Does the Military Have a Contingency Plan for an Anti-American President?
March 23, 2011BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Northern Virginia. This is Victoria. Thank you so much for waiting. Great to have you on the program.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I am just honored to speak to you.
RUSH: Thank you.
CALLER: My family and I are EIB students for the last 17 years or so, including watching your show all those years ago on television. And I was urged to call because when Snerdley suggested to you that there are contingency plans for every area of the globe he is absolutely correct and I worked in that area when I was in the Marine Corps 17 years ago.
RUSH: You work at the Pentagon?
CALLER: I worked in Marine headquarters, and I was the administrative officer to the general who did plans, policies, and operations. And every area of the globe is divided up, and there is a 04, either a major or lieutenant commander in the Navy in each of the services who is the expert for that area, and he briefs with his colonel, 05, 06, or maybe commander or captain daily what is happening in his area. And all of the military training for the five-year plan, the ten-year plan, the 20-year plan --
CALLER: -- comes out of the planning contingencies.
RUSH: All right. So when you hear the defense secretary basically saying, "Look, we're doing this on the fly, we've never been here before," what's your reaction?
CALLER: Well, the only thing that could mean is that all of the planning that has been done ,because not only is the planning done in great detail but it's divided up amongst the commanders and the commanders-in-chief for each of the commands like Central Command --
RUSH: Nobody saying there's no plan here. What he's saying is we have no contingency. This is on the fly.
CALLER: Well, that must mean that because he's in a weekly briefing to hear what the four-star generals in charge of each of the services have put together and planned it's a structure that is a huge structure that gets every detail done down to what every sailor and marine and airman is gonna be doing and soldier is gonna be doing everywhere in the world. So that must mean that at the administrative level they've been told they're not using any of the plans that are in place or have been rehearsed or have been practiced. Just like when the Democrats --
RUSH: That would make sense. You've got a list of contingencies; this one nobody thought of. (laughing) So that means -- let me ask you this -- and I'm dead serious with this now. People are gonna think I'm trying to stir the pot here to be funny. I'm not. Are you aware of any contingency plans at any level of the military -- I know you said Marines, but anywhere, are you aware of any contingency plans for a president who might not be your prototypical pro-America president? Are there contingency plans to deal with a president who may not believe that the US is the solution to the world's problems?
CALLER: I left the military back when Mr. Reagan was in the White House, and back then the military had the total support of Mr. Reagan, and he came monthly for a briefing in the tank at the Pentagon to hear what the services felt should be done and the chiefs of each of the services and the secretary of defense. It was a finely tuned machine back then. I can't answer for what is being done currently other than it must mean that a lot of action officers are called in in the middle of the night -- (crosstalk)
RUSH: No, no. No, no. My question, it wouldn't matter who the president was at the time. This is just my passionately curious mind. We've been told -- and we know it -- that in the Pentagon, the various branches of the military, everywhere, there are contingency plans. If something blows up in the Philippines, something blows up in Australia, we've got contingency plans, we've got people that plan reactions, there are war planners during Iraq, all those things got leaked if you'll recall to the New York Times and the Washington Post. I'm just wondering, it's a tough question, but it's a legitimate one, the president, the commander-in-chief gives everybody their orders, ultimately. But is there a contingency plan for -- I don't want to say an anti-American president, 'cause that's gonna cloud my real intent here.
I'm just wondering. Obviously she doesn't know of one, but is there a contingency plan for dealing with somebody who ends up in the White House who is not of the belief that the United States is the solution to problems? Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who is of the belief that the United States is the problem? Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who doesn't care about anything and doesn't do anything? Is there a contingency plan to deal with things that happen domestically from the administration in addition to contingency plans for what our enemies might do popping up around the world. It's just a question. Just asking from my passionately curious, fertile mind.
RUSH: You gotta be kidding me. Moonshine Creek, North Carolina. Moonshine Creek, North Carolina. Hello, Jim. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Hey, mega dittos, Rush.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: Enjoy your show.
RUSH: You bet.
CALLER: Hey, and I can partially answer that question you had. But to the point: Obama is -- and this is from experience. Obama is following a plan, and it's Bush's 43 plan; and following on what the lady previous, the previous caller stated: There are contingencies war games, and they are briefed from the bottom up, and then these strategies to the plan; and it's based on national security and national interests, and threats to America. And what irritates me the most and disgusts me the most about the Obama administration is 43's plan probably had Libya at a very low level. Now, when Reagan was there, as that lady did, I knew the different areas and the levels of national security threat each country, each economic decision was to America. In this case, Bush probably had it very low because Khadafy had been neutralized by Reagan and then came to the table after Iraq. And so now, uh, Obama has put his popularity and wanting to become popular to the United Nations, doing their bidding against our national interests -- which said, in the case of Libya, as much as people dislike it, exactly what you said: He is not a threat to America today, and what may come later if he is deposed could be a tremendous threat. So what that means is Obama decided to take out Khadafy against our better interests, in my opinion -- and the opinion of generals and war planning under Bush.
RUSH: Well, this is what I was saying yesterday. I was being a little flippant about it, but their reason for going in there is Khadafy is "mistreating his people." Well, they're mistreating they're people in Darfur. We're not there. They're mistreating their people in Zimbabwe, Mugabe is. We're not there. Same thing in North Korea. We're not there. Arizona. People in Arizona have their own problems, being mistreated by illegals. We're not there. In fact, we're suing Arizona. So, I understand fully what you mean, that Obama has a "plan," but it's not a plan that any of us would understand. You have to look at this plan through the prism of Reelection 2012. You have to look at this plan as: "Who...?"
I think old Jim here is exactly right: "Who does Obama want to impress?" A, he wants to earn that Nobel. B, he wants to impress the United Nations people. C, the fact that Khadafy does not present a threat to the United States makes it easy. It's expensive, but it makes it easy. Whether Khadafy survives or not makes it easy. If Khadafy survives, it might be a little embarrassing. That's why the regime is all over the place.
"He's gotta go!"
"Well, not really."
They're flip-flopping all over the place. They're hedging their bets so that whatever happens, Obama can say, "We knew what we were doing," and, "We spoke to that," and, "We fully understood."
But this isn't serious -- and you have the added, as far as Obama's concerned, "benefit" that there are people on the right who are gonna look at this as they did Egypt, as a democracy project: The uprising or the blooming of democracy in the region (which is what they claim they've always wanted). So they get to support it on that basis. So Obama gets to coalesce some support, while in the real world...Iran and Syria? If you're gonna start talking about cleaning up that region of the world, those are the two places you have to focus on. Jim's exactly right: On a priority scale, Khadafy and Libya are at the bottom. They really are.
Unless -- unless -- you can convince people that our purpose (and this where Samantha Power comes into play) is simply to make sure that mistreated people are defended with human rights, Meals on Wheels, or what have you. Well, what other reason for this is there? What other reason? What threat does Khadafy pose to us? What threat does he pose America? He doesn't pose us any threat whatsoever, but he does present Obama a problem. 'Cause Obama has defined US foreign policy as making sure people like Khadafy don't get away with it. So he dithers around and finally gets in after the UN makes a big claim, but look at the news stories.
There is no single leader of this operation. The Defense Secretary said, "We've never been here before. We're kinda flying blind here." You know, liberals are always eager to go to war when America's interests are not involved. When US national interests not involved, you'll find liberals right there. Their taste for war is in inverse proportion to the American interests, US national interests involved. Pure and simple. They're mistreating their people in Syria, they're mistreating their people in Iran -- and Iran is nuking up weapon-wise. Meanwhile, we are flying by the seat of Hillary's pantsuit and making it look like we got some giant international crisis over there. Jim's exactly right about what he said.
BREAK TRANSCRIPTRUSH: Hey, Snerdley, my media tweak is already taking hold. Marc Ambinder, National Journal, has just tweeted: "Rush Limbaugh just asked basically whether the military has contingency plans for a president who may not be sufficiently pro-American." Look, let me just state here, this is typical. I throw it out there. That's what's called stirring the excrement. The contingency plan for such a president is called an election. All right? It would be a coup if the military were to have such a plan. But it worked! (laughing) It's already out there in the Twitter universe. Yes! Ohhh, it's like I played the Stradivarius each and every day behind the Golden EIB Microphone.