All Episodes
Previous Next
June 28, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
June 28, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Ha, how are you?
Greetings, welcome back, nice to have you with us.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence IN Broadcasting Network.
Another hour of broadcast excellence.
An excursion into same officially underway.
We are ditto camming, we are podcasting, and the CLUB Getmo t-shirts still racing out of the stores from the CLUB Getmo gift shop at Rushlimbaugh.com, as well as the uh, the cap and the coffee mug, we've added a golf shirt, a polo shirt, and we had our first report last hour of an encounter between a uh uh, a ditto head wearing a CLUB Getmo t-shirt and a liberal in a Starbucks in Cleveland, and the liberal was irritated to say no end,
but was rendered speechless because he was talking to an informed ditto head.
Greetings, and it's great to have you with us, my friends.
Our telephone number if you want to join us, 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at Eibnet.com.
So Bush going to give a big speech on the war tonight at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The media keeps touting all these negative poll numbers and he keep talking about the importance of the speech, but so far at least, as I know, only ABC says they're going to carry it.
Cable nets are going to carry it, of course, if they can find time to break into the Natalie Holloway mystery uh, but they will carry it.
But of the broadcast network, so far only ABC.
Have you heard anything else uh, mr Sterley, to contradict this?
I haven't either, but I haven't really checked in the?
Uh in the last hour.
So much for public interest.
I mean, he's the network.
Sit there and beat Bush up over the war so he gives a speech, but they're not gonna excuse the sniffles here folks um, not going to cover it.
As I mentioned earlier, we've got we've got two polls on this.
Well, actually one and a half polls on this uh, but since the, the president's speeches tonight, the media has inundated us.
It's just we what what, what's the um?
Uh, what's the uh?
We're flooding, flooding the zone.
Is what the the, the term for it is.
We're flooding the zone and the media flooding the zone with all these stories about failure in Iraq.
The American people hate the Bush.
They don't like Iraq.
They don't think we should do anything in the war on terror.
Halliburton is overcharging Americans for its services in Iraq.
It's just a never-ending cacophony today of Anti-bush, Anti-U.S.
Effort Stories.
First up, the CNN USA Today Gallup poll.
The number of Americans disapproving of President Bush's job performance has risen to the highest level of his presidency, according to a poll released yesterday.
Now, remember what polls are, folks.
Polls are just editorials.
That's all they've become.
They're not even news stories anymore.
They are editorials.
According to the CNN USA Today Gallup poll, 53% of respondents said they disapproved of Bush's performance compared to 45% who approved the margin of error, plus or minus three points.
As Bush prepares to address the nation Tuesday to defend his Iraq policy, just 40% of those responding to the poll said they approved of his handling of the war.
58% said that they disapprove.
The approval rating in Iraq unchanged from a poll in late May.
The disapproval figure marked an increase of two points.
All right, now that's, so what do we have here?
CNN USA Today, Gallup, let's see, what is it?
40% approved of the handling of the war.
58% say they disapprove.
All right, let's go to another poll.
The media floods the zone today, the ABC News Washington Post poll.
Their headline, survey finds most support staying in Iraq.
Let me summarize this poll for you.
A solid majority in the ABC polls say we should stick it out.
52% say the U.S. is more secure for the efforts there.
Despite news coverage, 53% are optimistic about Iraq, and 51% think this war contributes to long-term stability of the Middle East.
We have a solid majority, 52%, 53%, 51%.
You go over to the CNN poll, and you find just 40% say they approved of his handling of the war.
Survey found that only one in eight Americans currently favors an immediate pullout of forces, while a solid majority continues to agree with Bush that we must remain in Iraq until civil order is restored.
52% believe the war has contributed to the long-term security of the U.S. Despite the almost daily suicide bombings and mounting casualty rates, 53%, a majority, now say they're optimistic about the situation in Iraq, up seven points from the December poll.
I would say, despite the almost daily suicide bombings and mounting casualty rates, I would rephrase that.
Despite constant negative news coverage, 53% are optimistic about Iraq.
That's the way to phrase this, because this business of daily suicide bombings and mounting casualty rates is the story.
That's the lead every day for the press, and that's the only template that they're reporting.
Now, ABC News, this is the Washington Post version I just read you.
The ABCNews.com analysis gives us an even better read on the public here.
A sense of obligation balances negative public views on Iraq.
Despite broad concerns and sharp criticism of the administration's performance, nearly six in 10 Americans say U.S. forces should remain in place until civil order has been restored there.
That expression of resolve works to President Bush's advantage as he prepares to address the nation on Iraq, as does a slight improvement in some bottom line measures.
Should we stay or withdraw?
58% say stay there.
53% say the war was not worth fighting.
That's eased a bit from its record high.
52% now say the war has improved long-term U.S. security.
And 53% are optimistic rather than pessimistic about the prospects for Iraq in the next year.
And 56% see the war in Iraq as part of the broader war on terrorism, a basic administration position.
I guarantee you, the ABC people have to be disgusted with the results here because they're looking at this thing.
Well, people aren't watching us then.
If the result is that 56% see the war in Iraq as part of the broader war on terrorism, a basic administration position, then ABC's news division has to be saying, where are we going wrong?
How are we failing?
And the answer is there's not as many people watching.
The public is far from demanding immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Indeed, a minority, 38%, say the level of forces should be decreased, down slightly from 44%.
Only 13% favor an immediate pullout.
Only 13%.
Now, what is the Democrat position on all this?
Democrats are in the exact opposite of all these numbers that represent the public in the ABC Washington Post poll.
But I find it striking the difference between this poll and the CNN poll.
The CNN poll couldn't be more at odds with the ABC poll.
Again, the CNN poll, USA Today, Gallup, 40% of those responding said they approved of his handling of the war.
58% said they disapproved.
Despite the ongoing suicide bombings targeting civilians, nearly 7 in 10 Americans think the Iraqi people are better off now than they were before the war, and 74% think they'll be better off in the long run.
The overall optimism measured in this poll is pushed into a majority by Republicans, among whom an overwhelming 84% are optimistic about the situation in Iraq over the next year.
Optimism is 46% among independents, 34% among liberals, 72% of conservatives are optimistic, 51% of moderates, and just 30% of liberals are optimistic.
But that's not just about the war.
I'm surprised it's that high.
Most liberals are not optimistic about anything.
That's part and parcel of being a liberal.
You can't be optimistic.
You've got to be filled with doom and gloom, pessimism, and fatalism to be a liberal.
where your country's concerned you do.
And then the San Francisco Chronicle actually repeats or publishes an analysis piece by Mark Sandelow from the Washington Bureau of the...
No, it's actually...
I'm sorry.
This is a Chronicle reporter, just the Washington Bureau chief of the report of the Chronicle.
And it's a news analysis piece, a headline, a critical moment for Bush-Iraq policy.
As war support ebbs, president will try to rally nation tonight.
Well, we don't see it ebbing here, Mark.
I mean, we do want to see it in poll.
We don't see it ebbing in the Washington Post poll.
And again, I don't, I think the president may rally people, but he's not going to come up with anything new.
He's just going to be consistent.
He's not going to apologize.
He's not going to do a mayoculpa.
He's not going to admit mistakes.
He's not going to say we misplanned that or we goofed up that.
Not going to do any of that.
And as such, tomorrow, well, tonight in the post-speech analysis, the media is going to be fried.
Media will be livid.
Bush still doesn't get it.
Bush is still a blockhead.
Just one little line from this story.
Even as he tries to rally a nation increasingly skeptical about the war's progress, there is no signal from the White House that Bush plans to offer a new direction, acknowledge missteps, or reach out to critics.
Let me rephrase this.
There is no signal from the White House that Bush plans to offer a new direction, admit mistakes, or reach out to Dick Durbin.
And why should he?
You know, as I said in the previous hour, I think whatever information is in the polls is driving the president to make the speech.
He's not going to change policy based on it.
The polls are not going to change his policy.
They never have, and they're not going to now.
But look at what Mark Sandelow from the Chronicle is hoping for.
No signal from the White House that Bush plans to offer new direction or acknowledge mistakes or reach out to critics.
Meaning, this president is going to still ignore us in the media.
He may be giving a speech, but he's going to pay us no attention whatsoever.
And he will fry for this in the coming days.
That's what it means.
Quick timeout.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
All right.
What did I do with it?
I'm getting...
This is funny how this happens.
Where is it?
What did I do with it?
What did I do with it?
I asked I'm going to print the thing out again because I thought I'd put it in a stack, but I can't find a stack I'd put it in.
Oh, wait, maybe it's in this.
Let me check this one.
Let me check this one.
Hang on.
Yep, here it is.
I'm getting tons of email from people.
Apparently, there's word of mouth out there.
Rush, what is this about Souter's house?
What is this?
Where can I see this?
Did you post a link on your website?
We will post a link at rushlimbaugh.com.
This is from FreestarMedia, LLC.
And it's a, if you go there yourself, freestarmedia.com, one word.
Well, no, actually, it's a longer website.
Let us post it on a web.
I don't want to sit here and have to read a website to you, but here's the upshot of it.
A man by the name of Logan Darrell Clements has faxed a request to the code enforcement officer of the town of Weir, New Hampshire, seeking to start the application process to build a hotel at 34 Silly Hill Road at CILLEY in Weir.
That is the present location of the home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
Clements is CEO of Freestar Media, and he points out that the city of Weir will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on Souter's property than by allowing Souter to own the land and live there.
He wants to build a hotel called the Lost Liberty Hotel that will feature the Just Desserts Cafe.
It'll have a museum open to the public featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.
No Gideon's Bibles in rooms.
Instead, a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged.
And he's serious.
This is not a prank.
He is actually going to submit this request to the selectmen, the board of selectmen, in Weir, New Hampshire, and try under eminent domain to have the town choose his hotel over David Souter's house.
So let me send Coco the link here after with the next break, and then I will go see it for yourself at rushlimbaugh.com.
I just, the email address here, the web link rather, is just way too long to read.
But look, try this.
If you just want to go to freestarmedia.com, I'm sure they've got a pointer or a link to this press release.
So freestarmedia, it's one word.com.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Here's Teddy Kennedy tonight, or advising the Bush administration, President Bush, on what to say tonight when he addresses the nation.
The president needs an effective strategy to bring the international community into Iraq and to achieve the adoption on schedule of a constitution that protects all the people of Iraq.
Stop the tape.
Is this a one-note samba or what?
This is a rehash of the John Kerry campaign of 2004, and it's a rehash of everything that started when we first went to the U.N. Security Council.
We need international support.
We need the international community.
We can't do this without France and Germany, he is saying.
And then he says, we need to have the adoption on schedule of a constitution that protects all the people of Iraq.
Senator, you didn't even think that the sovereignty handover, which the anniversary date for that is June 30th, by the way, two days from now, you didn't think that could happen.
Then you didn't think, along with your party, that the elections could happen.
Now, the constitution process is on track.
And all of a sudden, after everything you said couldn't happen happened, now you're telling the president what he must do.
You have no place, sir, advising or suggesting or demanding what this president do because you don't have the attitude overall that it can be done anyway.
Let's resume tape.
He needs an effective strategy to give our troops the equipment they need to fight the war and to ensure that veterans returning from Iraq have access to the quality health care services they so richly deserve.
Stop the tape.
And just a rehash of the 2004 campaign.
And let me tell you why he's getting this on the record.
The president's not going to say a thing about any of this tonight in terms that Senator Kennedy can say, hey, he's responding to me.
They want to set it up so that Bush is not listening to anybody.
Bush is not responding to critics.
Bush is not listening to other advice.
Here's the rest of it.
He needs an effective strategy to repair the damage the war has caused to our military and to our reputation in the world.
There's no danger.
Realism is hard medicine to swallow.
President Bush must face that.
That's the tape.
Yeah, like you guys are losing election after election after election, and you're in the minority.
There's some realism you can't swallow, some realism you haven't expected.
This advice you're giving him needs to be turned back on yourself.
And accept them.
Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.
Our strategy is not working, and I hope the president will outline a winning strategy this evening.
He's going to do what he's always done, and the Democrats are not going to accept it as a winning strategy because their only winning strategy really is to pull out.
That's what they're trying to effect.
They're not going to say it in so many words.
What they want is to gin up anti-war sentiment among you, the population of the country, so that they can then say they're listening to you and the people are demanding we pull out of a rock.
They don't have the guts to suggest it themselves.
They're hoping to be able to follow you on it.
On the Today Show today, Katie Couric interviewed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and we don't have any of Condoleezza Rice on this bite.
I just want you to listen.
We've put together a montage of Katie Couric's interrogation of Condi Rice.
It is relentlessly, totally negative.
And, you know, the press wonders why people question whether or not they're on America's side in this.
Do you think the Bush administration should take any responsibility for not predicting the strength this insurgency would continue to display?
Do you think there was enough post-war planning?
Public support for this war is declining.
Do you believe in the Powell Doctrine?
Why aren't steps being laid out?
It must be very frustrating at times to see things unraveling.
So, what must President Bush do tonight to convince Americans that this war will not go on indefinitely?
I think most Americans say, oh, my goodness, is there anything you believe now that the administration should have done differently?
There is absolutely no exit strategy here.
It was a real pleasure to talk to you.
Folks, you know, this whole little montage serves to illustrate how not one attitude, point of view, or opinion of the mainstream press has changed.
Should they take responsibility for not predicting the strength of the insurgency?
Was there enough post-war planning?
In other words, should the president make admit mistakes?
Should he apologize?
Should he say sorry for goofing this up?
What about Colin Powell?
Why isn't he involved anymore?
Why aren't steps being laid out?
It's got to be so frustrating to see this all unraveling.
What must the president do to convince Americans this war will not go on indefinitely?
The president has said just the opposite.
He has said it's going to go on a long, long time, and he's going to say that again tonight.
There's absolutely no exit strategy here.
Yes, there is Katie Couric.
It's something you liberals don't understand.
It's called victory.
All right, we have the Freestar Media David Souter story linked at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's right above the picture of Bill Clinton and George Bush 41 out on Bush 41's speedboat.
It's just right above that, right under a banner that says, see it for yourself.
So you go there, click on that link, and you'll get their website.
You'll be able to digest it on your own as to what the plan is to basically have the city of Weir, New Hampshire seize David Souter's house and property and turn it over to a guy who wants to build a lost liberty hotel.
And he's serious about it.
It's a great idea.
It's a great plan.
This is the way you fight this kind of stuff.
Make these elites live the life that they impose on everybody else.
Make them live it.
Not live it, live it.
We still yet to come, ladies and gentlemen.
John Kerry, an op-ed on the New York Times op-ed page today entitled The Speech the President Should Give.
That coming up, but first people on the phones have been waiting patiently.
Here's Gary in Fairfax, Virginia.
You're next, sir, and welcome.
Thank you very much, an honor.
Please don't think I'm being presumptuous by adding to your list of undeniable truths.
But you're right that liberals are freaking out, losing their monopoly because they don't have the intellectual arguments to back their ideas.
But I think there's one more reason, and that's because liberals become conservatives, but conservatives don't become liberals.
It's a one-way street.
That is a good point.
Thank you.
That is an excellent point.
Liberals do not become conservatives.
Now, once you're converted, once you know the truth, you don't go back.
The only exception that might be you've got some young skulls full of mush growing up at home with conservative parents.
They go to college and they get inculcated.
But a conservative pretty much is a conservative.
It's a series of core beliefs.
It's real, real conservatives.
Yes, real.
Liberalism is just a series of feelings.
Yes.
But one thing about all this that people continue to miss, I mean, the elites miss as they analyze this.
Why all this partisanship?
How come partisanship is so new?
I think maybe in addition to their losing, they're starting to realize just how sizable and substantive the opposition is.
They didn't know this before.
When they owned the media, conservatives were impugned, laughed at, thought to be a small minority of people back in 64, Goldwater losing in a landslide.
I think they're just shell-shocked.
I think they have no comprehension of why what's happened to them has happened.
So they come up with these easy-to-feel good about explanations.
Oh, it's some madman on the radio.
Oh, it's some right-winger in the White House that stole an election with the Supreme Court.
Oh, it's this.
They're refusing to analyze themselves.
They're refusing to say, what maybe have we done to precipitate our fall?
Because they don't have folks the humility to do that.
They're too arrogant and conceited to think that anything going wrong is their fault.
Here's Philip in North Liberty, Iowa.
Welcome, sir, to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Mega Dittos, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
In 1993, I was in my senior English class, and I was expounding upon conservative philosophy, setting the class straight.
And the teacher looked at me and she said, oh, you just heard that on Rush Limbaugh.
And I said, Rush who?
Was this high school or college?
High school.
High school.
She said, you haven't heard of Rush Limbaugh?
Oh, you'd love him.
And I've kind of been listening to you ever since.
But I've been dying to tell you this story for years because it just blows completely out of the water the idea that we're mind-numbed robots.
I believed what I believed before I even knew you existed.
Well, most people get, you know, this is the thing.
The silent majority that Nixon spoke of, this is who we are.
It's who we've always been, the silent majority.
We were silent because nobody gave voice to what we believed other than the occasional political campaign, presidential campaign.
And then Reagan came along and you saw the silent majority rear up and give him a 49-state landslide, folks.
Make no mistake where this country's ideological heart is.
But it's gotten to the point now where, and I'm proud of this.
You know, people say, I don't want to make your day any worse by telling you what liberals are saying about you.
Folks, you have to understand somebody.
The idea that they think, and you, whether it's this University of Missouri journalism study, or whether it's Tom Dashel, or whether it's Dick Durbin, or whoever, they blame me.
They blame me.
I am the reason that you exist.
I am the reason they are in trouble.
I am the reason people don't believe them as much as they used to.
I'm the reason that they're losing.
I am the reason.
That's why I am always mentioned by them, and that's why I'm always a target, and it makes me proud.
But what Philip here had to say is exactly right.
When this program started in 1988, the liberals, it took them a couple of years to realize what was actually happening.
And it took a while for them to really gin up this whole notion that you were just a bunch of mind-numb robots and I'm the Pied Piper.
The fact of the matter is, you've always been who you are, other than you converts, and we have made a lot of those, but for the most part, the vast majority of people in this audience have always been conservative.
They just had somebody finally come along in the national media that validated what they believed.
You know, I'm not, I may add to your information quotient.
You may learn some things, but in terms of your core beliefs, you had them long before I came along.
You're just now having them reinforced.
You know, how many times over these 16 years have people called and you've heard it?
And they call and they saw something on the news that they know is liberal bias.
They think they're the only ones that noticed it.
And they've got to warn everybody else and they're angry about it.
And I was always thinking, you know, if you noticed it, millions of others did too.
You just have to trust you're not alone.
And I don't think conservatives feel alone anymore.
I think quite the contrary.
I think we conservatives are feeling pretty dominant.
We get frustrated because you want many people have a skewed definition of success.
That is, until the mainstream press agrees with us, we're failures.
Don't ever do, don't set yourself up that way.
That's never going to happen.
You know, that's just not realistic.
So people sometimes get pessimistic and disappointed because they don't see all this conversion happening in what is considered the elite media or the mainstream.
It's never going to happen.
They're just going to lose their influence.
They're just going to continue to lose their influence.
They're going to lose readers.
Newspapers are going to lose circulation.
Networks are going to lose viewers.
It's happening.
It is happening.
And they are not on the technological forefront of anything to be able to recapture it.
Here's Mike in Cincinnati.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush, it's an absolute pleasure.
How are you?
Thank you, sir.
You're welcome.
The poll that you were citing before that said that talk radio listeners were more extreme and more polarized, I would argue that they're more informed.
And this kind of fits into what you were talking about.
I've been listening to you since 1989 when I lived in Kansas City.
And the first time I heard you, I knew you were instinctively, I knew you were right.
And logically and just through the thought process.
But ever since then, over the years, my level of understanding of politics and the left in general has peeled off in layers of deepened understanding.
I mean, before they're kind of right, I mean, the media is that they're targeting you because before there was you, there wasn't you.
I mean, there was William F. Buckley, there was Goldwater, there was a handful of others, but with the move of conservatism in this country growing, as you cite a lot, is just all these people over the years like myself who have listened to you and said, you know what, I think that's exactly right.
And you've just reaffirmed it over the years over and over.
It hasn't changed.
This country, I think, has always been conservative.
But I want to thank you for all that you've done over the years.
Well, thank you.
Thanks very much.
You said something very important.
Same thing that you described happening to you as listening to this program happened to me.
I grew up a conservative.
My family was very conservative, father especially.
But I left home when I was 20, and my pursuits then had nothing to do with current events of the news of the day.
I'm just a young kid trying to make it big in the field I've chosen, which was radio.
I'd run into people that I disagreed with politically, and I knew what I believed, but I wasn't able really to talk to them about it other than just tell them what I thought.
I wasn't able to tell them why I thought what I thought because it was instinct.
I wasn't able to tell them why they were wrong other than instinct.
So as I began to get more and more immersed in all this and interested, I started reading the people I consider the godfathers of the movement.
I talk about them all the time.
These are the people that labored working away in the basements of think tanks, churning out position papers, writing magazines, William Buckley and Pat Buchanan, these people.
And it was through my exposure to them that I finally found out why my instincts are what they were.
And as I kept learning, I was then able to explain to people why I believed what I believed, not just that I believed it.
And that, well, I believe it, you should too, because I just know it's right.
That won't work in an argument.
You have to be able to explain it.
You have to have historical evidence, examples, facts.
And so I just immersed myself in as much of this data as I could.
And I still do.
Although I read much of what I think now to reinforce.
I'm just kidding.
But the point is that the same thing that happened to me with the godfathers of conservative wisdom I think are happening to people listening to this radio show on a daily basis.
You don't just hear conservatism, you hear why, and you hear a foundation and you learn to express it yourself.
And you're able to engage people you disagree with.
They aren't.
The liberals aren't able to do this because they haven't had to for 50 years.
They had a monopoly.
The liberals never had to justify what they believed in a debate because there weren't any debates other than the occasional presidential campaign.
And then they used to use their usual smear tactics like Barry Goldwater is going to nuke the world.
They've never really had to debate anybody and they can't today.
So that's why they rely on lies and propaganda like Michael Moore and these kooks at Move On because their voice is a louder, enraged, angrier, emotional voice.
And they hope that will trump any reason that confronts them because they don't have any way to do so in an intelligent way.
They will lose in the arena of ideas every single time they try.
And so that's why they're constantly trying to discredit conservative people as Hitlers or right-wing Christian evangelical, whatever the negative terms they come up with, Hitler, you name it.
It is all meant to discredit because they can't win the intellectual argument anymore.
And it's because when you were a liberal for all those 50 years and you had the mainstream media basically propagandizing what you believe, you never had, you never were challenged.
The liberal never was challenged to explain it.
The Republicans had 135 members in the House led by a guy whose only goal was to play golf with Tip O'Neill rather than engage him in any kind of intellectual fight.
And Reagan coming along when it energized, well, Goldwater, of course, when Reagan comes along and really energizes everybody and gives birth to a whole host of growth out there, myself included.
And the left, who is their Reagan?
FDR.
Here's their spirit.
Who is their Reagan?
And I'm not saying, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying FDR is Reagan.
I'm saying they've got to go back 50 years.
Their whole belief system is structured on America as soup lines.
America, well, maybe you got to throw World War II out.
They never cite FDR and World War II or Harry Truman.
They'll always, they go back to Vietnam and Watergate.
But in terms of, you know, who is their godfather guru, who inspires them, actually today, who would it be?
Michael Moore, Howard Dean, you name it, but Bill Clinton doesn't inspire them to go out and debate conservatives and win.
I mean, there's nobody, I guess there's nobody.
There's nobody out there right now that's saying to young people, I want to be a liberal.
That's who I am.
There's nobody saying that.
Now, I'm talking about the people who aren't.
They're not persuading anybody.
They're not inspiring anybody because they can't.
They aren't inspiring.
You listen to them speak.
They don't have anything uplifting or inspiring or positive to say.
The only people that they are attracting are the already down-in-a-dump, fatalistic, pessimistic doom and gloomers who just want to have some company in their misery.
And so that's what the American left has become.
I must take a break.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, a couple more Condoleezza Rice soundbites.
One from Good Morning America with Charlie Gibson, the other from Fox and Friends Today.
First up, Charlie Gibson says to Condi Rice on Good Morning America Today, 52% of the people in our poll, Ms. Rice, say he misled this country on a rock.
52% say the war is going badly.
56% disapprove of his handling of this.
So what can he say to people that we haven't heard before?
Other polls show that Americans also understand that we need to finish the job.
If you want to talk about polls, there are polls that show that Americans believe that we ought to finish the job.
This same poll says 60% say we need to stay the course.
We need to stay the course.
And that says that Americans understand the stakes here.
Yes.
So Condoleezza Rice had to inform Charlie Gibson of the real fundamental truth contained in his poll.
Now, I think I'm going to set aside audio soundbite number five because it's Condi responding to John Kerry's idiotic, stupid, and banal op-ed in the New York Times.
And this op-ed comes at a propitious moment in time, ladies and gentlemen, because it was what, Mr. Sturdley?
Yeah, we got to go through it.
I mean, of all the people a New York Times thought could write a brilliant piece to tell Bush what needs to be said to John Kerry.
Hell's Bills were going to talk about this.
You damn right.
But the thing about this that's fascinating to me, it was only, what, two, three weeks ago Kerry released his Naval Records.
We found out that he got worse grades than Bush.
We found out that Kerry is an intellectual lightweight.
He can't carry Bush's water.
Bush got better grades at Yale than Kerry did.
And so the Times goes out and gets this dunce, which is what they call Bush, get this dunce to write an op-ed on their op-ed page.
You damn right.
We're going to talk about it in a minute.
Well, in the next hour, I got to take a break now.
Stay with us.
For you ladies out there, and as well as you metrosexual men, Paula Abdul yesterday testified before the California legislature.
You heard about this, Brian?
Her testimony urged legislators to force nail salons to clean up their act.
She wants more sanitary conditions at nail salon locations.
She testified about her year-long health ordeal after unsanitary manicure at a nail shop in Studio City.
I'm sure there's well, that there are people here that are concerned about some truly important issues facing America.
Paul Abdul's one of them.
What else could you conclude, Mr. Sterdley?
Thank God for people like Paul Abdul.
Where would we be in this country if not for people willing to take up their time, give up their time to go to California legislature?
And how about the California legislature?
Are they dealing with their problems or what?
Dirty, unsanitary nail salons.
Thank God for people like this.
You know, these polls, one other point on these polls about the Iraq war, you know, like for one, the CNN poll, 40% confidence in the handling of the war.
Why has it always assumed that the lack of confidence is because they oppose the war?
Could it be that there are a lot of people like me who want to just nuke the place?
Figuratively speaking, let me take care of Syria.
Let's get serious about it.
And let's get serious about Iran.
Because as Rumsfeld said the other day when he was asked, well, what about the end of the war?
What's our existence?
How do we know?
We don't know what Syria and Iran are going to do yet.
Well, that's okay, fine.
Well, let's do what we can to prevent them from doing anything.
▲
Export Selection