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. How are you doing? Great to be here.
RUSH: Fine, thank you. Thank you.
CALLER: Good. The point I wanted to make is about the number of casualties, and I keep hearing this on the Democrat side, and last night I guess Edwards was trying to say whether or not they would have left Saddam in power. He brought up again the number of casualties, and I see this as really a slippery slope to the mentality of the nineties where is they're basing their justification for war on the number of casualties, then there will never be a justification to go to war. And what I see is the same mentality after Somalia, after Mogadishu that caused Osama bin Laden to declare the United States a "paper tiger."
RUSH: Actually, I think there's more than that going on. I don't doubt your interpretation is accurate at all, but this is the problem I have with these people. I will guarantee you this. If John Kerry had been president when 9/11 happened and if John Kerry had submitted troops and committed troops and we'd gone after Osama which he said he would have done, I will tell you this, no amount of casualties would have changed his mind about what to do. That would not be the basis on which he would make his decision. He is making his -- well, actually that's the wrong picture to paint because that's not certain what he would do. His evidence, his history in the past, is that he would not stand up to our enemies; he would side with them.
CALLER: Right.
RUSH: That's actually the truth. My point is this. If these guys were in power, casualties would not matter. The only reason casualties matter is it's a way to get to the heart strings of the American people. If you want to talk casualties let's talk casualties on the American highways every year.
CALLER: Right, and I have to say, if I could, my husband is a Marine, he's in the Reserves and he actually joined back up with his Reserve unit as we were going to war in Iraq. And as somebody who is in a family that understands why we're over there, understands why we're fighting -- and, you know, God forbid, something happens, understands why it had to happen -- I resent what I think is really their crass use of these casualties to manipulate Americans, as you say.
RUSH: Well, not only that, it's demeaning to those families who have lost troops.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: It's telling them that their losses are for nothing.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: This is just more of the blame America, anti-America mentality these people have, or it's always our fault or what have you. It's striking to me how cavalierly and how willingly these people are to just impugn the sacrifices and the losses of people in America for what they consider a valid and worthwhile cause.
CALLER: Well, exactly, and I also resent the implication that if, you know, Senator Edwards cares so much about the casualties and by contrast, Vice President Cheney does not, or President Bush does not, because when you see President Bush's face, when he's speaking to the troops, you know he cares deeply, and again, it's totally misleading and opportunism.
RUSH: Compare the number of casualties here in Iraq with the number of casualties in one day in World War II, or in the totality of the Civil War. I mean, it's just totally a straw dog. But it's pure liberalism designed to tug at the heart strings of people, and underlying it all is that it "isn't worth it," and that Bush is willing to give up any number of lives before he will admit a mistake. You know what I'm getting sick of, too? Where is the virtue? Kerry and Edwards running around, "He needs to admit his mistakes. This president is stubborn, will not admitted his mistakes." I don't hear Kerry admitting mistakes. He admitted a mistake, yeah, he said he "misspoke" on the he "voted for it before he voted against it." But that's not the mistake we mean. How about apologizing to the Vietnam vets, senator? That's a huge mistake. In fact, he's out there saying he did the right thing but what is this business of apologizing for mistakes anyway.
You know, not everything goes right in a war. There haven't been any mistakes made. They want to focus on the weapons of mass destruction as a mistake, and I'm telling you, all they want here is a sound bite of the president saying it so they can put it in an ad. That's all they want. They're just trying to continue to push for that. They actually think somehow that it's going to strengthen their case if Bush admits a mistake, which is not going to happen, but since when does that become some sort of a virtue? He ought to admit that he made a mistake and that would set things straight. Let me tell you something. Kerry is structuring it in such a way that if Bush admitted he made a mistake; he would be more qualified to be reelected. Does anybody believe that's what Kerry really means?
Here's Chris in Middlebury, Connecticut. You're next. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: This is a great honor, Rush. Thank you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: You know, Kerry and Edwards apparently really like the sanctions. They would have liked to continue to contain Saddam Hussein. I wonder if they realize, and the Democrats realize, that they're turning a blind eye to a horrendous humanitarian disaster that was killing thousands of Iraqi kids every month. Thousands. Five thousand a month, that's like 75,000 kids in this country every month. Not only that, but people in the Arab world, and I know this from my international dialogues with them, thought this was a kind of a massacre by way of siege that Americans were perpetrating on Arab people. That needed to be brought to an end. That's one argument that I think the Bush administration needs to make and hasn't made yet.
RUSH: Back to your sanctions comment first.
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Did you say that Kerry and Edwards seem to be relying on sanctions as a be all, end all? Is that your basic point?
CALLER: Well, it seems as though they would have continued the sanctions if there was a mistake for Bush to change policies. The sanction policy was not working.
RUSH: Are you talking about Iraq?
CALLER: Yes.
RUSH: Well, you know, can you name for me... a little pop quiz.
CALLER: Okay.
RUSH: Name for me the biggest sanctions program involving Iraq in the last ten years.
CALLER: Help me out here.
RUSH: Oil for food.
CALLER: Oh, absolutely.
RUSH: Oil for food was a sanctions program.
CALLER: Absolutely.
RUSH: We were putting sanctions on him. He could not import; he couldn't sell oil unless the profits were to go to upgrading the lives of his people. It was a sanctions program that was violated by the very people who came up with it. It was violated, and they were in league with Saddam. The UN, France, Germany, China, Russia, whoever it was we just heard were in league with him. It was the biggest sanctions program in the world. Sanctions don't work diddly-squat anyway.
CALLER: Not only was Saddam not rebuilding his infrastructure and sewer systems and all –
RUSH: No.
CALLER: -- which was a major problem, not only that, but there were reports that he was sending death squads to hospitals to kill infants to artificially increase the death toll hoping thus to pressure the UN into lifting the sanctions.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: That's the kind of guy we were dealing with. You can't allow that to continue.
RUSH: No, but we should have because there were no weapons of mass destruction. I think the Democrats are in quicksand on all this, and it's just a matter of time for it to be pointed out. In fact, I think most people know it anyway when you get right – not most – but, I mean, enough, it's not as misunderstood as you might think.
END TRANSCRIPT
AI
