RUSH: Just one day after President Bush implored Congress to give his Iraq strategy a second chance to succeed, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution on Wednesday denouncing the plan to send more troops to Baghdad, setting up the most direct confrontation over the war since it began nearly four years ago,? breathlessly writes the New York Times. Senator Joseph Biden (plagiarist), Delaware Democrat, chairman of the committee, said: “‘This is not designed to say, ?Mr. President, un-uh. You’re wrong,” it’s designed to say, “Mr. President, please don’t do this. It’s a nonbinding resolution.’? Biden says it is not political. This is just a rebuke. Well, rebukes don’t start with the word “please.” 
By the way, Biden wants to raise taxes. Have you heard, Biden wants to raise taxes for Homeland Security. Where is the homeland security? It?s as mythical as the famous Social Security lockbox, or savings account, or whatever the hell it is. The tax increase, if he ever got this. This is how libs do this. It’s already January. And we have tax increases proposed for the children. Where’s the children’s account? How we going to use tax increases specifically for the children? That’s not how tax increases work. It’s just designed to curry favor with the public. Besides, I didn’t know we had a problem with homeland security. I didn’t know there were any threats out there. The way the Democrats are acting, we’re not in danger. We’re not at risk, so why have all these taxes? Folks, I think this vote happened the same day that the same committee unanimously confirmed General Petraeus; is that right? And you know what Petraeus said? Petraeus said, ?You do this resolution, you’re going to harm troop morale, and you’re going to give hope to the enemy.? And yet they do it anyway.
You know, there’s a great piece today in the Wall Street Journal. I think it’s an editorial. It specifically lays out why the Founders were brilliant in naming one person the commander-in-chief. You are getting a great look and a great example of the utter chaos that would exist. These people have no power to do anything when it comes to the war, folks, other than de-fund it. They have no power. They have no power to direct strategy, tactics, mission details, or anything, and yet they’re trying to assert it. Everybody was worried that there would be impeachment hearings with the House of Representatives, the House Dems after they won the election. I think they know that Bush hasn’t done anything illegal. There’s nothing they could impeach him for. Articles of impeachment wouldn’t get out of the House committee, the judiciary committee would start those hearings. Even with the Democrat advantage. But what’s really going on here is a de facto impeachment. The Drive-By Media is leading it in concert with the Democrat Party.
They are literally trying to destroy this administration and everybody who has any semblance of power within it, since they can’t do it via the constitutional process. There’s no question that that is what’s happening. All the class exhibited by the president in the world and all the good intentions and all the new tones and all the desires to bring them aboard, make them part of the process, is not going to matter at all. They literally despise and hate the guy, dating back to Florida 2000, and there are numerous things in between. I want to comment more on this nonbinding resolution, folks, because, hear me on this. This is part of a devious political strategy. It’s not just to embarrass and to attempt to disempower President Bush. The purpose here is to force a bunch of scared Republicans to vote for it. Chuck Hagel was the only Republican on the committee to vote for the resolution. The other Republicans that I’m talking about here are in the general caucus. 
What they’re trying to do is to scare some of these Republicans, force them to vote for it. If these Republicans don’t, then the plan, I think, is for the Democrats to use it against them in the next election. The liberals do not care that it feeds the propaganda mill of the enemy and emboldens them. They don’t care that the General Petraeus has said it will demoralize the troops. In fact, they’ve told him to keep his mouth shut. This is all about Democrat politics. They are playing politics with the troops. This is something that continually needs hammering. Our new senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker, is a classic illustration of what I’m talking about. He is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He’s out there saying he didn’t support the resolution, and the reason he didn’t support it is because it was nonbinding. Huh? If you believe it, you believe it, if you don’t, you don’t. He didn’t support it because it’s nonbinding? He says this resolution isn’t going to have any effect on the administration, so I’m not going to sign up.
How can you say it’s not going to have any effect on the administration when General Petraeus has been out there saying it will give hope to the enemy and demoralize the troops? Of course it’s going to have an impact. It ought to have impact with the American people. The American people ought to be fed up as far as they can go with this. This is just outrageous behavior on the part of these people while claiming all along that they support the troops and that they love the troops and they want to do this actually to protect the troops so that they don’t get hurt and get out of harm’s way and so forth and so on. Here’s a couple sound bites from Chuck Schumer who was on the Today Show today, fill-in host David Gregory was interviewing him and said, ?How can the public really buy that the Democrats don’t support the troops but don’t support the mission? How can you do both??
SCHUMER: Well, that’s the difficulty. A resolution that says we’re against this escalation, that’s easy. The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation but still supporting the troops who are there? And that’s what we’re figuring out right now.
RUSH: That’s what you’re figuring out? It’s a fine time to be figuring it out. Figure out how you can support the troops after you do this embarrassing resolution? The fact is, senator, it’s not just difficult, it’s impossible. You cannot say you support the troops but don’t support the mission, particularly when the troops are engaged in the mission. How in the world can you do both? You can’t. But they’re trying to figure it out right now, folks. They’re behind closed doors, probably George Lakoff (rhymes with) trying to figure out how he can come up with the words to make you think that they support the troops but oppose the mission. Gregory then said, ?Well, if Democrats think that this is wrong for America, why not do what John Edwards is suggesting and that is cut off the funding??
SCHUMER: You want to defend the troops who are there. And we cannot say we’ll fund this battalion but not that battalion. We have to set an overall number, and you have to be real careful to protect the troops that are there but inveigh strongly against an escalation.
RUSH: “Inveigh strongly against an escalation.” So, we support some of the troops, but we don’t support the backups; we don’t support the reinforcements. We’re not going to de-fund this. Why aren’t they going to de-fund it? This is classic. They tell you they believe this with all of their hearts and souls, and they tell you this is important and they love the troops and so forth, but when it comes to actually doing something to put into motion that which they really believe, they apply the brakes – and that would be de-funding it. The fastest way to get these troops home is to cut off the money, bring ’em home. They can’t stay without the money. They don’t have the guts, ladies and gentlemen. This is all about playing politics with the troops. This is all about Democrat politics. It’s designed to set up campaign TV commercials and so forth against a bunch of Republicans in 2008 who wouldn’t join this resolution.
Republicans better be careful on this, because look at where the Democrats are. The Democrats are convinced that it isn’t going to work. They are so cemented in defeat; they are so pessimistic, it’s already lost. It’s already over. We don’t have a chance. We, the United States of America, don’t have a prayer of winning. What if we do? Do you realize how far out in the cold they are? That’s another reason they want to bring Republicans along with them, another reason why they want to scare some of these little, dainty, wavering Republicans along with them so that they can say that the blame or whatever the embarrassment was bipartisan.
Now, CNN begrudgingly — we talked a little bit about this poll yesterday. More than three-quarters of the American people who watched the State of the Union had a positive reaction to it, although the reaction was muted from that in past years. ?370 adults, 78% of speech viewers reacted positively. 67% think that Bush’s policies will move the country in the right direction,? a CNN poll. Positive numbers, not quite what they were in previous State of the Union years. For example, 51% confident that the US will meet its goals in Iraq, down from 71% in 2004. And for whom do we have blame on that? Could it be the never ending drumbeat of pessimism, doom and gloom from the Democrat Party and the Drive-By Media driving down the numbers? We’re the United States of America, for crying out loud! The bottom line is Americans are not defeatist. Unlike the Democrat Party, we are not defeatist. They liked the president’s speech. Bottom line is Americans want to win this. They wanted to win it yesterday. If they didn’t win it, we can’t win it yesterday, they want to win it tomorrow.
The American people not only want to win the war, they want to be told we can win, and they want policies that represent an effort to win. The American people, en masse, in majority, probably do not support this resolution. If they did, if the Democrats had such polling data, then they would de-fund the war. But they don’t. So they’re not. If the Drive-By Media and the Democrats would actually support the troops as they say they do, and the war — and don’t get me wrong, I know it’s not going to happen — or at least if they would refrain from trying to dampen support for what’s being done, there’s a good bet that public morale would be high and America’s enemies would figure they were facing a stern and resolute adversary. That, of course, would help the soldiers win, but of course none of that is happening because the Democrat Party and the media is steadfastly invested in defeat. Where the American people want to win, they want to kick butt now, and they want it to happen soon, and they want to be told that it can happen. They’re sick and tired, I maintain, of Democrats talking about how it’s impossible and it can’t be done. 
It’s the United States of America. The idea that we can’t win is just anathema and offensive to a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans. So is this rhetoric. I’ve opined on this program that there are people — I’ve warned you — people in this country, Americans, who don’t want us to win, above and beyond the Democratic Party, just average, ordinary Democrat, liberal Americans who think we deserve to lose because we need to be taught a lesson. America needs to find out how the rest of the world feels when it’s oppressed. America needs its comeuppance. America needs to learn a lesson. This is a popular refrain that circulates among average, ordinary Democrats and liberals in this country. So it’s a bunch of self-loathing, blame America first people that are out there, also fueling what the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party are doing.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: This resolution came out of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is headed up by Senator Biden. Now it goes to the full Senate. We all know what General Petraeus has said. General Petraeus, even though the Democrats descended on him and have asked him to revise his remarks, we know what he said in his first answer on these questions, that this resolution would give the enemy hope and would demoralize his troops. If, after the battlefield commander has testified to that before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, if the full United States Senate passes this resolution, what in the world are we to think, and what in the world will the world think? That is more than a rebuke. It is engaging in irresponsibility. Make no mistake what this is. This is a political maneuver.
This is not about the military. This is not about the war. This is a political maneuver. They are doing everything they can to politicize the troops, playing politics with the troops. They don’t care that it feeds the propaganda of the enemy, don’t care that it emboldens the enemy, they don’t really consider Al-Qaeda in Iraq the enemy. They consider George W. Bush the enemy, ever since the aftermath of the 2000 election here in Florida. They’re going to try to get as many scared Republicans to vote for this resolution as they can. But any Republican — and John Ensign, I don’t know if you’re listening, he’s running the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, I want to tell you what’s going to happen. Every Republican, if there is one, any and all Republicans who vote for this resolution in the Senate is going to cost you gazillions of dollars in campaign contributions from Republicans, especially those Republicans who are up for reelection.
No reasonable Republican is going to help those kinds of Republicans who would vote for this resolution get reelected. They are not going to send your RSCC any money, just as Libby Dole didn’t get as much money as she needed because the Republican base just couldn’t fathom why you are going out of the way to reelect Lincoln Chafee. Nor can they understand why the White House was going out of the way to reelect Lincoln Chafee. It’s going to be even worse, the more Republicans who jump ship and vote with Democrats on this resolution, given these circumstances. Particularly since it is all politics. It’s not military. If it were military, and if the Democrats knew the American people were with them, they would go for it all, and they would de-fund this. They haven’t the guts because they know that’s not where the American people are. 
Robert Novak has an interesting passage in his latest column, ?The ranking Republican member said: ?The president and his aides are irrelevant and out of touch, removed from realizing what happened in the election.? A Democratic state party leader said that ?Bush is in such bad shape that the result of the 2008 election is already decided.? In that atmosphere, pleas for consultation go nowhere. I read this, and I said, ?Say what?? Nameless Republicans are complaining that the White House is out there not understanding what’s happened, that the White House is out of touch and irrelevant? Let me tell you who’s irrelevant, ladies and gentlemen. Republicans in the House of Representatives are irrelevant.
I say this to you not being critical of them, just giving you a quick political science lesson. The House of Representatives, the minority, has no power. You should have no expectations from them on anything. They don’t have any power. The Democrats didn’t really have any power unless the Republicans gave them some, which happened.
The only reason the Democrats in the House had power when they were in the minority was because the Republicans didn’t have the guts to govern as conservatives. The Democrats will not show such a lack of fortitude. They’ll continue to be lib, they’re going to continue to break their promise to be bipartisan, a promise no Republican should have ever believed in the first place. The minority by definition, by structure in the House of Representatives, is powerless. It can’t stop anything. Not the case in the Senate. In the Senate, with 49 seats, the Republicans ought to be able to run the place by virtue of stopping anything the Democrats want to do. Such as has happened on the minimum wage bill, which we will talk about more as the program unfolds today. So these House guys start running around talking about Bush is out of touch and so forth. Well, he may be out of touch but he still has some power. Republicans in the House don’t have power. Elections have consequences. Deal with it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: You got this nameless House Republican saying the White House is irrelevant and out of touch. You’ve got a House Democrat in Novak’s piece saying the White House is so out of touch and so deceived that the 2008 election is already decided. You’ve got the Democrats in the Senate spearheading this resolution that’s nonbinding. If you ask me, the whole damn city of Washington, DC, is out of touch. The American people do not want a defeat. The American people do not want to cut-and-run. The American people are not in favor of that. The American people want to kick the crap out of the enemy and get out of there. The American people know that that’s the history of the United States of America, and it can be done. The whole city of Washington, DC, other than a couple of people at the White House, seem to be spinning around the axis of America failing, America losing, America retreating, America cutting-and-running, America abandoning allies, abandoning commitments, without any thought of the consequences involved, should they succeed with all of this. 
By the way, a lot of people are touting Jim Webb’s speech, his response to the president’s State of the Union. Well, the television poll in the state of Virginia, News-7, ?Senator Jim Webb’s first job approval ratings show more negatives than positives.? He has a 42% approval rating, a 47% disapproval rating, and an 11% not sure. On the other hand, John Warner, 62% approve of the gig that he’s doing, which is mystifying in some ways, 29% disapprove of the job Warner’s doing, 9% are uncertain. By the way, we have this later down in the stack, but there was a story at Salon.com by Joan Walsh. When it printed out it didn’t print the first paragraph or her name, it’s weirdly formatted up there. But they’re all excited that finally there’s a real man in the Democrat Party, and Jim Webb’s the guy, and I’m scratching my head over this.
I thought this was the year of the Queen Bee Syndrome. The Democratic Party is clearly being run by women, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. And, by the way, something else. If Jim Webb was the most qualified guy to give the Democrat response, because he’s been in the military, then what the hell is Hillary Clinton doing leading in the polls when she hasn’t been? There are so many contradictions in this party, and it’s so clear that when it comes to their own self-esteem — they don’t have any — their own identity.
They are still confused. One day, one week, one month, it’s all about the women and being mothers and grandmothers and being able to take care of the country at the same time they’re taking care of their kids and their grandkids and so forth, and then the next day here goes Jim Webb out there making a speech with a big deep voice talking about his family, military history, he’s fired those guns before, he’s pulled those triggers, he’s killed the bad guys, and the Democrats are going on and on and on, ?Oh, we’ve finally got a man!? They bombed out with Kerry in that regard. Well, in terms of military service. Didn’t help him. It was a big problem.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Doug in San Antonio. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Thanks Rush.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: I was just curious when the Senate was going to pass a nonbinding resolution against the Ethiopians for surging into Somalia, and against the Taliban for surging into Afghanistan, which they do every spring. I spent nine months there. 
RUSH: This only confirms, the Democrats, they couldn’t come up with a resolution for victory, they couldn’t come up with a resolution supporting the troops: “Godspeed troops! Godspeed, Mr. President! God bless America!” They couldn’t come up with any of that. This is not about the military other than they want us to lose. This is about Democrat Party politics, pure and simple, as most every policy of theirs is. We keep hearing — who was it the other day, some senator trying to sound erudite — the Democrat Party’s defense on this, ?Hey, hey, you can’t say we’re not for the war on terror. We’re all for the war in Iraq, and we think that’s where all the resources should be, we’re all for the war on terror.? You know, to which the reply is, ?When did Afghanistan attack us?? Afghanistan didn’t attack us. Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11, and they say Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam didn’t. Well, neither did Afghanistan, and neither did the Taliban. Yet we went there. Why? Well, because the people that planned it were there. That’s where Osama was, place called Tora Bora. We flushed ’em out of there, and we’ve turned that country over to a locally elected government, nationally elected government.
The Taliban is disbanded, they do this every spring try to regain power. That’s one of the reasons why, by the way, the Al-Qaeda people are trying to move into Somalia. One of the reasons they were in Afghanistan is they go for stateless regimes, countries with no governments, and establish themselves as the ruling force, which is what the Taliban was. It’s what they’re trying to do in Somalia today, and they’ve been rebuffed. Not much help from the United States, and certainly no help from the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party’s obsessed with Darfur. Wherever our enemy is gathering, somehow they don’t want us there. But if Afghanistan didn’t attack us, what did we go there for? Well, the enemy happens to be in Iraq. The war on terror enemy happens to be in Iraq. The Democrats and some of these lamebrains on the left want to sit there and try to say, ?No, no, no, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.? This is just an argument to further their own anti-military bias, anti-victory bias. It’s outrageous to me, as an American, to watch this all come down the way it is. You will not see a resolution for victory from these people, other than, you know, within a year or two after 9/11 was the last one. Steve in Monroe, Michigan. Thanks for waiting, sir. You’re next on the EIB Network.