About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Limbaugh attacks Obama over Afghanistan: "The President just surrendered"

December 02, 2009 5:09 pm ET

From the December 2 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Max Credits (December 02, 2009 5:12 pm ET)
      6 1
      And Limbaugh's Getting Larger!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by AB-001 (December 02, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
      8  
      Right wing talker Mike Gallagher was saying on his show today that he agrees with Obama, saying that it was clear the president based his decisions on discussions with his generals. Didn't go down well with some of his audience, but Gallagher sounded smart and reasoned, admitting he normally doesn't agree with Obama but in this case the choice was obvious

      And then there's Limbaugh, pulling out hyperbole after hyperbole because admitting Obama made a smart move is an anathema
      Report Abuse
      • Author by kfraz43 (December 02, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
        8 3
        Exactly. We are no longer living in a society where we can occasionally agree with others - it's all or nothing, and it's thanks to this piece of trash.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (December 02, 2009 5:28 pm ET)
          3 18
          Really please tell me how many times did this site agree with Bush.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (December 02, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
            11 2
            This site does not agree or disagree with politicians but it does comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (December 02, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
              4 17
              Translation this site is a partisan’s attack site that tries to take down conservatives by any means possible.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by worrierking (December 02, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
                11 1
                No, they usually let the Conservatives own words drag them down.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by New Frontier (December 02, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
                12 2
                Yes, those cruel attackers at MMFA will use any means possible, even if it means ruthlessly posting transcripts of Limbaugh's own words. Those ba$tards...
                Report Abuse
              • Author by WhatImlost (December 02, 2009 7:07 pm ET)
                3  
                which is why chris matthews and morning meeting from MSNBC have been on this site so much in the last two day.....cause you know those are conservative shows....*sarcasm*
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (December 02, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
                7 1
                How can posting the actual transcripts, articles, videotapes and audiotapes of someone making idiotic remarks be "partisan attacks"? You need to turn off Fox and hate talk radio. Your brain is fried.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (December 03, 2009 1:07 am ET)
                3  
                Oh, Man, thank you highliter. That was my laugh of the evening. It's nice to hear one of you guys admit that being monitored, analyzed and corrected translates as destroting you.

                Couldn't have said it better myself.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Samurai Cowboy (December 03, 2009 8:47 am ET)
                1 1
                Conservatives do a very fine job of taking themselves down. Rush is the biggest millstone around the literal necks of conservatives, and his rhetoric is drowning the Republican party.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by Fubo (December 02, 2009 6:08 pm ET)
              1  
              Actually what you linked makes it clear that this site is prejudiced and biased, and PROGRESSIVE,LOL.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Marker (December 02, 2009 6:11 pm ET)
            9 1
            Really please tell me how many times did this site agree with Bush.



            Why do you cite Bush as an example that anyone could agree with? The guy was WRONG for 8 years.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (December 03, 2009 1:55 am ET)
            1 1
            "Really please tell me how many times did this site agree with Bush." -- lowlighter


            Depends -- how many times did Dumbya make a rational decision?



            Exactly.


            Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (December 02, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
        2 22
        That may be because Obama makes two dumb mover for every smart one.
        Smart Move/ giving the Generals the Troops they need to win
        Dumb moves / Taking Months to reach a decision, telling our enemy the exact date we will give up.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by marco21 (December 02, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
          12 3
          A. Be careful not to misspell words when calling out the intelligence of another.

          B. Making an informed decision is somehow a dumb move?

          C. Keeping troops in harms way with no end in sight is a smart move?

          The last thing anyone in America or anyone in our military really needs is the right wing way of fighting a war. The GOP has no idea how to wage a successful military campaign.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (December 02, 2009 5:44 pm ET)
            2 14
            C. Keeping troops in harms way with no end in sight is a smart move?

            No there is nothing wrong with haveing a 18 month plan you just dont go telling everyone.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by marco21 (December 02, 2009 6:02 pm ET)
              8  
              Right. Because this is a high school classroom during Sadie Hawkins week and not a war. "Don't tell anybody we're not staying in Afghanistan forever guys. Pass it on!!!"

              Again, thankfully the right isn't in charge of the military anymore.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by rms (December 02, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
              5  
              And, if you were paying attention, he said that the 18 month timetable was not a hard date. If the situation dictated otherwise, they may be there longer.

              I don't necessarily agree with the President's decision to add troops, but I want to try to listen to what was actually said and not misinterpret his comments.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (December 02, 2009 6:39 pm ET)
              8 1
              Okay, let me get this straight... if the terrorists think we're going to stay forever, they'll..... what? Surrender? Kill themselves? Move to Siberia?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (December 02, 2009 7:28 pm ET)
                3  
                This particular breed will do what they always did, whoever attacked them? They go to the other superpower and get all sorts of aid in the form of weapons and stuff to wage a perpetual guerrilla war against the invaders. The country has almost always been a pawn on the major stage, the latest chess match being between Russia and the U.S.. Idiots like Beck and his followers think this is winnable? The soviets invaded the place in 1979 and we armed the population to the teeth to repel them. Unless we're planning on nuking russia we are now on the receiving end of soviet payback. Afghanistan will never be winnable for anyone but Afghanistan.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by snoopy (December 02, 2009 7:29 pm ET)
                3  
                This particular breed will do what they always did, whoever attacked them? They go to the other superpower and get all sorts of aid in the form of weapons and stuff to wage a perpetual guerrilla war against the invaders. The country has almost always been a pawn on the major stage, the latest chess match being between Russia and the U.S.. Idiots like Beck and his followers think this is winnable? The soviets invaded the place in 1979 and we armed the population to the teeth to repel them. Unless we're planning on nuking russia we are now on the receiving end of soviet payback. Afghanistan will never be winnable for anyone but Afghanistan.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by snoopy (December 02, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
              5  
              Yeah, what a good idea. Start a war and then tell the american people you have no idea when it's going to end because you don't want to tell them what you think victory is. Ask Adolf how well that worked.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Guernicaman (December 02, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
                   
                Last time I checked, Obama didn't START that war. Your guy Bushie did.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (December 02, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
              4  
              Except he doesn't have an 18 month plan. The plan is to begin the removal of troops in 18 months, not to have no troops in Afghanistan in 18 months, doofus.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by TX (December 03, 2009 9:48 am ET)
               
            Why was it necessary to take months to make the decision on more troops, to review the strategy, meet with the generals, etc....only to have Secretary Robert Gates come out a day after the speech to say that nothing was solid and things would still change?

            I find it completely idiotic to tell the enemies exactly when we will be leaving. All they need to do is sit tight and wait now and they can spend the next 18-months fine-tuning an attack to take place soon after we leave. Fine -- there needs to be a timeline, but why openly broadcast it to the world?? AND -- they don't even know if the addition of more troops will work on their "new strategy" -- so putting a timeline to leave before it has began seems stupid.

            One other thing that bothered me greatly during his speech is Obama's comment that "I see firsthand the terrible wages of war." He has never served his country in a military fashion, correct? He has never volunteered his life to serve his country, correct? He has never been on the front line in battle against the enemy, correct? So he had the audacity to stand there in front of cadets that had done that, had seen all that, had experienced all that? What nerve of him. All he has seen is the pictures and videos, nothing "firsthand".
            Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (December 02, 2009 5:39 pm ET)
          10 1
          Taking Months to reach a decision

          So I take it that you were upset that Bush left this troop increase request collect dust on his desk for more than a year?

          Or, that Bush practically ignored Afghanistan for 6 years?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (December 02, 2009 5:41 pm ET)
          2  
          If only more of our presidents had taken months to reach decisions before risking the lives of Americans. There might be a lot more Americans alive today.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (December 02, 2009 6:25 pm ET)
          1  
          How will we know when "the generals" win?

          What are the goals?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 02, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
          3  
          Did you even listen to the speech you're critiquing here?

          First off, Obama explained how the deliberative process he went through didn't delay any troop deployments. As I have pointed out numerous times in the past two months, there are no troops that would have been deployed before late next spring. It does take a couple of months to move all but strike force troops, so as long as Obama made a decision before early in 2010, his deliberations didn't hurt at all.

          And again, did you listen to the speech we're discussing?

          He didn't tell the enemy the exact day we'd be leaving Afghanistan. He gave a starting point for a withdrawl to let the Afghan govt know that they have only a short period of time to get serious! But it's not a 'give up' date. But, remind me, who was it who DID agree to a 'give up' date? Oh, yeah, that'd be George Bush.

          I swear, have you EVER made a valid point in all the posts you've made here? Ever?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (December 02, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
          1  
          You are really not a very intelligent person, are you? If you're going to attack someone, you might want to make sure you check your spelling.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 03, 2009 7:54 am ET)
           
        He's a traitor who put sparty ahead of county. Period.

        So is O'Rielly who spouted the same nonsense.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Traitorous Un-American Scum
        Report Abuse
    • Author by liberalXtian (December 02, 2009 5:25 pm ET)
      7 2
      Yes, Bush was very blunt and clear in telling us what he wanted to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. Too bad the little he told us was based on lies, misinformation, and ignorance.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ravenchain (December 02, 2009 5:30 pm ET)
        1
      Sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan = Surrender?
      Only in the vast void of logic that is Rush Limbaugh's head does that even begin to make any sense.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (December 02, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
      6  
      Yes. Adding 30 thousand troops to the 40 thousand he authorized earlier this year is "surrendering." Have any of these clowns noticed that McChrytal, the guy they've been screaming Obama needs to listen to, has praised this move?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (December 02, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
      2  
      What color is the sky in Oxycontin World?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (December 02, 2009 6:33 pm ET)
      6 1
      Tell me FLUSH,Just how has OBAMA surrendered,he is sending 30,000 more troops over there.That should make a chickenhawk like you happy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (December 02, 2009 6:46 pm ET)
        2  
        Maybe he means he surrendered to the war mongers that wanted him to bend over and grab his ankles because a General said he wanted 40K more troops.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Guernicaman (December 02, 2009 9:09 pm ET)
             
          No, I think he means because he gave the enemy a deadline...Or not. Nobody knows what goes on inside Limbaugh's head anymore.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (December 02, 2009 9:52 pm ET)
        1  
        Don't forget about the 20,000 some odd troops that he has already sent over.

        Basically, this just means, once again, that Limbaugh and the other yellers will, no matter what Obama does, they'll always try to clobber him with it.

        Never mind of course, that the very seat of radical Islam is located in, and or around Afghanistan, and has been for quite some time. What the F do these guys think the Mujahadeen were/are when they were fighting the Soviet Union?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by christopher howard (December 02, 2009 11:25 pm ET)
      4  
      So an escalation is surrender? Up really is down in Limbaugh town.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (December 02, 2009 11:28 pm ET)
      3  
      Let me get this straight: Bush does a "surge" in Iraq, he's trying to win. Obama does a surge in Afghanistan, he surrenders?
      Report Abuse