All Episodes
Previous Next
July 18, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
July 18, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There we go.
Greetings and great to be back.
Here we are.
Another hour of broadcast excellence straight ahead on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And welcome to all of you watching on the DittoCam.
We've fired it up.
It'll be up and running for the remainder of the program this hour.
It's at rushlimbaugh.com.
We have three new items at our Club Gitmo gift shop as well.
And we got more.
Some of the funniest pictures are rolling in on the Club Gitmo photo display.
It's just people are taking pictures of themselves in their Club Gitmo things all over the country and sending them in.
And some of them are quite hilarious.
They're all visible at rushlimbaugh.com.
And if you have Club Gitmo gear and have a funny picture you want to send in, just send it to ClubGitmo at rushlimbaugh.com.
All that data is just a click away at rushlimbaugh.com.
Somebody said in the last hour that this Rofe thing has taken the Supreme Court off the front page.
It really hasn't.
Mike, grab audio soundbites 16, 17, and 18.
We have some audio from yesterday and this morning about this subject.
Now let's go to the White House this morning.
President Bush and India's prime minister held a joint press conference.
Reuters reporter Adam Entus says, we understand you're now close to a decision on the Supreme Court nominee, sir.
Really?
Well, thank you for telling me where I am in the process.
I appreciate that.
We've consulted with the Senate.
We will continue to consult with the Senate.
I, of course, am the person that picks the nominee, and they get to decide whether or not the nominee gets confirmed.
That's the way it has worked in the past.
That's the way it's going to work in this administration.
This is a really important decision.
And I'm going to take my time, and I will be thorough and deliberate.
But make no mistake, we've heard a lot of suggestions from members of the United States Senate.
A lot.
It turns out many of the senators have got strong opinions one way or the other.
And, of course, we're listening to them.
And if that's the backstop, we're working back to try to accommodate the Senate.
And their desire, part of the consultation was to ask the senators, you know, what's it take to get somebody in place by the October session.
And thank you for your question.
And thank you for telling me how close I am to, or at least indicating what others think.
So, and that has been reported today that the president's going to have a name by the end of this week.
And I think that's what the reporter was referring to.
Now, I wouldn't get too concerned here, folks, about the president saying he's consulting with the Senate.
The key line there is he's going to pick the nominee, and they will get to vote to confirm or not.
I think all of this is simply to show how cooperative he's willing to be, even with these little chihuahuas nipping at his heels.
He's going to do what he can to show the American people he's working together.
He does not speak in a partisan way.
He does not speak in a confrontational way.
Only the Democrats do that.
It's just going to be another nail in their coffin because the one thing he knows is no matter who he nominates, unless it's one of the names that Dingy Harry gave him, unless it's one of those people, they're going to just go to town and they won't be able to help themselves.
They literally won't be able to help themselves.
Now, yesterday on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, the guest is Chuck Schumer, who's everywhere.
He's with Joe Wilson.
He probably took Valerie Wilson to dinner one night last week when Joe was on TV.
Who knows?
He's all over the place.
Put a camera there and you can be guaranteed to find Chuck Schumer.
And who outside of New York cares?
He's exactly the wrong guy for the Democrats to be using his appointment on anything, but they will keep doing it.
So Bob Schieffer says, the nomination of Supreme Court to replace Justice O'Connor.
You think this needs to be done sooner rather than later?
Do you believe the president ought to share with you those of you who will confirm in the next nomination a list of people he's considering before he names a nominee?
Those are both good questions, and the answer to both is yes.
I think the president has to get us a name by August 1st if we're going to meet the goal of having someone in place by October 1st.
And that's because you need about a month to actually just do all the research, look at the nominee's entire history, their writings, their philosophy, etc.
As if they haven't already done that.
They've got a dossier on probably a thousand people.
And they're ready to go to town to destroy every one of them that they think Bush might nominate.
So here's Schumer.
He's giving President Bush his deadlines.
Got to be by August 1st.
But what a sycophant question from a sorry excuse for a journalist, Bob Schieffer.
He knows the Constitution as well as anybody else.
And if he's going to ask this question the right way, the question should be, what are you Democrats demanding that you be consulted with on a pick for the Supreme Court?
The Constitution says the president gets the nominations, and that's what elections are all about.
You guys didn't win the election.
Why in the world do you think you have a role at all in selecting the nominee?
But no, that's not what we got from Schieffer because he's one of this gang.
He says, you believe the president ought to share with those of you who will confirm this next nomination the list of people he's considering before he names a nominee.
Oh yes yes yeah, like that's done all the time.
Certainly, you just have to remember here folks, as far as these people are concerned, Bush is a criminal because he's a Republican.
He's an even worse criminal because he's the president.
Conservatives conservatism, conservative ideology all criminal according to Democrats.
It's all out of the mainstream, it's just.
It's just a continuation of the attempted criminalization of uh, Republican policy and conservative policy.
Then, in this next bite, Schumer denies that he and the Dems are going to go to war over the nominee.
Uh, who was Jan Crawford Greenberg, a participating journalist on Slay The Nation?
She's of the Chicago Tribune.
She said, senator Schumer, you've suggested there's going to be a war, no matter what.
You've been quoted saying that, as have other Democrats.
Does that send a signal to the White House that it may not need to reach a consensus nominee and perhaps nominate somebody as conservative as possible, since there's going to be a battle, no matter what?
Well, that's absolutely false.
I have said over and over again publicly, until i'm blue in the face, that we want a consensus nominee and we want to support a nominee that the president chooses.
You know, we know that the president's nominee is going to be a conservative, no question.
President himself is a conservative.
But it can be a Sandra Day O'connor type conservative thoughtful, willing to see the other side, pragmatic.
Or it can be someone way, way off the deep end, and i'm hoping that there can be a consensus nominee.
The blog that reported that did not report it correctly okay.
So the blog that reported that you said it was going to be war.
He hasn't said the opposite until he's blue in the face that he is gearing up for a war.
And it's how he's going to make points, because he hates being the junior senator from New York when he's really the senior senator.
He's been there longer than mrs Rodham, but he's considered the junior senator from New York while she gets all the publicity.
So he's trying to outshine her and get himself known and all this.
And then, of course, there's a San Redeo-type, O'Connor-type conservative, thoughtful, willing to see the other side, meaning a wuss, meaning somebody that agrees with us, because we know conservatives are criminals.
We know conservatives are extremists and kooks.
So we need somebody that agrees with us.
It's the arrogance and the condescension of these people.
It just grates.
It's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
As I say, Chuck, go win an election.
Go win a national election and then you get to do all this.
And after you do win the next national election, whenever it is, I want to see how cooperative you are or your president is with the Senate in letting the opposition party choose the nominee.
I just want to see how cooperative you all end up being the day that happens.
I'll not hold my breath.
San Francisco Chronicle today, a piece by Mark Sandalow, who is their Washington bureau chief.
The Bush legacy.
What voters never see is the political grace of a man that once made him a good guy in American politics.
Now listen to this.
It's not too late for George W. Bush to rescue his reputation as a good guy in American politics.
It's not a statement many readers will find easy to accept.
It's clear from thousands of emails from Northern Californians, liberal friends, and even family members that many on the left are so appalled by Bush's policies and triumphs and even his manner that they're incapable of seeing what made him the winner of two consecutive elections.
What they never see is the political grace of a man who works easily with Democrats, who is comfortable sharing credit, who understands that ends do not justify means and recognizes that opponents are as well-intentioned as supporters.
It is little wonder that they don't see it.
Such traits have not been evident since Governor Bush left the Texas State House four and a half years ago.
Since winning the presidency, Bush has antagonized Democrats, pushed controversial tax cuts, promoted an unpopular war, withdrawn from international treaties, nominated conservative judges, expanded police powers, boosted military spending, and rolled back environmental protections.
He used to be a good guy until he became a conservative.
He was a good guy until he pushed some tax cuts.
See, tax cuts are controversial.
He antagonized Democrats?
Do we even need to respond to this?
He's the last guy to antagonize Democrats.
You know how you antagonize Democrats?
Be a conservative.
Be who you are.
Implement what you believe.
Put your ideology in motion and triumph.
That's all it takes to antagonize Democrats because Democrats are so arrogant and condescending, they don't believe that should ever happen.
And then, of course, an unpopular war promoted an unpopular war.
Does this not tell us that with Democrats, there's no such thing as a just war?
And then withdrawn from international treaties.
There are two treaties that are being discussed here.
One is one of those strategic arms treaties that was made with the old Soviet Union, which doesn't exist anymore.
It never worked anyway.
It was worthless.
The other is Kyoto, I'm sure, which we never were part of and never were going to sign.
Bush is just being a conservative.
He's just implementing what he said he was going to campaign on.
He's just implementing the policies of those who elected him for the good of the country.
But because this equals the near criminalization of American policy, why people are not seeing the political grace of a guy that once made him a good guy in American policy.
What was that?
He got along with Democrats.
Got along with Democrats.
Name me a conservative who does get along with Democrats who's a real conservative.
Name me one.
Don't give me a name of a conservative that'll every now and then predictably go on television or write in the newspapers where Bush is wrong and then can thus be embraced by the law.
Give me a genuine conservative that Democrats love.
Can't.
That person does not exist.
Expanded police powers, boosted military spending, rolled back environmental protections.
I guess Mr. Sandelow forgets that part of all of this led to keeping us safe after 9-11.
You see, what's missing from all of this is 9-11.
9-11 didn't happen.
As far as they're concerned, all the policies that descend from 9-11 happened in a vacuum without any cause whatsoever.
9-11 wasn't worth all this.
We didn't have to respond to it this way.
We could have made a deal with these people.
We could have appeased.
We could have brought in the French.
We could have gone into the United Nations.
There is no disagreement that Bush has failed on his promise to change the tone of Washington by being a uniter, not a divider.
Here again, the arrogance of the left.
What's he supposed to do?
Come in and act like he didn't win the election and let you guys run the show.
Supposed to do what Trent Lott did and let Dom Daschell share power in a Senate that the Republicans had the majority votes in?
Is that what's supposed to happen here, Mr. Sandalo?
Change the tone of Washington.
I'll tell you what, if the tone of Washington's gotten any worse, we all know why.
It's because of the hysterical cacophony that has come from kooks on the left that have now become the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
It's just more of the same here, but I just wanted to share it with you.
We'll be back and continue in a moment.
The first charge that Saddam Hussein will face has to do with the massacre of 135 or 133 some odd people.
I'm looking for the story here.
Did I keep it?
No, I can't.
Anyway, his trial is going to be getting underway.
And the first case that he's first charged is this massacre of 100 some odd people.
So today, on CNN's American Morning, Miles O'Brien interviewed Giovanni DiStefano, the Saddam Hussein legal advisor.
And Miles O'Brien said, can you just hypothetically give us a sense of what kind of defense tactics there would be in this case without getting bogged down in the technicalities, please?
And Stefano says, well, first and foremost, before anything, there are pretrial motions that have to be dealt with.
There is the question of the legitimacy of the tribunal, but more important, there is the question of sovereign immunity.
Now, basically, what this discussion is about is that this lawyer, Saddam lawyer, claims that Saddam has immunity because he wrote it into the Iraqi Constitution when he was the dictator.
Saddam has immunity from all anything that he did.
Here's the conversation.
Mr. DeStefano, he granted himself that immunity, right?
No, he didn't.
He was the dictator, and he was the one who wrote the Constitution and granted himself that immunity.
That doesn't count, does it?
Well, of course it counts.
It is a constitution.
Well, because it's the Constitution that was deposited at the United Nations, and people vote on it.
It wasn't worth the paper it was written on, right?
So, I mean, you say so.
You say so, but some would say the American Constitution has faults in it.
The right to bear arms and the right to carry arms.
Why was that there?
Is it there to...
So the point is, what you're saying is...
These are all academic matters.
Well, the U.S. Constitution has faults, the right to bear arms, the right to carry arms.
Why was that there?
It was ratified by the American people.
It's just amazing.
So this is Saddam's lawyer.
He's got immunity to kill people because it's in the Iraqi Constitution, which he wrote and the U.N. accepted it.
Jay, Atlantic City, welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Honor to talk to you, even though I'm a union member and did not vote for George Bush.
I told your screener, I believe that this whole Wilson situation and Rogue is to get even because of the Iraqi war, because they did not believe that we should have went into Iraq.
And they're going to keep at it, you know, because Wilson's main thing was that he did not believe that, you know, we should have been going into Iraq.
Richard Clark also said that.
General Zinni said that.
Too many people said that, and I believe that that's the issue, and that's why it's not going to go away.
Well, I think you're partially right.
I don't think there's any question that the left in this country is outraged that Bush went into Iraq.
But it didn't start with that.
And if that's the, if it's not going to go away, if they're going to keep it up, and I'm sure it is.
I'm sure.
But it goes before that.
The reason they're going to keep it up is that they're going to get Bush because of Florida 2000.
If you want to know where this started, it started with Florida 2000 and their belief that Bush was selected, not elected.
And the Iraq war is just the latest instance, the latest thing that they can use to try to get rid of him.
They've tried the Bush National Guard story.
They've tried everything that they can think of that's come up under the sun.
And they've been using the Iraq war for as long as they can, and they sort of bounce off Bush's National Guard story with it.
But the thing about all this, Jay, is, I mean, you're welcome to keep using this stuff and you're welcome to keep trying it, but find some better sources.
Joe Wilson is the lamest guy on which to base Iraq was illegitimate you could possibly find.
Joe Wilson, you couldn't trust him to tell you the truth if your life depended on it.
And the people that you do rely on to provide your case and to give your case weight always fail you because they are not honest.
They do not have honesty anywhere in them.
It's not part of their modus operandi here.
In fact, it's their dishonesty that's propelling them because dishonesty is the only way they can make the case.
There's still, it's all about weapons of mass destruction and Bush lied.
And Bush lied has been a refrain even before Iraq started.
But you notice how successful it is, Jay.
Do you know what's happening here, Jay?
You're driving people crazy with all this.
The media is driving people crazy.
They're sick and tired of hearing this.
They're sick and tired of hearing about Rove, who they don't care about.
They're sick and tired of hearing about Cheney and Bush and Rice and Rumsfeld.
They're sick of it.
You are making people sick of you.
You and your party, not you personally, because you're not out there leading the charge, but the guys that are on your side are really boring the American people.
The American people are getting flat out bored with the same tactic tried on different subjects every week.
It's either weapons caches in Iraq, it's lying, it's weapons of mass destruction that weren't there.
It's bullying the U.N. Security Council.
It's not bringing in the French.
It's not bringing in the Germans.
It's not going to the United Nations, whatever it is.
And you're just flailing away.
You're throwing mud on the wall, hoping something sticks.
It's not only not sticking, it's bouncing back and it's pockmarking your faces.
You're the ones with mud all over you.
And even your side, I will suspect that even some Democrats are getting fed up with this.
I will bet even some Democrats are tired by now of hearing about Karl Rove and Joe Wilson and Valerie Plain because anybody who can research this on their own and go beyond what they see in the mainstream press knows that Joe Wilson is not the guy on which to base a cause that everybody's going to rally around.
He just doesn't have the credibility.
Nothing about this case does.
So if you keep harping on this, you're just going to drive people further and further away from you.
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic secondhand and even first-hand cigar smoke, I am Rush Limbaugh, enjoying every moment of my existence, tweaking and demoralizing the American left.
We are at 800-282-2882.
Get this.
In the name of Homeland Security, motorists are going to see costs skyrocket for driver's licenses and motor vehicle offices forced to operate like local branches of the FBI.
This, according to the nation's governors, the new federal law squeezed this spring into an $82 billion spending bill had Republican and Democratic governors fuming at their summer meeting in Des Moines and vowing to bring their complaints to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cherdoff.
It's outrageous to pass this off on the state, said Republican Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.
You're essentially asking the frontline clerks at the DMV to become an INS agent and a law enforcement agent.
The law that passed in June goes beyond an earlier law that sought to standardize state driver's licenses, requiring that states verify license applicants are American citizens or legal residents.
Now, the reaction to this that I have is, why can't they?
What's so hard?
You either got a legal driver's license or not.
You're a citizen or you're not.
You have papers or you don't.
If not at the state level, where?
To listen to these guys, and I love Mike Huckabee.
He's a great guy, but to listen, and the costs are going to go up.
They're going to use Homeland Security as a cost for this or as an excuse for raising the cost.
But of course, the clerks don't have the skills here.
Well, then, how much money do we spend on our government?
How much money do we spend hiring people in this?
We've got more people working in this government than I can count.
And I'll bet you the exact number, if it were known to people, would blow your mind.
But every time something comes up, we keep hearing about basically how incompetent they are.
Well, no, we can't help them do that.
These are just frontline DMV.
Oh, no, we can't help them check those airplanes.
No, we can't help them guard those people going through the security centers.
No, we can't.
Everything's no all the time.
They can't do it.
They're not good enough.
They're not competent enough.
You want to let the INS do it.
The INS, let the FBI do it.
And the FBI says, let the Secret Service do it.
And they let the Marshals do it.
No, no, let the Homeland Security do it.
No, Let EPA do it.
No, no, no.
And nobody's doing anything.
Everybody's simply passing it off.
It's too hard.
We can't do that.
Well, too hard.
We can't do that.
Never got anything done.
You know, I appreciate these governors or executives, and I appreciate that they understand how their states run in this country.
I can understand some resentment at the federal government passing off its incompetence on the state.
You know, I can understand them being upset about that.
But why is there this level of incompetence in government employees across the spectrum anyway?
Why is this always the complaint?
No, we can't do it.
You do it.
Some things, you know, folks just don't compute.
Karen, Sacramento, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Well, hi there.
I'm glad to take my call.
Thank you.
Yes, my pleasure.
I wanted to call and say that I'm really tired of listening to Bush and the government play wag the dog with all these different inconsequential things and go get bin Laden because that's the most important thing needs to be done.
What wag the dog things that are inconsequential?
What do you mean?
Well, just everything they're talking about is not important.
Now this thing with Karl Rove, I mean, if Bush didn't want somebody to get their mind off of something or another, he would never have admitted that he said anything.
I mean, it's pretty obvious.
It's asking.
Oh, you mean the investigation under Roe is something Bush set up to get people's minds off the fact he hadn't got bin Laden?
Yeah, just one of all of these different things.
Why aren't we out getting bin Laden?
That's the main thing that we have to do no matter what we do to get it.
No, no, no, no.
Karen, the only people we hear that from are people on your side of the aisle.
They keep defining the success or failure of the war on terror, whether or not we get bin Laden.
And that's not ever been laid out as one of the criterion for defining victory.
The reason that I said it is because I heard that bin Laden has a fatwa out on, of course, he doesn't like us, but it's 4 million Americans and 2 million children.
I mean, this guy's not fooling around.
These people on the bottom believe everything that he has to say, and we all know that he's just a crook.
He's just a basic assistant.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
I missed something there.
What did you say about 4 million Americans and 2 million children?
Yes, I heard it on another program just like yours.
No, but heard what?
That's why I didn't hear it.
Bin Laden has a fatwa out on the fatwa and 2 million children.
Yeah.
Now, you can check it.
I don't know.
I hear things on there.
Is your point that we're not getting serious about bin Laden?
That's right.
He's the source of the infection.
We've got to get rid of him first.
No matter what it takes, that's what we went out to get in the first place.
And everybody's letting him sit around drinking his cocktails and laughing at everybody.
You've got to get him.
I don't.
I swear I'm going to fog here, folks.
This is.
Did I actually get up today?
Am I alive?
Or am I dead?
Am I in hell?
I died and gone to hell?
Is that what I'm this?
She's real.
She's really she.
She actually is saying this to me.
Why?
Don't you believe in getting bin Laden?
Because, Karen, I mean, to blame Bush for the Rove controversy, to hide the fact we haven't got bin Laden, I just don't know what to say.
And be polite about it.
I just don't know what to say.
Well, can I ask you one more thing?
You can ask me anything, Karen, and I guarantee you I'll answer it.
Good.
You won't believe it.
Have you ever seen the movie or read the poem Charge of the Light Brigade?
No.
Well, they were fighting.
The English were fighting the same.
Well, I'll tell you why.
It's true.
Because when it was out, it was only rentable.
I couldn't buy it and take it home.
They didn't have any purchase copies.
They only had it for rent, and I don't take movies back.
No, it's not a movie.
It's a true fact.
The same place in Pakistan over there like we're doing now, fighting the same kind of guy, except there was some kind of a- Well, then it was in the library, and I couldn't buy it, and I couldn't take it back.
Whatever.
I'm trying to tell you.
I'm trying to tell you what.
Well, you're the great.
Okay, so you're the source for Charge of the Light Brigade.
And what happened back then, it's a true fact.
Tennyson wrote a poem about the Charge of the Light Brigade that I, like Bin Laden, lured these guys away from the fort, and while he was gone, they killed all the women and children.
And so what the guys did is, despite all odds of canon to the right of them, canon to the left of them.
Karen, in all candor, in all seriousness now, I think you're calling the wrong guy.
This program, yes, you are.
You need to call some of your other buddies that don't think bin Laden's a problem and that we shouldn't be at war in Iraq and we shouldn't be trying to fight the war on terror because I'm not one of those people.
Well, I'm saying fight the war on terror.
Where are you getting this stuff?
I know, I know you are, but you're a liberal and you're calling the wrong guy.
You need to call your.
Yes, you are.
I remember you.
You've called here before, Karen.
You can't fool me.
I'm the host.
I have called before, but I can't.
Yes, I know you have.
I know exactly who you are.
I know who every caller from my adopted hometown is.
I know you.
I know what we've talked about before.
I know what you've called him.
I know you're a liberal, but I'm just telling you, you need to call me.
I'm not a liberal.
I don't like that term because I'm an American.
Okay, you're a Kennedy Democrat.
Yes, I am.
All right.
And you're the one.
You're the one just to prove it who said I have no right to cite John Kennedy and his tax cuts because I'm a Republican.
John Kennedy, not Ted Kennedy.
Ted Kennedy is a piece of crud.
I said John Kennedy.
Oh, okay.
All right.
That's a different story.
By the way, did you hear the story?
I've got to tell you a little story.
You may not know what it's about.
Did you hear that the U.S. Marine and the Iraqi terrorist, the two got hit by a truck over the weekend in Iraq?
No, I didn't hear that.
Well, let me tell you about it.
The Marine and the Iraqi terrorist, they were shooting and firing at each other.
And the Marine tried to disrupt the Iraqi by shouting insults at Osama bin Laden.
He was a worthless piece of crap.
Nothing good ever happened from bin Laden.
Bin Laden is the worst thing that ever walked the earth and blah, blah.
And the Iraqi shouted back, Ted Kennedy's nothing but a fat, drunken slob.
And they got hit by the truck when they were in the middle of the road shaking hands.
That's a silly story.
It's not silly.
I'm talking about it.
It shows how we can establish unity with our enemies, Karen.
Establish unity and get along with them.
With bin Laden?
You want to get it?
No, With the Iraqi terrorists, which is what the libs want to do.
Come on.
That's why you're calling the wrong show.
Well, then I'm not a liberal.
I appreciate what you're saying.
I am not opposed to getting bin Laden.
Well, then why don't you go get him?
It's been four years now.
What are you waiting for?
Kaos to come home?
Okay.
You think they're not trying?
No, they're not trying.
They know where he is.
They've always known where he is.
What would you think if I advanced the notion?
I don't think he's alive anyway.
I think he's dead.
I think we got him at Tora Bora.
Nope, he's alive.
They know where he is.
How do you know he's not dead?
I've heard people just like you on your different programs.
These people come from the government who are going to report to Bush.
One guy was in the Security Council with the strategic thing to let everybody believe bin Laden's still alive rather than martyr him and make him a big hero.
That would be stupid.
Everybody knows that's the reason we went there is to get bin Laden and those guys for blowing up the towers, running into the towers, and nobody's done it.
Now all of a sudden, Bush stands out there in the public on TV and says, oh, well, he's not important.
I couldn't believe that.
My mouth just dropped open.
Well, but that's not the problem.
That's what he's going to do say it's not important.
What's wrong with that guy?
Just what you're hearing.
He's never said bin Laden is not important.
He said what I told you at the beginning of the phone call, and that is that success and victory are not defined by whether or not bin Laden is captured.
There's always going to be another bin Laden.
There are always going to be these guys that pop up as leaders like Zarkawi.
And you've got to get them all, Karen.
The bottom line is you have to get them all.
Getting bin Laden would not end this.
It would not solve the problem.
It would not, it might advance it, but it's not going to bring about an end to anything.
It's just something you guys can throw up as a strawdog and say Bush lied.
Bush doesn't care.
Bush isn't really fighting a war on terror.
We're more dangerous because of Bush, blah, Now because of this fatwa you supposedly heard about, you're really all of a sudden concerned about bin Laden, when a lot of us have been concerned about bin Laden since September 11th.
I got to go, though.
It's great to talk to you.
Look forward to the next time, too.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Here, we go back to the phones.
You never know what excitement lurks there.
Joe in Marlborough, New Jersey.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Mr. Limbaugh, thank you so much for taking my call.
I really appreciate this.
I am, in my case, you are not preaching to the choir.
I consider myself a moderate.
I take views on issues based on my personal beliefs.
So I don't believe in conservative liberal labels per se.
But I was so offended by what Karen had to say that I just had to call and say something to you.
You know, We are in a state of war against a vicious and deadly foe.
We have only just recently lost 12, probably 13 of our finest special ops soldiers in Afghanistan trying to get this maniac bin Laden.
And to have someone even to impugn the will and the ability of those fine people in the armed forces who are getting their lives every day is just offensive to me.
I cannot believe that this woman, I understand that she's ignorant because of the other things that she said.
But please, you know, we're sending our finest, we're sending our sons and brothers and sisters over there to take care of this festering problem, you know, of a war of cultures that's none of our doing.
I mean, these people chose to attack us for who we are and what we are.
You know, the same as an American way of life was the antithesis of Nazi Germany, and the same as an American way of life was the antithesis of Imperial Japan.
It's the same way that these Islamic extremists see us as the antithesis of their way of life.
Now, I'm glad you said all that, and the reason I let you go on and say it is because I think a lot of people need to hear it over and over and over again.
As to Karen, she may be ignorant.
I don't know, but let me tell you who Karen is.
Karen represents the mainstream of liberal thought today, Joe.
This is, you know, don't think she's a kook.
Well, you can think she's a kook, but if you want, but those are the people that dominate the Democratic Party today in terms of its movement leaders, in terms of its fundraisers.
She's no different than Howard Dean.
Howard Dean just says it a little bit more sophisticated way.
But all she was saying was that Bush is incompetent, and he has to create these phony scandals like Karl Rove, chuckle, chuckle, in order to cover up his incompetence, that we're really at risk.
He won't go get bin Laden, and as such, we're not winning the war on terror.
And it's just another way of being critical of Bush.
But what you heard from her is classically common of people on the left at this time in our American history.
You're right, we did lose, it might be 13 SEALs, the mission that they were on in Afghanistan.
From what I've read about it, there are two things about SEAL units that are apparently unique.
They seldom, if ever, ask for assistance because they're covert.
They are the epitome of covert, meaning private for those of you in Riolinda.
And this unit asked for assistance, and they did so in a dramatic way.
And it is now thought by many that they were very, very close to getting bin Laden.
They were near the Afghan-Pakistan border.
And it is thought that if bin Laden's alive, that's where he's hiding out.
I understand your frustration.
People like that think we're not doing anything.
All we're doing is fighting the war in Iraq.
We've given up trying to get bin Laden and so forth.
And they just, the reason they're clueless is because they don't have an institutional understanding of how the U.S. military works, nor do they have confidence in it because they personify everything with Bush.
And they see Bush or they listen to Bush and they extrapolate from that.
We're not doing anything about it.
And they've got all this irrational hatred for Bush that informs them and then shapes everything else that they believe.
But I appreciate your call.
I'm gratified to hear it.
And I think you may call yourself a moderate.
You can call yourself that all you want.
But understand that what Karen represents is far more mainstream in the Democratic Party today than you might know.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
I have an interesting story I'll have for you tomorrow, L.A. Times today, a time of doubt for atheists.
Atheists feel left out of the culture, and they think they need to make inroads into becoming more dominant in our culture.
It's a big, long story, but that's tomorrow.
Ed and Scarsdale in New York.
Welcome, sir.
I have one minute.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
First, my 12-year-old son is a subscriber to 24-7, so I'm listening to you on the internet.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
What bothers me is that story you were telling about the governors and how the governors don't think that their DMV is capable of determining whether someone is a U.S. citizen or not.
What bothers me about it is these same DMVs are registering voters.
How can they register a voter if they don't know whether he's a citizen or not?
It's called, I know, it's called Motor Voter.
Is it the same people?
Is it DMV people actually do it or is there a separate booth in there?
Well, when I registered, I moved to New York from Connecticut a couple of years ago.
I walked in, they took my information, they got my license done, and then they said, would you like to register to vote?
Sign here.
Now, I think that's a good question.
I must confess that's what happened to me when I registered to vote here in Florida.
That's what I mean.
That's what I've been saying.
It's a great example.
It can register them to vote, not worry about citizenship then, but when it comes to driver's license, we can't do that.
What do you mean?
Check their citizenship.
Let the INS do it.
Folks, we are sadly out of time.
▲
Export Selection