All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
July 8, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I just folks, I just uh got a web link for uh weather radar out of Cuba.
It's a drawing.
No, I'm only kidding.
It's actual radar, but and it actually isn't bad for Castro, but who in the who who in who in Cuba has a computer to be able to look at it?
Greetings and welcome.
Open line Friday is rolling on.
Let's go.
Let's go.
Let's go.
And the telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program, is 800 282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Now you know the rules.
Open line Friday's uh uh a career risk here.
I mean Monday through Thursday, I only talk about things I care about.
Otherwise I'd I'd be bored.
And I would sound boring and you wouldn't listen.
Which is what's wrong with most talk shows.
They end up talking about things they don't even care about that they think they should talk about.
We don't do that here.
But on Friday we do.
I mean, we're open to the possibility.
Uh you can talk about things that interest you even if they don't interest me.
So 800-282-2882 is the number to call.
The Democrats, you know, we know uh and we knew yesterday it wasn't going to take long for the Democrats to get in gear.
Uh and when we say Democrats, we also mean the mainstream press.
We have some audio soundbites here coming up in just a second.
But how about this from the New York Times?
This is uh editorial today from the newspaper of record.
We have been incredibly fortunate that there has not been a major terrorist attack in the U.S. since September 11th, 2001.
We have been fortunate.
We have been fortunate, says the New York Times.
So I guess uh terrorism is just a lottery, and you go out and you you you get up every day and you get a lottery ticket or a terrorist ticket, and some days it gets punched, and some days it doesn't.
Do you think maybe the New York Times uh might consider that there have been actions taken in this country to weaken the terrorists since 9-11, and that maybe our proactive attitude and uh policy toward bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda related groups might be a factor in the fact that we haven't been attacked since?
Not to the New York Times, because that would mean giving credit to the Bush administration for doing something about it.
And if you're the New York Times, you have to look for reasons to blame the Bush administration.
So we've just been fortunate, folks.
It's just sheer luck.
It's like Dick Gephardt and winning life's lottery.
You have nothing to do with it if you get rich or become prosperous or succeed successful, it just happens to you.
And then we go to Derek Z. Jackson.
This guy's off his rocker.
This is a columnist for the uh for the Boston Globe.
And basically, uh I can sum up his whole column here.
We deserve to be hit again because we are killing innocents in the Middle East.
Try this paragraph.
The world, of course, shares the sympathies of Mayor Bloomberg of New York, who said the London bombings were a despicable cowardly act.
Yet every invoking of the innocence also reminds us of our own despicable cowardly killing of innocent Iraqi civilians.
Or perhaps you forgot about them, writes Mr. Jackson.
That was by design.
See, we have rightfully mourned the loss of nearly 3,000 people on 9-11.
We've begun mourning the loss of about 40 people in London.
We have mourned the loss of 1,751 U.S. soldiers who bless them, we're following orders of their commander-in-chief.
But to this day, there has been no major acknowledgement, let alone apology by Bush or Blair for the massive amounts of carnage that we created in a war waged over what turned out to be a lie, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
The United States waged its own war of propaganda by refusing to conduct a legitimate, authoritative, honest accounting of the deaths of innocent civilians.
Worse, this denial of death in a war that didn't have to happen is sure to fuel the very terrorism that we say we will defeat.
Our soldiers Clearly did not intend to kill innocents, but the posturing of America as the great innocent when everybody knows we kill innocents ourselves is likely only to put us at greater risk.
So we deserve it, folks.
We deserve to be hit because we're the bad guys here.
We are horrible.
We are killing innocent women and children, and we haven't apologized for it.
And what did I tell you yesterday?
We were talking to this guy that called and wanted to know the way to get rid of terrorism down the road in the future, and I gave him the whole policy as it as it uh exists in Iraq, and also in a little monologue I did on Barbara Boxer's speech a couple days ago in San Francisco.
They still think that all this was about weapons of mass destruction and that Bush lied.
Now, you know, don't misunderstand.
I keep saying I'm not angry about it.
I'm just marveling.
These people have, folks, there's no hope.
They have been trying this since one version of it or another since 2001, 9-11, 2001.
They ran a whole campaign in 2004 based on this.
They have they've run this well dry, but that's how obstinate they are until you get it, until you please, until you idiots understand that you're being led by a reprobate cowboy dunce.
We're gonna keep telling you what a lying stinking dog he is, how no good anybody his administration is.
Cheney's no good, Rumsfeld's no good, rice is no good, Ashcroft was no good, Bush sucks.
I have just summed up for you the entire Democrat strategy.
Let's now go to the audio sound bites.
This is yesterday during a press conference in New York City, uh City Senator Hillary Rodham talking about the Homeland Security budget.
We got an assurance from Secretary Shhertoff that this would be a high priority, that it would be included uh when the president's budget came for Homeland Security.
But the fact is the President's budget calls for a $50 million cut in what we appropriated last year.
Last year, although Chuck and I wanted more money, and the Senate unanimously passed a bill for $570 million, we got $150 million out of the Congress.
All right, so I just want to set this up.
This is the day that Al Qaeda attacks London.
And Hillary Clinton can't wait to race to the microphone to rip George W. Bush on the Homeland Security in this country.
Now, I understand she's got to run for re-election in New York in 2006, and this will play in New York.
But this is not going to play in America.
I think it'll play in New York, Mr. Sturdley.
He's disagreeing with me.
Well I what did I see?
A story the other day that that that um some of the money um I I better not speculate.
I can't remember it.
See, we gave somebody some money and they didn't spend it all, and it came back.
It wasn't okay, it was New York.
We gave it we gave them a whole bunch of money that they didn't spend, and we were threatening to take it back, and we did take it back because they were they were not spending it.
But the point is the day that Al-Qaeda hits London when ostensibly everybody is concerned about how they're dealing with the aftermath in London and you know, trying to buck everybody up over there.
What do the Democrats do but make a beeline for the microphones to just tar and feather George W. Bush?
Now, may play in New York, but this is not going to play in establishing Hillary Clinton as presidential.
This is not what the American people want to hear.
She can sit around and moan all day long about budget cuts in the Homeland Security Department for New York, and at the same time, people can say there hasn't been an attack in New York since 9-11.
Now, Katie Couric had shirt off on here on the program today on the Today Show.
And uh, you know, she took what Mrs. Clinton said and turned it around as a question to him.
Uh she said, Is that appropriate, Mr. Secretary?
A $50 million cut, given what happened in London yesterday and what happened in Madrid before that.
I think that really understates the amount of money in the budget that's available for rail security.
In fact, the president's budget talks about a dramatic increase in infrastructure protection, six hundred million, and that would be available for rail security.
It talks about billions of dollars in urban security initiatives, and part of that is available for rail security.
In fact, uh one of the big uh points of the president's budget has been to move to a risk-based funding uh effort.
And that risk-based funding effort will take account of the vulnerability of mass transit and consider our other vulnerabilities as well.
So I think actually the President's budget is a very strong budget, not only on mass transit security, but on security across the board.
So Chertoff has just explained why Hillary is wrong and anybody else complaining about it.
Churtoff's good.
You know, he's he's um uh he's got a great presence running the Department of Homeland Security.
When you see him on television answering these questions he's he inspires confidence.
Uh Christopher Shays, well known moderate Republican, calls town meetings to ask uh constituents what he ought to do and think.
He was on the Washington Journal C-SPAN program today.
And the host Steve Skully says here at home uh Congressman Shays, do you think the Department of Homeland Security is where does this template where does this template start?
We have an attack in London and all of a sudden the focus here is is our Homeland Security working?
Why are we spending enough?
Why are our buses safe?
Are our subway stations safe?
I mean it's a natural question in one sense but it becomes a template to beat up the administration rather than actually say are we are we okay here?
This is nothing more than an avenue to attack George W. Bush you Democrats are going to have to figure it out he's not running he's not running he's not on a ballot in 2006 and and the the the it all it's obvious to everybody these are personal attacks against him not against the Republican Party which is your opponent in 2006 and 2008.
Anyway, Chris Shays, when asked about the Department of Homeland Security, is it working, said this.
Well, the answer is not really.
I think they continue to improve.
But we are seeing key appointments that the Department of Homeland Security not made.
I think that the new secretary is working overtime.
I have tremendous confidence in him.
But we don't have this department working well yet.
All right, well, I don't know what we're supposed to believe these guys.
Are we supposed to believe...
what has not happened in the last uh four years we're supposed to take what hasn't happened in the last four years hey I miss be working we know that there's some problems the airline check ins and this sort of thing but this was a discussion about buses and subways and so forth and everybody knows that you know you you can have all the Homeland Security people in the world addressed this yesterday too.
You can have every employee in the whole department focused on this and it's going to be tough to catch people without the passengers themselves also being vigilant and willing to take notice of oddballs and point them out to people.
But beyond that we go again Chris Shea's a moderate Republican meaning liberal and I want you to note how he defined whether the Department of Homeland Security is working or not he said we are seeing a key appointments at the department not made so the bureaucracy is not fully staffed.
And until the bureaucracy is fully staffed we don't have a prayer the worker bees they apparently don't count we need all of these bureaucrats who never leave the department sitting behind desks fully staffed and then the Homeland Security department will be working typical big government answer and avoiding reality still talking about intentions and hopes while avoiding the truth that reality illustrates.
Brief timeout my friends will be right back and roll on here on Open Line Friday.
Here's that uh story by the way it's open line Friday folks and we are ditto camming today uh all of us here at the EIB network uh wearing articles of EIB attire uh I of course am wearing the official Club Gitmo cap.
Many people complaining I had my cap on backwards, so I've turned it around 45 degrees front.
And the reason that I was wearing it backwards was that the bill of the cap is causing a shadow over my face based on the lighting here.
And I'm going to have the camera on me, folks.
I want to look as good as I can.
I don't want to be buried in a shadow.
So I've moved the cap probably, I don't know, 175 degrees so that it's, well, no.
120 degrees so that uh it's it's now not backwards but not entirely forwards either just exhibiting the number of many styles and ways in which one can adorn one's noggin uh with Club Gitmo gear.
Now here's that here's that story about New York and this is uh this is from June the seventh A congressional investigation has found that New York did not follow instructions from Congress on the spending of 44 million dollars in September 11th aid and should give the money back or get lawmakers to pass a law allowing the expenditure.
The bad news for New York comes just as the House is considering whether to take back another 125 million dollars in September 11th workers' compensation aid because the state has yet to spend it nearly four years after the 2001 terror attack.
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said in a 10-page memo on Tuesday that the Department of Labor should seek recovery of 44 million dollars improperly transferred or get specific congressional approval for New York's use of the money.
So you have this up 144 and 125 million dollars that they haven't spent, and here's Mrs. Clinton belly aching yesterday all over television about the so-called cuts in the Homeland Security budget.
And try this piece, folks.
This this is this is fabulous.
This is from the Seattle Times.
It's a syndicated column by Froma Harop.
And I assume that's how she pronounces the last name, H. A. R. R. O. P. Have you ever heard of this writer, Mr. Snerdley?
I'm assuming Froma is a female name.
I'm just assuming it probably will end up as a hurricane name someday down the road.
Only need to read two paragraphs from Froma's brilliant piece, uh, folks, to give you the gist of it.
It's oil's fault.
The London bombings are almost surely Al Qaeda's work, which means oil paid for them.
Oil keeps the Mideast backward.
It funds the madrases that fill the heads or madrasas that fill the heads with anti-West poison, and it pays the terrorists who plant bombs on European trains and fly airplanes into American buildings.
It's time we did something about oil.
Wait a minute.
I thought all these terrorists were very poor.
See, they can't keep it straight.
Remember, terrorism exists because we are too stingy, folks.
There is terrorism out there because there's poverty, and people are upset that we are stealing all of the world's wealth and resources.
Well, oh no, that didn't fly, so now we got a new one.
There are terrorists out there who are wealthy beyond our wildest dreams because of oil.
Therefore, terrorism is our fault.
Our use and need and desire for oil is fueling the terrorists.
The lack of will to tackle the problem lies not in the American people, but in their leadership.
Really?
I don't see a whole lot of hybrids out there, Froma.
And then the following paragraph or the final paragraph.
But instead of wringing hands, we can start applying elbow grease.
Americans really do want to reduce their dependence on oil.
They are willing, even eager, to make short-term sacrifices for this longer term good, but they need leaders who are with them and serious about taking America out of the oil quagmire and into an enlightened age.
See what I mean?
Arrogance and superiority that these people have an enlightened age.
Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I don't know what sacrifices she's talking about.
I but but I here's a little bit more about her.
From a harop or harp, whatever, Providence Journal column.
That's who she is.
So it uh it it uh it rolls on.
Here's a story from uh the San Francisco Chronicle.
Let me read you the headline.
U.S. politics.
Bush likely to get increased support for Iraq war, at least for now.
Let me read the headline as the newspaper wishes they could write it.
Bush, likely to get increased support for Iraq war, at least for now.
Damn it.
The London terrorist bombings are likely to temporarily temporarily strengthen President Bush's hand politically at a critical juncture when public support for the war in Iraq has eroded.
But the attacks raise difficult questions over whether the war has made the U.S. more or less vulnerable to terrorism, analysts say.
So the drumbeat continues.
We are no more safer, in fact, we may be at greater risk, according to analysts.
And Bush, damn it, maybe strengthened politically by this.
So the effort continues to politicize this even after the attack in London.
To make it a political issue that is no more different than debating social security or a judicial nomination or what have you.
And I'm telling you, the party that's doing this is well known.
It is apparent to as many people that are paying attention.
And it is not going to serve them well, folks.
This is not the way the American people expect us to behave during times of war.
Something wrong with the uh the Cuban radar link.
I can't get it beyond 1030 this morning.
I would give you the link to Cuba radar, but we'd shut it down, folks.
Uh I'm sure they don't have the server farm down there large enough to handle it.
I don't even know who can look at it down there.
I mean, if they have to give away rice steamers so people can eat, I mean, who has a computer down?
But I do have Cuba radar monitoring the progress.
And I I dug this up because I was concerned about Club Gitmo.
And I wanted to make sure that Club Git Mo was okay as Hurricane Dennis roared through there.
Uh and Club Gitmo did just fine.
I mean, we passed out tapes in eight languages down there to the guests and told them that uh we're even going to go so far as to put hurricane shutters on the on their guest room windows uh to protect them from flying glass, so they'd be protected against winds at least up to 90 miles an hour, and it all worked because the brunt of uh Hurricane Dennis just skated right by uh Club Gitmo.
Here's Brian of Fort Benning, Georgia on Open Line Friday.
Hi, sir, welcome to the program.
Hey, Russ, uh Brian of the Captain United States Army, just wanted to call in and say enjoy your show, and also I make another point if you I may.
Yeah, by all means.
Yeah, the the hope and uh and uh the love and the concern, the compassion that we're spreading in Iraq that uh President Bush uh referred to in the one that you may made a comment on is exactly what we're doing there.
Um I work with the Iraqi army for over a year.
I could tell you, not only when they when they receive that hope and that compassion, do they respond, but they they excel.
I mean, they they go beyond expectation when you give them that.
I mean, they're like uh they're not then you know, they're people who have not had that for so long.
Once you give that to them, you show that to them, they'll fight.
And they will fight, but they will they will stand out to what they believe in, what so whether not being able to believe in for so long.
Absolutely absolutely totally right.
I mean, that is the policy.
That's what that's what let me let me uh before you before you go on, uh uh Brian, let me remind people what you're talking about, because I made this point over an hour ago uh when the when the program began.
There's a column today in the nation.
And it's big lib publication.
And this all started, my my search yesterday for stuff like this started uh when I kept seeing on various lib websites that we're not at war, that uh this was the what happened in London yesterday was not an act of war, this was just murder.
And of course, just exactly what Carl Rove said.
We need to, you know, therapy and indictments.
So, in in my search to find other liberals who thought this, I ran across this piece by John Nichols.
And he said that Bush went on to promise, this is in his speech the G8 yesterday after the attack in London.
He said, Bush went on to promise that we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.
He goes on to say, imagine the cries of outcry, outrage and incomprehension that would have arisen from right-wing talk radio and TV pundits if Gore or Kerry had called in the immediate aftermath of an attack linked to Al-Qaeda for spreading an ideology of hope and compassion as part of the response to terrorism.
Imagine if a President Gore or Kerry had spoken, as Bush did, of bringing those responsible for the attacks to justice rather than pledging to hunt them down and kill them.
The point here is that a President is able to spread compassion and hope and everything else.
Of course he is.
Well, but the whole policy is based on that.
That's my point.
These guys don't they they think war is horrible, it has no value, it is immoral, it is ignoble, it is worthless, and it's something that that is just irreprehensible.
What these guys do not understand is that the whole policy of bringing free elections and self-determination and a revitalized economy, that is the ideology of hope and compassion.
It took the war to get rid of the bad guys over there to set up these circumstances where the country can begin to flourish.
Same thing in Afghanistan.
And the fact that that escapes them.
They are so blinded by their template that war sucks and the United States is always responsible for it, and therefore from Vietnam forward, we must lose every war.
That war is a self-contained, finite zero-sum game, and all it is is horror, that it has no benefits, that it has no positive outcome.
And it's just crazy how anybody with half a brain can look at world history and and and view war in this manner.
It's just and to not recognize what the policy in Iraq is.
That's what Bush meant.
Hope and compassion.
It's for the Iraqi people who were being raped and tortured and murdered and so forth.
Anyway, I'm glad you called a comment on it, Brian, because and the Iraqi people understand it, which is his point.
He's been there.
Jim in Chicago.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Rush, great to be here.
Uh CIE direct former CI director Helm said this morning that we might be well be involved in all this for decades.
And I think we all need to accept something that is instinctively very difficult for Americans to accept.
And that is this.
We can't allow our impatience for some kind of quick fix to be our Achilles heel because this is they are in this, these people who are waging war on us, galvanized by their uncompromising perception of us as evil infidels, even if it's based on their twisted interpretation of their own religion, they are in this for the long haul.
And I think my the thing that bothers me most and frightens me most is our own concept of time and staying power more than any single thing.
If we don't revise our thinking about these people who are not confined to a government, a country, or a geographic area.
If we don't revise the way we look at this, we are very vulnerable, in my opinion.
I mean, we need to wait the hell up as a civilization, no matter what political party we are in.
No, I agree, but I I I don't think the vast majority of the American people are impatient.
I I think once again that we're, you know, we're being treated to the mainstream press view of things.
And they're being and they're talking to people who call it Bush's war.
It's not a legitimate war, it's ignoble and all that uh and unjust, and then and then uh talk about how we're not spending enough on homeland security, we're ripe for another attack, why haven't we caught bin Laden?
But I think the vast majority of the American people understand precisely, especially with this attack in London, uh, what we face here, and they also know that the aggressor sets the rules in a war.
If there, you know, there's also a popular culture trend here, and it's uh you don't know to what extent that it manifests itself in public opinion here, but you've got years and years and years of primetime television where dramas are solved in an hour or two.
You don't know what I I don't really think that's so so much a problem, but I do think one of the legitimate uh problems that leads people to impatience is they have a correct assessment of our size.
We are the United States of America, and I think a lot of people sometimes get impatient.
Okay, you lose ten or twenty here in a week in Iraq or three or four at a time.
Why don't we just go in there and kick ass?
Why don't we just go get some bombs and take rid of the get get just get rid of these people?
I think that is how it's not that we can't win it uh in people's minds, and it's not that they're impatient for the bad guys to go away.
I think some people in this country may not think that we're pushing hard enough, not because they're impatient, but because they want victory.
True, because if we don't take it to them, as we've learned in London now, they will bring it to us.
Hey, Rush, thanks for your time.
That's my pleasure, uh uh Jim, uh, any any time.
Open line Friday rolls on with Steve in East Haven, Connecticut.
Next up, you are, sir.
Hello.
Hello.
Hi, thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Good afternoon.
Afternoon, sir.
Um, my point was, again, in the skewing of coverage in the Mid East.
Um, I was listening to NPR, and they were talking about the progress in Iran, not Iraq, but Iran, that the new thing there is they just opened a victorious secret.
And it can you can get like a boustier for four hundred dollars, which is a couple months pay for I guess the average Iranian woman.
And now they're saying that these women are going home and dressing up for their husbands, and the left is saying that this is progress.
And I I would be just amazed to think either, you know, any forward-thinking feminists who think that progressive.
Let me ask you a question.
Let me let me ask you.
We're talking about NPR liberals here, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
BJs and cigars and so forth in the Oval Office was okay.
Do you think they're going to object to Victoria's Secret in Iran?
Oh, no.
Again, because there it's, you know, someone who's, you know, this is a good idea.
I understand what you're saying.
This is a hell of a definition of success.
Pardon?
Uh I'm sorry, our phone system is really messed up here.
Uh, but but what what you're saying is that this is a screwy definition of success.
Yeah.
I mean, it's okay, so they got a victorious secret in a Muslim company country.
Well, wow, we must really be making progress, or the Iranians are making progress in reforming.
Uh, and I, you know, I it's you know, it's NPR.
I mean, you you listen to this stuff at your own risk, folks.
You you listen to this stuff, you know what you're gonna get, you know what you're gonna hear, you know it's gonna have to scratch in your head.
Uh just Steve wasn't fooled by it.
The first thing you wanted to do was call and report it.
Can't believe it.
I mean, it is entertainment.
Depends on how you know much you want to laugh uh listening to uh stories like this, but uh doesn't it doesn't surprise me at all.
That's why these people cannot be trusted with national security and and and power in this country now.
The idea that Iran is is becoming peaceful.
Iran's not a big problem, and look at all the progress they're being made because of a victorious secret opening over there.
Uh that's just wishful thinking.
And it's if it's so nice, maybe they should go there and patronize the place, you know, so that it stays in business if it's gonna have that big of an impact.
We'll wait and see how long this Victoria's Secret lasts once the uh once the mullahs find out about it.
Uh quick time out.
Be back after this.
Stay with us.
Do-doo-do-do.
In the midst of all of this, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I bring to you now this story from July 6th from uh from Catherine Torres, and I'm assuming.
Well, I don't know.
Uh when I printed it out, the source, I don't know if it's AP, UPI, Al Jazeera.
I don't know, I don't know who it is, but listen to this.
Here's the headline.
This is this is the day before the London attacks.
United Nations still hamstrung on defining terror.
The United Nations faces many challenges in its counter-terrorism initiatives, but one obstacle is the root of their other problems, according to experts, agreeing on a comprehensive definition of terrorism.
So Ted McNamara, a George Washington University professor, at a panel discussion in Washington.
Without a definition, it's virtually impossible to get a mandate that is exclusively geared at combating terrorism.
Another area of weakness in eliminating terrorism is that there's no international organization that exists devoted exclusively to counterterrorism, according to Ted McNamara.
The 1267, that's the reports on Al-Qaeda to Taliban, the 1373, these are UN reports on counterterrorism committees are the only ones that come close.
But the committee members themselves are not even full-time.
The UN received much criticism in the recently released U.S. Congressional Report on UN reform, which condemned the UN's lack of over.
This is absurd.
This is just patently absurd.
I'm not going to read any more of this.
UN still hamstrung in defining terror.
I'll tell you why they can't come to a consensus, is because over half the members are terrorists.
Half the members believe in it.
Half the members pay for it.
Half the members sponsor it.
If not more.
Half of them are anti-Semites that commit terrorism against Jews as often as they can.
They're not going to come to any kind of an agreement on what terrorism is.
Because and and I'm sure many of our friends on the left will say, but Russ, but Russ, you know, terrorism is in the eyes of the victim.
It's in the eyes of the but but but there are people who have had worldwide grievances of discrimination and second-class citizenry.
And they will do anything to just have freedom and power.
And if they have to attack their oppressors, is it terrorism?
And then you get caught up in all this and you end up scratching your heads uh in total disbelief that there are people like this that you have to discuss all this with.
So it's just another of the many monuments to the absolute worthlessness of the United Nations.
That they can't even come up.
They can't even do anything officially at the UN about terrorism because they are hamstrung defining it.
The idea that anybody wants to turn to the UN as as part of the weapon or arsenal against terrorism is absurd in itself.
Not the least of which for the reasons that I mentioned.
Let's go to Miami.
Bob, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi Rush.
Mucho Zidos from Havana North.
Thank you, sir.
Uh I am a Korean vet.
I have seen this country go steadily down the toilet.
Okay.
I would love to grab some of these clowns that we're have, unfortunately, in our government, and drag them back and let them see what this country was during World War II, which I remember, and the Korean war, where all their partisanship stopped at the borderline.
Mm-hmm.
These people now that we have over here now think that ripping their country, giving aid and comfort to the enemy during a time of war is fashionable.
And I personally have wait, wait, not just fashionable.
They think it's patriotism.
They have redefined patriotism.
There is no such word.
Disagreeing with your president during a time of war.
That's the Libs new definition of patriotism.
And I'm glad you called out there, Bob, because I made this point three or four weeks ago.
They're out there writing books about the greatest generation, people like you, and they're writing books about how happy they are and how great that generation was.
But when it comes time to emulate the greatness of your generation, they're nowhere to be found.
They look at Vietnam and they look at Watergate, and that's what they try to emulate.
That's what they try to bring up.
But make no mistake, all of this is being looked at through the eyes of Liberal Democrats through the uh the the prism of of of Vietnam.
Yet while they're praising people like you, they wouldn't dare try to incorporate the lessons learned uh the people like you taught everybody.
You know, Rush, there's one thing I would like to say here too.
Yes, go right ahead.
If these people would espouse the garbage that's coming out of their mouth during the second world war, or even the Korean war where the liberalism started to rear its ugly head, they would have been tried for treason and if found guilty, executed.
And I think it's about time that we started slamming a few of these clowns out there and hang them out to dry.
Maybe it wouldn't be so fashionable to be a traitor to your country.
Yeah, but who's gonna do that?
Bush isn't gonna do it.
Who's gonna do it?
I'm you're absolutely right.
Unfortunately, the people of this country, mm-hmm, don't get me wrong.
Mostly the Democrats are cowards.
Well, we've been inculcated with political correctness, tolerance, and sensitivity.
We must be open to those with whom we disagree.
We must accept all points of view, and we must accept all religions except those having to do with the Bible.
You know what?
I um I'm in my seventies.
Okay.
My health is not that great.
You sound good to me.
Well, yeah.
Well, talk to my cardiologist.
That'll be number four coming up.
I would, but I'd have a prosecutor chasing if I went to the doctor.
Yeah.
And the only good thing about this thing is I may die before I see my country die.
I have had a Well, your country's not gonna die.
They're gonna Bob, don't let that bother you now.
Don't let that get to your heart.
There are more people out there than you know that are on your side in this.
Uh this is uh something I think that's common.
People get overwhelmed and overrun with this never-ending drumbeat on on what people still consider the uh the big media.
Don't let them affect you.
They're a minority now, Bob, and they're getting smaller and smaller every day, as is their sphere of dominant influence.
A quick time out.
We will be back in just seconds.
Stay with us.
Uh I need to make a correction.
There was some damage at Club Gitmo.
A Tampa TV station reported at noon today that uh that a lifeguard tower uh at the uh resort of Club Gitmo was blown over by uh Hurricane Dennis.
This the lifeguard tower is the one no, the one over the ocean.
The one over the ocean.
Well, if you can see the pool too from the uh from this lifeguard tower.
It was blown over.
▲
Export Selection