All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
June 30, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have every day here on the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Great to be with you, ladies and gentlemen.
An hour to go here.
Oh, no, don't sneeze.
Don't do it.
I take one of those Clareton D things every day.
Used to be prescription.
Now they're over-the-counter, and they normally work, but sometimes I think I've weathered this one.
I was on the verge of sneezing, and that's just not polite.
Anyway, as I was saying, the telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, is 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
How long ago was it, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democrats decided that they needed some help communicating?
So they went out and got this George Lakoff guy from Berkeley, Lakoff rhymes with.
I mean, it's been months, has it not?
And can we safely say that they haven't learned anything yet?
This is assuming Lakoff has something to teach them, but they think he does.
He's been showing up all over the place for I don't know how long now.
Lakoff has a post or an article, whatever you would call it, at the fledgling and little read.
Actually, this is one of the best kept secret websites out there, the Huffington Post.
And in it, he talks about Rove.
He says, Rove rides again with the help of the Democrats.
Lakoff says, for a while last week, the Democrats were doing better at framing the issues.
The poll numbers showed that Bush's approval number was down, that around 60% of the voters had turned against the Iraq war, that support for Bush was lower, but still pretty high on the war on terror.
They correctly recognize in the numbers that the public had begun to separate Iraq from 9-11, and they recognized the relevance of the Downing Street memo in showing that it's a, it's, George, did you not hear what Tony Blair said yesterday?
The Downing Street number.
At any rate, in short, the Democrats had begun to use the basics of framing issues in terms of their own values and principles, the lessons arising from research at the Rock Ridge Institute, whatever the hell that is.
But then, sadly, writes Lakoff, they lost it.
Karl Rove outsmarted the Democrats again, and he used the most basic trick in the book to do it.
The first lesson of framing is not to activate the other guy's frame.
Imagine the Democrats.
Imagine John Kerry sitting in a class with this guy as the professor.
So Lakoff says to the Democrats in the class, the first lesson here, class, is the first lesson of framing, not to activate the other guy's frame.
Oh, wait, I have a question about what does that mean?
What does it mean?
Well, here's what Lakoff says.
It means negating a frame activates it in the minds of hearers.
As Richard Nixon found out when he said, I am not a crook, and everybody thought of him as a crook.
The very title of my book, Don't Think of an Elephant, makes the point.
If you negate a frame, it reinforces the frame.
Oh, I see it.
So it's like saying, don't think pink.
Rove managed to link Iraq with 9-11 again and to delegitimate the Democrats in the process.
And he did it with the Democrats' help.
Rove achieved this brilliantly in one sentence.
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9-11 and the attacks and prepared for war.
Liberals saw the savagery of the 9-11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.
When the Democrats took the bait, Rove reeled them in.
Here's what he achieved.
He changed the context of discourse from Bush's disaster in Iraq to support for Bush in the wake of 9-11.
Well, he lists 10 points.
I'm not going to read all 10s, but here's number seven.
Moreover, using the word liberal and not Democrat, Rove made it look like any Democrat attacking his remarks was a lily-livered liberal and that the party had been taken over by weak-kneed chickens.
Anybody against Bush's use of the military?
Now, I'm going to make a point here.
For you Democrats listening, I don't know how much you're paying Lackoff to guide you through the linguistics of politics, but you may as well hire the first person you see on 7th Avenue in Manhattan because that's what everybody thought.
Everybody figured this out.
Rove uses the word liberals, and the first thing that happens, every Democrat in the world stands up and starts protesting.
They have spent their whole last 10 years trying to come up with a new term for liberal.
No, we're progressives.
No, we're moderates.
No, we're forward thinkers.
You call them liberals and they say you're engaging in a personal attack.
Their proper response would have been, who are you talking about, Mr. Rove?
But no, they all stood up and they said, I resent that.
He has to apologize.
He better resign.
Bush better get rid of him.
And now they want Rumsfeld.
Now they want Rumsfeld to chide Rove.
Some Democrats in the House want Rumsfeld to say that Rove was wrong.
What should liberals have learned from reading the Rock Ridge Institute website and don't think of an elephant?
Anyway, the point is that Lackoff here has been trying to teach these guys and they are not learning, folks.
And here's more evidence.
This is a story.
I've got two of them here from the Boston Globe today.
Democrats struggle to find one voice on Iraq.
Is that not perfect coming after this Lackoff piece of the Huffington Post?
House and Senate Democrats, sensing an opportunity in President Bush's sagging poll numbers and an increasingly unpopular war, have held a series of...
It's not...
Stay the course here, Rush.
Have held a series of long closed-door meetings over the past several weeks to find a common position and a sharpened political message on the Iraq war.
This is unbelievable.
They're still having meetings now behind closed doors to come up with a consensus about what they all think.
Can I offer some help here?
You Democrats, you liberals, just listen to me.
I will tell you who you are, and I can do it inside of 10 minutes, and I do every day.
I perfectly identify you.
I know you better than I know the back of my hand.
I know what you're going to do before you do it.
I know what your policy positions are.
I know what your position on any issue is going to be.
I know who you are.
The fact that you won't admit it is a problem you've got, but this idea that they got to sit around behind closed doors and come up with a consensus and stay on the same page.
When is a Democrat ever off their reservation?
Tell me, who are the Democrat Chuck Hagels and John McCain's and Lindsey Grahams?
Can somebody give me a name?
Who are they?
No, Lieberman's not off the reservation on this stuff.
Occasionally he goes off the reservation.
No, you can't predict it.
You can't bank on it.
But who are they?
What is this?
It's a joke.
Sitting behind closed doors to come up with what they believe?
This whole thing is a sham.
I don't care if it's ABC, CBS, CNN, whoever, New York Times, Washington Post, John Kerry, they all say the same thing.
We do it every day here.
We've put montages together.
Here's a Democrat saying something.
Here's a press member saying something, followed by another Democrat, followed by another reporter, followed by another Democrat.
They say the same thing.
Somebody's churning out the talking points, and they're all following him.
It doesn't matter who says it.
Teddy Kennedy says nothing different than Robert Byrd, who says nothing different than Chuck Schumer, who says nothing different than Nancy Pelosi, who says nothing different than Harry Reid, who says nothing different than Howard Dean.
That's just my reaction to the first paragraph of this story.
Here's the next paragraph.
Some participants in the meeting said that Bush's failure to articulate an exit strategy in his speech on Tuesday might only not only underscored the need for Democrats to devise their position, but they acknowledged that within the party there are fundamentally different views on the war.
The case for an exit strategy is only growing stronger every day, said Representative Matty Meehan of Massachusetts.
The lack of consensus was evident at a two and a half hour lunch meeting with House Democrats earlier this month.
Some argued for immediate and full withdrawal, while others countered that troops should be withdrawn more gradually, and some said there should be no timetable, according to House members who attended the meeting.
Doesn't matter.
It's all about various forms of retreat.
Don't you people understand what you sound like?
We need to get out now.
No, we need to get out soon.
No, we need to get out later than soon.
Oh, we don't need a timetable.
I don't know what we...
You all sound like you want to give up.
You all sound like the French.
You all sound like you want to surrender.
It's just the differing degrees that we hear you say it.
Do they not get this, folks?
They must not.
What's the next paragraph?
We have people who are coming at this from a lot of different places, said Maxine Waters.
It's getting better because members are responding to the polls and asking the right questions now, but we have to bring more attention to this.
We cannot be silent.
Oh, you're responding to the polls.
Another thing I could tell you that you do all the time.
Okay, so they're responding to the polls.
What do we have here so far?
They're still holding meetings to find a position.
Their position, no matter how they slice it, equals some degree of retreat or defeat or surrender.
We got to keep listening to the polls out there.
And then there's this.
Senate Democrats had a similar meeting last week, which ended with senators agreeing to demand clearer goals from the Bush administration, but disagreeing on what the goals should be.
So the Democrats met behind closed doors, also to try to figure out what to do, and they were all in unity when they said that Bush needs firm goals.
Somebody said, well, what are ours?
Well, they don't have any goals other than retreat.
Various forms of retreat, defeat, and surrender.
Liberals such as liberals such as Dennis Kucinich.
Who wrote this?
Rick Klein.
Note to Rick Klein, Boston Globe.
They're all liberals.
Did you see them all react to Karl Rove?
Gosh, this is unbelievable.
I can't believe these people that write this stuff graduated from a journalism school.
Liberals, such as Dennis Kucinich, have demanded an immediate withdrawal of troops.
New York Senator Hillary Rodham, who is eyeing her run for president, warned that an intense public debate over Iraq could bitterly divide the nation, as happened during the Vietnam War when there was conflict in the streets.
And she knows what our previous caller knows, that no Democrats win on an anti-war agenda.
Is there any more of this I wish to explore?
Democrats see discontent with Bush as a powerful tool to use against incumbent Republicans in next year's midterm and congressional elections.
Okay, so how do we hear this?
Can we just review this piece?
Democrats in the House, Democrats in the Senate met behind closed doors, holding meetings to find out their position.
When you listen to them discuss the contents of their meetings, what you learn is that their position is one form or another of retreat.
Then you learn that Maxine Waters is urging and praising members for responding to polls.
Then you learn that the real purpose of the meeting is to sit there and calculate how can we use the war to win the election in 2006.
Now, you guys can go to Lakoff's class all day.
I'm going to give you one bit of advice.
I'm just going to give you some learning here.
If you want to use the war, which it's just another issue, it's no different than Social Security to them.
It's no different than tax cuts or tax increases.
It's just, gosh, how can we use this?
How can we use this?
Let me tell you, act.
Even if you have to act.
Just act.
And I know it's going to be hard because what is this?
This is 2005 and those elections are basically 14 or 15 months away.
If you can do it for 15 months, Democrats, I personally have my doubts, but if you can do it, act, because I know it'll be an act.
Act like you want to win it.
Now, I know this is controversial within the liberal and Democrat Party circles, winning the war, because many of you think that's unfair.
It's an ignoble, unjust war, and we have no right to even be there.
So you have to act.
But just, you know, and I'm not charging you anything here, and I'm enraging my audience by giving you this advice.
But I'm confident you will not listen to it.
You'll not take it.
I'm also confident you can't pull off this act for longer than maybe a day, much less 15 months.
But you might look at the war out there, and you might realize who's fighting it, and you might actually try to convince the American people that you too want to win it.
Think of the possibilities.
Yeah, about to have a seizure here, folks, over the absolute idiocy I am reading.
And Democrats keep talking to us about their principles.
They have to go behind closed doors to come up with some, and then they can't when it's all over, except various forms of retreat.
On the second page of this story by Rick Klein in the Boston Globe, and I, you know, you have to know that the Globe publishes this in a dead series.
This is a great piece of turtleism.
I'm sure they think this is serious reporting.
Democrat Party and its policies.
They don't realize Saturday Night Live could not write this story.
The greatest comedy writer alive could not write this story because the key to the humor in this is trying to pass this off as somehow substantive.
Because later on in the story, on page two, which I'm holding here in my formerly nicotine stained finger, you will not believe this.
They quote Ashley Wilkes, Wesley Clark, who said, now remember what the point of the story is, Democrats struggle to find one voice on a rock.
Here's what Wesley Clark said.
It's not realistic for Democrats to have a coherent voice.
Well, there is some truth.
Let me give you the rest of the quote.
It's not realistic for Democrats to have a coherent voice, Clark said.
The president's the commander-in-chief.
It's his job to create the strategery for success.
It's the Democrats' responsibility to surface the issues and to hold them accountable.
This may be, the first half of this quote may be the first intelligent, realistic thing that Ashley Wilkes has said since he decided to run for president when he said it's not realistic for Democrats to have a coherent voice.
Now, the Democrats are trying to find a coherent voice.
They're coherent.
We're trying to find a single voice, one policy or whatever.
And Clark says, no, that's not up to them to have one.
If you don't have an opposition, if you don't disagree, you can't.
Well, I don't even need to finish the blanks for you there.
This is who they are.
Now, we stay with the Boston Globe.
It is a gold mine today.
The next piece is a column by John Vanaki.
And whereas the first piece was all about how the Democrats can't figure out what to say and all that, Joan Venaki thought, no, they've already figured it out because their headline, Democrats buy into Bush's war.
And here is just an excerpt.
Here was a rare expression of candor concerning the Iraq war, or there was on Tuesday night, and it didn't come from President Bush.
It came from Senator Kerry.
Kerry, who served in Vietnam and who was interviewed on Larry King Alive after the president's speech, was asked by the substitute host, Bob Costas, if he and other Democrats were too docile and too compliant in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Kerry replied, well, many of those questions were raised, but not enough.
And I plead guilty.
I've said this in public, too.
Did you notice he always says this?
I have said this publicly, too.
It's a defensive mechanism.
It probably never has said it, but he thinks nobody can prove it, so he's going to claim he said it.
Many of the questions were raised, but not enough.
And I plead guilty.
And I think a lot of people in the party would.
But when Kerry was asked by Costas, is Bush getting an unfair shake?
Kerry said, to some degree, I think that's true.
And I've said that publicly.
When did he say that in public?
When has he ever said in public that Bush, to some degree, is getting an unfair shake?
Kerry said, we've made progress.
No, I don't believe it is today, but it could become a quagmire if we don't make the right choices soon.
So here's a guy that was going to call for impeachment hearings for the Downing Street memo, backed off of that, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times on Tuesday saying, this is what Bush better say tonight.
And he better come clean.
He better tell the truth.
And then he says, well, I think he is getting an unfair shake.
And I've said that publicly.
We're making progress in Iraq?
Kerry flip-flopping again.
So, folks, I mean, you Democrats, move on 527 feet.
You can have them.
I just got something very puzzling in the email.
It says application approval number 8917.
So if you've got something in the email that says you, application approval, it must mean you have applied for something, right?
Only I didn't apply for anything.
It says, hello, we sent you an email a while ago because you now qualify for a much lower rate based on the biggest rate drop in years.
You can now get $325,000 for as little as $615 a month.
Bad credit?
Doesn't matter.
low rates are fixed no matter what what i what i don't understand about if if i if i needed 325 000 i'd i'd cash a check and go to the bank what are these people sending me these notes for that i can buy it for 600 why would i want to buy 325 000 for 615 a month
You know, I got to wonder about some of these marketers out there.
I just happened to see that.
When I saw approval, I said, what did I apply for?
I don't remember.
Get this from the Washington Post.
Snurdley's in there with his head.
Here's the headline of the story.
Mexican stamps, racist civil rights leaders say.
What a day this is.
The Mexican government issued a series of stamps yesterday depicting a dark-skinned Jim Crow-era cartoon character with greatly exaggerated eyes and lips, which infuriates black and Hispanic civil rights leaders for the second time in weeks.
Mexican postal officials said the five-stamp series features Mamin Penguin, a character from a comic book created in the 40s because he's beloved in Mexico.
Spokesman for the Mexican embassy described the depiction as a cultural image that has no meaning and it's not intended to offend.
And, you know, the Mexicans are saying, Mexicans say, hey, look, we never got upset when you created Speedy Gonzalez.
You know, Speedy Gonzalez always was the good guy.
Speedy Gonzalez always won at the end of the episode.
I don't know.
Let's go on this global warming stuff.
I mentioned this to you earlier because this is just, this is, this is a riot.
This is a, one of this is from, I think it's Live Science, and this is from Live Science, and the third one is New Scientist.
Okay, two of these from livescience.com.
Global warming makes sea less salty.
You won't want to drink water straight from the ocean anytime soon, but the salt content is on the decline, a sign of potentially worrisome consequences that scientists can't accurately predict, and they can't explain either.
Since the late 60s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in freshwater runoff induced by global warming.
Fresh water runoff is now because of global...
I thought the sea level was going to rise because icebergs were going to melt.
Anyway, now for the first time, researchers have quantified this freshwater influx, allowing them to predict the long-term effects of a conveyor belt of ocean currents.
Climate changes in the northern hemisphere have melted glaciers and brought more rain, dumping more freshwater into the oceans.
One of the expected high-profile consequences is a rising sea that will swamp coastal communities, but there are other possible effects.
It goes on and on and on and on and on.
Then you get to the end of the story.
A study last year concluded that an altered conveyor belt could actually plunge the planet into global cooling.
So the whole story is based on this conveyor belt that's causing the seawater to get less salty.
And it's global warming that's causing it.
But now this same conveyor effect is going to lead, plunge the planet into global cooling.
All right.
That, well, what do you mean we can fix this one?
How are we going to fix this one?
Snurdly says to fix this one, just take our salt and dump it in the ocean.
Oh, yeah.
Next time you take a cruise ship down to Aruba, just take a bunch of box of morton salt and pour it in.
That's not exactly what it is, Mr. Snerdley.
It's Brian, but it's not.
But we don't want to solve the problem.
The point is that the conveyor belt is going to cure global warming.
This is the Earth fixing itself.
We don't have to do anything is the point.
That story doesn't make it.
That's just my intelligent conclusion.
Global warming story number two from live science senior writer Roy Britt.
Global warming.
Just keep churning this crap out, folks.
global warming might create lopsided planets what does this say uh Extra precipitation expected as a result of global warming.
Really?
No.
If it rains more, it's not global warming.
Extra precipitation expected as a result of global warming could create a lopsided world in which sea ice increases around the South Pole while the far north melts away.
A new study illustrates the difficulty in predicting.
Why write this story?
I'm supposed to go play golf this afternoon.
They can't tell me if it's going to rain today or not.
Well, Rush, there's a 60% chance sometime after 3 o'clock.
That's the best we can do.
Well, here we are predicting salt levels, conveyor belts, global warming, plunging temperatures.
For Antarctica, the new study concludes the extra precipitation will mean deeper snow, which will suppress sea ice below it, making it thicker over time.
The idea runs counter to a study earlier this year that found glaciers in part of Antarctica are melting rapidly.
So, well, they contradict themselves in this because all the rain caused by global warming is going to increase ice around the South Pole, and yet ice at the South Pole is melting.
And huh?
No, no, no.
The South Pole, they say, is melting now.
It may be.
I mean, these things, you know, you can't judge this in the course of a two or three human generations.
You're going to judge this in terms of thousands of years.
But since we're alive now and we all might die, we have to get a handle on this.
No, the prevailing global warming theory is that the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning and breaking off, and glaciers are roaming around out there, and we have to go rope them in and bring them back and nail them back together down there to save the planet.
This doesn't even account for the story I had earlier in the week.
They're going to put this giant ring around the equator of space dust or spacecraft to reflect the sunlight back out into space.
You remember that one?
This is four wacko stories in one week.
A giant space ring.
They want this planet to look like Saturn.
They want to create a giant ring around the equator to shield or shade the equatorial and tropical areas of the planet and thereby cool them off and to stave off global warming.
The downside they said to this is that these particles that we launch into space that make up the ring, and it would cost over a trillion dollars to launch all this stuff up there, basically put space junk up there.
But maybe even $13 trillion.
I forget.
The price tag is outrageous.
But the problem, the real only problem they said, the only problem is that when it's nighttime on that part of the planet where it's nighttime, the sun will be reflecting off of the space ring and lighting up the nighttime sky to the tune of the full moon or more every night.
Now, you don't think that would screw up the animals?
You know, animals, the moon, they don't have a clue what it is.
Sea turtles would be hardest hit.
I mean, you know, these things, we're not supposed to have light up there because the baby turtles hatch and they'll go the wrong places.
They'll be totally confused.
You'll have sea turtle babies trying to jump into the sky to get to the light.
They haven't thought this through.
They really haven't thought this.
Here's now the last global warming story.
Soot blamed for global warming.
Underestimate.
We are underestimating the real global warming because of the soot up there.
This is from newscientists.com.
Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research.
Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there has been so far.
I'm not kidding.
That's what it says.
Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research.
Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there's been.
Three top climate researchers claim that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere should have warmed the world far more than they have.
The reason they've not, they say, is that the warming is being masked by sun-blocking smoke, dust, and other polluting particles put into the air by human activity.
So we're saving ourselves and we don't even know it.
But at the same time, we're making asses out of these scientists because their predictions are not coming true.
Damn it, it ought to be getting warmer up there.
We've got global warming.
It's going.
The story tells me that there is no global warming.
There should be, but there isn't.
The soot's there.
We shouldn't be putting soot there.
If we weren't putting the soot there, the scientists would be right, folks.
We will pay for this.
Anti-soot legislation would have.
I'm just telling you, just doing show prep, come across this stuff.
If you want to believe this absolute wacko science, you be my guest.
But don't ever ask me to be a signatory, folks.
It's just literally absurd.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, welcome back, folks.
Rush Limboy here, having regained my composure, after having shared with you these four global warming stories, now Bill in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Nice to have you, sir.
Hey, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
I just retired.
I've been in special forces for 20-some years.
And we've spoken before.
I thank you for your help as we were fighting the war in Iraq and mentioned that the Democrats were busy talking the war down.
It would result in a longer war and more casualties.
But I think the counter to their position on Vietnam and the quagmire is the quagmire term was actually coined under John Kennedy by David Halberstam's review of the situation.
And of course, out of that time, when the numbers began to decline and we could no longer recruit, Johnson was forced to remove the student deferments, which caused the protest on campus, drove Johnson from office.
And the big hope for the 68 election for the Democrats was to be Bobby Kennedy, who was assassinated by what you might call an Islamic terrorist.
That gave us then Nixon.
Of course, the next campaign they waged was Watergate, and out of that we got Carter.
And the big thing that happened out of that was the birth of worldwide Islamic terrorism under the state of Iran.
Wait a minute.
This is good.
I never looked at it all this way, but you're absolutely right.
Well, it has to do with the way they direct everyone's attention toward what they want you to think about.
And with every picture, there's always a shadow or there's a negative.
And the other side of all of these developments they wish to try to claim credit for show that there's a direct connection between Islamic terrorism.
There's certainly some connection between something Islamic and Bobby Kennedy's assassination.
And we've never bothered to get into that.
But, I mean, here today, we now know that the newly elected leader of Iran, so to speak, the leader, so to speak, was one of the hostage takers.
So things have come full circle, and we're really in a confrontation with Iran in Iraq right now.
Well, if this is the way you look at it, I mean, this is admittedly a challenging view.
I mean, what are you optimistic, pessimistic, or are you just observing?
Well, no, I've been working against these people for 20-some years.
I'm very optimistic.
But like Johnson's situation, where in 68 he had to not reinstate the draft, he simply removed the deferment from college students, which brought Tom Hayden and others to the fore.
Our numbers in recruiting are sagging.
I just left an assignment where I ran recruiting in five states.
And we had done well over that period of time, but it was before the press cacophony and of our politicians, too, had convinced parents to tell their children that going into the service at this point wasn't a good idea.
Well, you know, there's no question that that happened.
I mean, I remember somebody won the first month report of failing to meet recruiting goals.
We got a call about it.
And I, you know, rhetorically speaking, I said, look, if you saw the news every day coming out of Iraq, would you want to join, as opposed to the emotion you would feel after an attack such as 9-11, when they broom that for the news, no longer show us any pictures of it, and treat Iraq as an ignoble, unjust war, what right-minded, patriotic American would want to join?
And I think that's one of the purposes of this kind of reporting is to impact negatively this recruitment, right?
That's right.
And I think, you know, once they can negatively impact recruitment, we come to what we call a culminating point where our strength is no longer sufficient to support the operations overseas, and that's when we become vulnerable at home.
But, you know, there's some other things.
Again, you know, they direct your attention in one way.
You don't see these other things.
Professionals in our business have to know these things because it's how you must work against them at the tactical and even at the strategic levels.
But, for example, it even gets stranger.
The terrorism that we experienced under Reagan was really Islamic, but it was Iranian-inspired because the Palestinian terror that arose in the early 70s was effectively capped by the Israelis who kept it local after Entebbe.
But the Hezbollah, which were the ones that hijacked our airplanes under Reagan, were really Iranian-inspired back then, too.
Now, you remember we went into Grenada in 83.
One of the leaders of the parachute assault, one of the first Ranger commanders to hit the ground, was a guy by the name of John Abizade.
And he's now the four-star who runs CENTCOM and is a great man.
But he's also of, I believe he's of Lebanese extraction.
I don't know the family background.
But I mean, again, here's an American of extraction from that area who's actually doing a brilliant job trying to counter this.
And people like him don't get much press, but of course he stood up the other day, embraced senators who were really fairly out of the box, and then did what a soldier should.
I've got a minute here.
Is there anything beyond the obvious with the election of this new Iranian president?
I think that what you really have is that the election was stolen to put this guy in office because the West regards the secular leader of Iran as somebody to deal with.
Really, it's a figurehead.
They did not want another person who seemed to want to welcome reforms because, of course, the person that they had before this was thought as a reformer.
And no matter what happens.
There aren't any reformers over there.
This guy is openly saying, hey, I'm not going to make any bones of it.
We've got a nuclear program here.
We're very proud of it.
He's not going to try to play games at all.
There are no reformers over there.
No, his predecessor was to the radical mullahs, an anathema.
And the name slips me now, but he actually did allow for free speech in certain areas.
But that business of drift is dangerous to a place like Iran, and it's also dangerous to China.
And those right now, I would predict, within the next few years, are going to be our greatest threats.
The one from Iran, we are experiencing already in that Osama may be in Iran, and Iranian terrorists of various types are coming across the border.
You see, this is the thing, too.
Insurgents are homegrown people fighting to take their own country.
Terrorists come from outside, and they're coming in from other places, terrorists, not insurgents.
So we improperly talk about an insurgency when in fact the Iraqi people are going to get control of the insurgency.
Bill, I got to go.
I'm sadly, I'm out of time, but you're exactly right.
I can't thank you enough for the phone call.
We'll be right back, folks.
Stay with us.
The most dangerous man in America now signing off, ladies and gentlemen.
Show prep for the rest of the media.
Just sit around, watch, listen, and you'll see.
Be back tomorrow for Open Line Friday.
As always, I will be looking forward to it as much as you will be.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection