All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:25
June 30, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There we go.
Greetings.
Welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you with us.
And the fastest three hours in media, the fastest week in media.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained broadcast specialist, doing it the way everybody else wishes they did it.
The EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
The DittoCam is on.
And if all goes well and a few people behave out there, it'll be on for the remainder of the program.
A lot of people say, what is this Wenho Lee thing?
I haven't heard about it.
Let me just give you the details of the story very quickly.
It's from June 28th.
It's a couple days ago.
Federal Appeals Court on Tuesday of this week upheld civil contempt of court findings against four journalists who refused to reveal their sources for stories about former nuclear scientist Wenho Lee.
He has filed a lawsuit alleging government officials leaked information about him to reporters violating the Privacy Act in pointing to him as a suspect in the possible theft of nuclear secrets for China.
The federal court did not abuse its discretion in finding the journalists in contempt for refusing to answer questions under oath about their sources.
This from three appeals judges.
Here are the four reporters, H. Joseph Aber of the Associated Press, James Risen of the New York Times, Robert Drogan of the L.A. Times, and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN and now of ABC.
AP will ask the full nine-member appeals court in Washington to review the case.
The appeals court reversed a contempt finding against New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth, saying there was insufficient evidence against him to sustain such a conclusion.
The legal troubles for these four reporters face fines of $500 a day, come at a time of increasing hostility for the news media in the courts.
Now, I've said earlier that I think this Valerie Plain business and Judy Miller and Matt Cooper going to jail.
Judy Miller, really over the top because she never even wrote a story about this.
And the law of the law is the law of the law.
But this is a different thing.
You had government officials leaking absolute BS.
Folks, it's about time this stuff was brought to an end.
Let me just put it this way.
It's about time that high government officials stop hiding behind this sheath of anonymity to be able to leak a bunch of absolute BS.
And in this about people, in this case, it got Wenho Lee fired and it destroyed his reputation and he's totally innocent.
The federal judge involved in his case issued an apology to him for the United States of America from the bench.
It's almost unprecedented for that to happen.
And these four reporters were the vehicles used to make all this happen in the minds of the public because of their high anonymous sources, close to the investigation or whatever, high government officials.
You know, and so this, it's this anonymous source business that is at the root of the recent hostility toward the media, make no mistake.
One of the many roots of recent hostility toward the media.
Now, I want to share with you something that our old buddy F. Lee Levin posted at National Review Online last night, because the Democrats are still out there, as you've heard in the first hour, still out there trying to make the case that President Bush is lying through his teeth when he says that 9-11 and Iraq have a connection.
He's never said it.
The Democrats are trying to convince everybody he said it.
The press may believe he said it.
I think that they look at things these days with such blinders on, they get a template in their head and they don't hear any.
The template becomes a boundary and anything that contradicts the templary just bounces off of it.
It is stunning, like there's no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
There's 10 years of evidence.
You can't get a mainstream press reporter to get it, to understand it.
They won't see it because they're blinded by whatever else is in front of their face, and that is Bush is lying.
Bush is lying.
Bush is illegitimate.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
The Supreme Court selected him in 2000.
There's such a blinding rage that facts do not permeate.
And so they're out there from members of Congress to certain members of the press are all trying to pass off this notion that Bush is lying now, not only about weapons of mass destruction, but he's lying about the fact that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.
He never said it.
He didn't say it Tuesday night.
So Levin went back and read the resolution that these members of Congress demanded.
There was already a resolution that they all signed granting the president total power to do whatever he had to do to respond to 9-11 shortly after 9-11.
Then the 2002 campaign, the midterm campaign came along.
And right in the middle of the campaign, the Democrats got some polling debt and they learned that they're very weak in the minds of the public when it comes to national defense.
So they started talking tough and they started demanding this and demanding that.
They wanted a new resolution.
They said the previous resolution that was signed and passed after 9-11 didn't cover Iraq.
They wanted to go on the record.
This was in the middle of the campaign, maybe September of 2002, when this all started.
This is when they should have been talking about their kitchen table issues and so forth for the midterm elections in 2002.
Instead, Bush said, okay, you guys want to do a second resolution?
Go right ahead.
Rope a dope again, allowing the Democrats, permitting them to drop what they thought were their strong suit issues and pick up their weak issue and try to make a thing out of it.
So the joint resolution was actually signed on October 11th, 2002.
Among others, here are the signatories, Harry Reid, Hillary Rodham, Charles Schumer, Chucky, to those of you in New York, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, he served in Vietnam, by the way.
John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Jay Rockefeller, among many other Democrats, voted for the October 11, 2002 congressional joint resolution authorizing the president on his discretion to go to war.
Here, and this is the crux of it.
Listen to what the resolution said.
Whereas members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of the United States citizens.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations, blah, blah, blah.
Not a single newspaper bothered to ask any of the critics of the president's speech the other night how they can square their offense at the president's linking terrorism to the war against Iraq when they did the same exact thing in their own resolution that they demanded.
They demanded a chance to debate another resolution to write one, and they did.
And you'll note of the three whereas is what comes last, weapons of mass destruction.
What comes first?
Let me read it to you again.
Whereas members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the U.S., its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on 9-11, are known to be in Iraq.
Whereas members of al-Qaeda are known to be in Iraq.
Again, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Jay Rockefeller, all voted for this.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety, they were so hell-bent on showing the American people that they were Rambo.
They were so hell-bent on showing them that they were Schwarzenegger.
They were determined.
They were tough guys, too, that they authored this thing and then signed it.
Now, to listen to them to this day, the president lied.
The president's making things up.
The president is making it all up.
There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq, and there was no al-Qaeda-Iraq connection in 9-11.
There was no, President White about weapons of mass destruction.
They all agreed back then.
They all authored this resolution, demanded it.
Now, a responsible media would be going to these people and saying, what the hell are you talking about?
Back on October 11th of 2002, you signed this resolution.
You wrote it and you signed it.
What are you talking about?
No, when these people say something, the press duly says that's what they say and forces everybody to react to what the Democrats are saying.
It gets even better.
Let's go to Audio Soundbites 7 and 8.
Mike, last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews, and it's going to illustrate a lot.
We've got two bites here.
He talked to Howard Dean, Dr. Dean.
And Matthews said, last night, the president said the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism.
What did you make of that, Governor?
There are terrible foreign terrorists over there.
They have been drawn to Iraq where they were not there before because we put our troops there.
So you could debate the wisdom of that.
The other people that are creating the mayhem in the streets of Baghdad are people who are fighting for their country.
There are local people who disagree with their occupation.
So Howard Dean calling the terrorists in Iraq people who are fighting for their country who disagree with our occupation.
This is the leader of the Democratic Party who says that he may as well say they're the modern equivalents of our founding fathers.
Well, we know this is not the case.
We know that the vast majority of the quote-unquote insurgents are nothing more than terrorists are coming into Iraq from the Syrian side and from the Iranian side, primarily the Syrian side, and there's some coming in from Saudi Arabia as well.
But it gets better.
The next question from Matthews.
Do you believe the president is still, still trying to perpetrate the myth, the notion that it was Iraq that attacked us on 9-11?
Chris, he has not one time done that.
This is what I mean about these people wearing blinders and having a boundary around them so that when facts intersect, the template that is the boundary just rejects the facts.
They've got this template set up.
They've been on it so long, they actually believe Bush has all along said that Iraq had something to do with 9-11.
He has said just the opposite.
The president has said publicly in press conferences, in response to questions, no, we don't think there was a connection between Iraq and 9-11.
I don't know how plain it can be.
I do not know how more plain spoken the president could be, and yet listen to these guys, and he's lying, and he's saying something else, and he's operating on a myth.
And here's Dean's response to this.
Sure, I think the president made a terrible, terrible mistake in getting us into Iraq.
And now we really have a big problem in our hands.
We have a security problem that we didn't have before.
Now the president is trying to make this into a war on terrorism.
It is a war on terrorism in the sense that there are certainly international terrorists in Iraq.
The point is, there weren't any to speak of before we got there.
No, they were all making tracks to get into the United States and other nations where we had installations.
It is impossible to conceive of the mind processes of these people.
It is just impossible.
You have to be blinded by such rage, paranoia, and defeatism to come up with this kind of thinking to justify your positions that it is beyond my ability as a rational, logical person to explain this to you.
Back after this, stay with us.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
And we're all interested in fairness here.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program of the EIB Network, and this is Jenny in Rockford, Michigan.
Hi, Jenny.
Homeschooling dittos, Mr. Limbaugh.
Thank you very much.
I have to disagree with you, and I never thought I would do that, but I have to disagree with you.
I think that the reason why we're having the discussion that we are today is because there is no consequence for reporters in their reporting when it's a lie, when it's inaccurate, when it's supposition, when it's nothing more than a whim or a poke at a balloon, they want to get a rise out of somebody.
They want to just get printed because it's controversial.
There is absolutely no consequence.
And when there's no consequence, they're not going to change anything.
They're not going to change that behavior.
It's a fine line.
In the case of Judith Miller and Matt Cooper, the law is the law.
I know.
If they go to jail, it's going to be because they refuse to follow a court order.
The court has ordered them to turn over a list of their confidential sources.
And that is the law.
I understand it.
And I said earlier the Valerie Plame thing is no big deal.
It isn't in the big scope of it.
It was when it first happened.
You have to remember why.
The Democrats were hoping it would result in Karl Rove going to jail.
The Democrats hoped they were going to be able to tie this back to Rove.
The White House called for this investigation since they were accused here.
They're in the high levels of the administration.
But there have been no charges or anything.
I understand the reporters, they face law like everybody else.
They've got to be, you know, the court order says you're going to tell us who your sources are to say, nope, okay, you're in contempt of court.
And they've been getting plenty of time to think about it.
So it's a fine line here.
And I know that if the situation were reversed, these people couldn't wait to see me go to jail.
Well, and the problem with me is I really don't think it's a fine line.
I think that if you're a conservative, you have to toe the line.
And you're constantly justifying yourself and justifying your argument and backing it up with evidence and backing that evidence up with evidence.
And if you're a liberal, you have this carte blanch ability to just throw anything out there.
If it sticks, it sticks.
And if it doesn't, it doesn't.
And if it sticks, well, then, look, it's stuck and it's a story and it might have led to something.
But if it doesn't, well, we can just push that under the rug.
I try not to personalize these things.
I really, really do.
But in this case, I have to respond personally.
You are not telling me anything I don't know.
And you're not telling me anything that I've faced personally, all of this unsourced anonymous sources and sources close to this or sources close to that.
And you wouldn't believe the amount of BS that's out there.
And they can hide behind it and they can.
And they wrap themselves in the First Amendment as though they were.
I know what you're saying about there being no consequences.
You make a powerful point.
I will admit that.
It is, you know, when you come down to it, the law is the law on this.
Well, that's why we read the Limbaugh letter, and at least we know the truth when we read it.
Well, it points out one of the problems.
If the press wants to understand a problem they've got, and I don't think they do, I think that it's not just the press.
It's just the whole left.
I think there's such an arrogance and a condescension there, an elitism, if you will.
We're smarter than everybody else.
We're better than everybody else.
We're more important than everybody else.
There is a little bit of, hey, you can't hold us accountable to these laws that you're the peons to.
Who do you think?
You know, we're defenders of the Constitution here.
No, no, the defenders of the Constitution are in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you want to get down to it.
But this constant use of unnamed anonymous sources.
Look, we've got Newsweek.
And look how the media circle the wagons to protect Newsweek after that.
And they circle the wagons any time any of their cherished members do something wrong.
They'll circle the wagons and try to come out with stories to prove that their wronged member of the club was actually right.
Which is what all this Club Gitmo stuff is about, folks.
All this reporting on Club Gitmo about how it's a torture chamber down there, it's all because of the Newsweek story.
And I told you it's going to happen.
They're circling the wagons, trying to make sure that Newsweek is ultimately proved right because they do think that if Newsweek goes down, it's bad for all of them.
That's another thing.
It makes it unlike real life America.
In this sense, if in a normal business setting, you've got Time and U.S. News that compete with Newsweek, okay?
So Newsweek does something wrong.
In the business world, you'd have Time and U.S. News exploiting this to the end of the earth, trying to destroy Newsweek to get its advertisers, to get its readers, and to grow your own public.
When your competitor makes a goof up like this, but oh, no, no, no, not in the mainstream press.
It's circle the wagons time.
Because even though they write for time or they write for Newsweek or they write for U.S. News, it doesn't matter where they work.
They all have the same template.
They all have the same agenda.
They all have got the same view of things.
And so they're all Indians in the same teepee.
And if that TP is attacked, they all got to go and circle the wagons, the buffalo or whatever, and protect each other.
And it just, it ought to go to show you there.
I don't even think there's much competition.
Particularly in the elite print media.
Look, they circled the wagons around Dan Rather.
They did everything.
They had all kinds of honorary dinners for him and gave him the Peabody Award for great news coverage on Abu Ghraib.
It's not just the print side.
But the notion that there are no consequences for their mistakes, that's a powerful point because other than losing audience, but they don't seem to care about that.
I mean, they are losing audience, but they don't seem to care.
It's the most amazing.
They don't even care about that.
And they say, well, the audience is too stupid.
We don't want those people if they're not smart enough to know how good we are.
That's just, it boggles them.
I couldn't, I wouldn't have survived.
If I had that attitude, you people would have never heard of me.
It's just.
Break time.
Be right back after this.
Don't go away.
Tickling those 88s.
Talent on loan from God.
And back to the phones.
Trake, one more here before we get back to the stacks of stuff.
I go to Washington, Missouri.
Hello, Cliff.
You're next.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Hey, Rush, I'd like to comment on the president's speech the other night, if I could.
I seen kind of like a shift in strategy.
I think he was preparing the nation for what I see as a long haul.
And I was wondering what you thought about that.
Well, okay, I'll be glad to tell you.
I distinctly remember when the president first spoke after 9-11.
And then I remember when he spoke to the nation the night we launched our attack against the terrorists at the time in Afghanistan.
And I remember on both occasions, he said it's going to take a long time, that this war may and probably will last longer than his two terms, his presidency.
He said at the time, if he were fortunate to get a second term.
I have never been under the illusion that this was going to happen overnight.
I don't know where people are getting the notion that it was.
Now, some people, actually, I do.
I think some people are somehow failing to see the linkage between Iraq and the war on terror.
They see the war on terror to Afghanistan as the war on terror.
And then they see the war in Iraq as the war in Iraq.
And then they see the president going on the aircraft carrier and saying, job well done, victory is ours, whatever the sign said.
And so then they see, okay, the war on terrorism in Iraq is going on in Afghanistan is ongoing, but in Iraq, the president already said we claim victory, but yet it's still going on there.
I don't have any trouble with these distinctions.
The purpose of going into Iraq was to get rid of the Hussein regime and to get our hands around the weapons of mass destruction.
And we accomplished it.
And there was no, there was, I don't, I don't, there was anything particularly wrong with declaring victory.
That was the mission objective there.
So we are in the process of then rebuilding and reestablishing Iraq as a functioning democracy, for lack of a better term.
I mean, a country with self-determination with open and free elections, rebuilding the infrastructure.
And bamo, here come some terrorists coming into the country.
Additional terrorists, because we know that al-Qaeda has always had links to Iraq.
And so the war on terror shifts.
Nobody thinks the war on terror was over when Afghanistan was subdued, do they?
Haven't yet heard anybody.
No, they can't, nobody.
Mr. Snerdley, don't even try.
The Democrats have been out there saying the war won't be over until we get bin Laden.
Now, there may have been some jerks out there saying the war on terror was over with Afghanistan, but nobody anywhere that has any credibility whatsoever is saying that.
The war on terror was never over after Afghanistan.
So there's a new front in Iraq.
Now, the best I can think that the opposition come up with is this argument.
Well, yeah, it's in Iraq, but it wouldn't have happened in Iraq if we hadn't gone in there.
Well, we didn't go in there specifically to battle terrorists.
We went in there to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction because terrorists could get a hand on those and then we'd all be up the creek.
Folks, one of the, okay, then I say that, remind everybody of that, then I know what the response could be.
Well, yeah, but there weren't any weapons of mass destruction because Bush lied.
I can't win with people that think like that.
We've got a reality that's right in front of our face and we got people, nimrods, who refuse to see it.
I don't know how to deal with them.
It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The fact that it makes sense to them is the biggest mystery of my life, other than why are we all here.
But the say that with humor, folks, don't get upset out there.
All of this is so logical to me if you have a basic understanding that we're the good guys and there are people that want to wipe us out.
Now, if you come from a different position, that we're the lone superpower and therefore we're the bad guys and we deserve what we get or we have no right to defend ourselves, then maybe I could begin to understand the convoluted way you look at things.
But I will never be convinced you're right about the convoluted way you look at things.
This all makes total sense.
There has not been a shift.
The president hasn't shifted at all.
He's been utterly consistent.
You know, look, a lot of you people think, well, yeah, Rush, but you know, all you are, you're just a shill for the White House.
All you do is just sit out there and regurgitate whatever.
Wrong.
I've got a story here that I literally don't understand.
$1.2 billion in AIDS to aid to Africa for malaria.
We just keep piling on more aid to Africa.
It's not the answer to the question.
And I'm saying, why are we doing this now?
And I think the answer is PR for Live 8.
What PR for Live 8?
This concert coming up Saturday over in Paris.
Want to get in on all this worldwide recognition?
White House responding to all these claims we don't do enough.
We do so much for Africa.
You know, there's a story.
I have it in the stack here.
I forgot where.
I don't know if I even printed it out, but some African expert.
Oh, strangely enough, folks, it's Tina Brown's column today in the Washington Post.
And even stranger than that, it makes some sense today.
Yes.
Tina Brown is writing about how she's sick and tired.
And granted, she had a show that didn't work, but she's sick and tired of watching the same old thing repeated on cable television.
The same pointy-headed intellectual guests, the same politicians, the same format, the same arguing back and forth, same BS.
They're not getting expert guests.
And she talks about some guy who's an expert on Africa that you never hear about because he's too boring on television.
But he's come up.
Look, Africa's had troubles for the longest time.
And people look at Africa romantically and think it's just waiting to be fixed.
He said, the problem with Africa is the smartest people leave.
The smartest people in Africa leave and they come to the West or they go to other regions of the world.
They go to Europe.
They get educated and they stay there.
They don't stay there.
They leave Africa.
He says, a brain drain, a number of other things like this.
And that's something that makes sense.
So here the idea that we don't give money to Africa, we don't support Africa.
We haven't assisted Africa.
Hell's bells, folks.
We're in the process.
We still can't nail it down.
We're in the process of nailing down how many billions, billions, billions over just the last 20 years that we've dished out there.
So I just, you know, all of these things disagree with the president on immigration, disagree with the president on some of his domestic policies in the first term, education, all this spending on education.
Where is he getting us?
So there's no shillac going on here.
I'm just, I'm just, when it comes to the war in Iraq and the war on terror, he has been as consistent as anything.
In fact, he doesn't change his mind about anything.
That's one of the things that the left gets mad at him.
He won't even change his mind.
He won't even say sorry.
He won't even admit mistakes.
Now, he's got his beliefs, and he's out there trying to ram them through.
He's trying to accomplish things.
But when it comes to the war in Iraq and a war on terror, nobody that I know ever thought it was going to be over by now.
And nobody I know that's got a centilla of intelligence thought the war on terror was over when Iraq was quote like now.
Nancy Pelosi said the war.
I take it back.
There is a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.
I should have known it resides in the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Nancy Pelosi said last week the war in Afghanistan's over.
And she's trying to make the point that the war on terror is over.
And now Bush is trying to say the war in Iraq is the war on terror, which it is because that's who we're fighting.
So a long answer to the question out there, Cliff, but no, I don't think there's been a shift at all.
Jack in Columbia, South Carolina, welcome to the program.
Oh, it's going to be hard to follow those words of wisdom there, Rush.
Well, it's always hard for a caller to follow the host.
I understand that, but you can do it.
That's why you were chosen.
Well, my take on this Lee reporters not wanting to give their sources is what if they do not have any sources?
They just made it up on the fly to get some name recognition.
Oh, now.
Sorry.
That's an interesting point.
The Sacramento Bee just reported that there were 43 people, sources, instances, whatever, that a fired reporters they couldn't account for in her writing over 10 years.
She just made it up.
We know this happens.
Janet, what's her face, made up a drug addict and got one of the Pulitzer out of it?
Yeah, Janet Cook, yeah.
We know that, what's his name, the New York Times, Jason Blair, Stephen Glass of the New Republicans, people are all over the place, just literally making it up.
Dan Rather.
Dan Rather not only made it up, but had somebody forge some documents for him.
He knew.
And still thinks it's true.
In fact, yes, that's the point.
In fact, he knows this story is so true, he went and made up the facts to convince everybody.
So your point is, what if there are no anonymous sources?
Well, they just made it up.
Well, that, and also, if I was a reporter and I got burned by a high-ranking administrative source and I got called before a federal judge and was held in contempt, I would burn the anonymous source down with me instead of hiding behind some kind of protection simply because I couldn't admit the truth.
That's what people were saying after the Newsweek boondoggle on Bibles at Club or Korans at Club Gitmo.
Okay, so somebody administration really set Newsweek up.
Why don't you burn that source?
No, you're doing a great job of following the host here, Jack.
Well, thank you, sir.
You're doing a great job.
Now, this is not to say that these four reporters in a Winhole Lee case made it up, but it has to be thrown up as a possibility.
He has to conclude it may be possible.
The New York Times had to fire people for this.
Washington Post, I don't know what problems they've had in this regard.
But it's, I think there's an AP reporter in there, too.
So in this case, it probably is a high-ranking government.
It was the Clinton administration.
It probably was somebody in government.
It probably is a source.
But don't forget, when you're in the media, mainstream press in Washington, and the administration is the Clinton administration, your high-level sources are your drinking buddies.
Your high-level sources, you know, they're the ones you go chase women with.
Your high-level sources, or they may be the women you chase.
They are your friends is the point, and you don't want to burn your friends.
You may take them up privately.
What the hell are you doing setting me up?
You're not going to burn them.
Because a high-level government source one time may be one next administration.
It's such an incestuous pool out there, folks.
It just is.
This is kind of funny.
This is from the Hill.
Representative Steve Israel, a Democrat from New York, organizing a letter with other House Democrats asking Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to repudiate Karl Rove's recent comments about the liberal response to the 9-11 terrorists.
Israel was among several other Democrat lawmakers who spoke out this week in floor speeches.
They want Rumsfeld to write Rovala and say, Rove, you're wrong.
These Democrats didn't ask for therapy and they didn't want indictments.
They were with us and they wanted to go pedal to the metal to go get these guys.
Now, does this not tell you these are the people that are trying to get Rumsfeld thrown in jail?
Rumsfeld has been sued by some group personally over torture.
It's a group that votes Democrat.
The Democrats in the House and the Senate before when they have hearings are always trying to blame Rumsfeld for this and blame Rumsfeld for this, telling Rumsfeld he ought to resign.
Now they want Rumsfeld to repudiate Rove.
Here's Michelle in Chicago.
Hi, Michelle.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's a pleasure to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, just as clear as a bell.
Oh, good.
I wanted to thank you for the tremendous amount of respect that you show your audience, as well as the daily lesson in logic and clear thinking that we can take throughout our day and use for other things.
And the analogy you drew between the search in Aruba and the search for the weapons of mass destruction was brilliant.
That's just a small recent example.
But I mean, I've used my lessons from the EIB network in all areas of life, and I just wanted to thank you for that.
Well, you are more than welcome.
I appreciate your saying that, Michelle.
You're wonderful.
You're a gift to us.
And everything you say, you know, the arrogance of the left, there's a difference between arrogance and confidence that comes through crystal clear if a person would just listen to you.
You know, arrogance is sort of hiding from logic and just saying, no, it's me.
I can say what I want.
Whereas you, you know, you're always acknowledging that your talent is on loan from God.
And I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but it's true as well.
You know, one of the things I like to do is tweak the left.
I've known from the get-go that small nimrod-minded Democrats would think I was saying, I think I'm God.
Exactly.
Talent on loan from God.
And I just love tweaking them that way.
I love doing things to tweak the left to get them all upset because that's when they're funniest.
And you do a good job.
Wonderful.
Excellent.
Thank you, Michelle.
Appreciate you.
You're very kind.
Carrie in Bakersfield, California.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the program.
Oh, man.
What a thrill to be speaking to the man.
Yes.
I don't know which half of your brain I'm speaking to, but someday I want to talk to the whole thing.
But my point is the Democrats, for those of us that are over 50, it's just kind of amazing that we're hearing this Vietnam thing rehashed over and over again.
Kerry tried it, of course, during the last election.
But holy smoke, if you just substitute the word Vietnam every time they talk about Iraq, or if you substitute Ho Chi Minh for Saddam.
I mean, whatever.
I mean, they loved Ho Chi Minh.
It's exactly the same thing.
I mean, I'm reliving this.
I'm having my own Groundhog Day thing all over again.
But this is the same doggone stuff.
They've never won an election running on an anti-war platform.
Tell me where that's ever worked.
It doesn't work.
And they just seem to be.
Exactly.
Their whole playbook.
That's what's amazing to watch this.
Their whole playbook is a bunch of losing plays, no touchdowns.
And yet they keep going back to it.
The Vietnam War.
I saw, I was watching Britt Hume's Fox show, 6 o'clock, one night this week, and they went back.
This is show prep for the rest of the media stuff.
went back and they actually got all kinds of video of the Democrats and the press in press, primarily the press, but a lot of Democrats too, asking President Bush if this Iraq thing is just not Vietnam all over again, going back two and three years.
They've been at it that long trying to, because that's the glory days.
They called Afghanistan a quagmire after a while because not enough was going on there.
And so everything is, yeah, the template of Vietnam.
That's why you're seeing it out there, Gare, is because that's what they're reliving.
Because to them, that and Watergate, those were the two things where they think in their past they have been most powerful and most influential.
And they're just, you know, they're like a bunch of people that just can't get over the glory days and want to relive them over and over again because nothing new and exciting is as powerful or good.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, folks, break time.
It's the fastest three hours in media, and two of them are already histois and in an armored courier on the way to the future site of the Limbaugh Museum of Broadcasting.
Lots more straight ahead, though, and we'll be right back and get started with all of it.
▲
Export Selection