All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:04
August 19, 2005, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, the plot's thickening.
Now, the Pentagon, the Pentagon is denying that they ignored the warnings of Abel Danger.
The building, the building is fighting back, folks.
So the whole Abel Danger thing continues to heat up.
And guess what else we've learned?
A bunch of people are going to say, well, Jamie Gorelik, I mean, yeah, she was at the Department of Justice, Assistant Attorney General.
Yeah, And she might have built the wall, but she didn't have anything to do with the Pentagon, the Defense Department.
Jamie Gorelik worked at the Pentagon before in the Clinton administration before she ended up at the Department of Justice.
All that and the details coming up.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Great to have you.
It's Friday, so let's roll.
Let's do it.
America's anchorman has taken his seat, firmly ensconced here at the prestigious and distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And you basically know the rules.
It's pretty much open.
I mean, you have a question or comment, feel free.
We'll love to talk to you about whatever.
The telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
So we had the news earlier in the week in the Washington Post that the Democrats basically said, nothing we can do about this Roberts guy.
He's got 70 votes.
Not worth spending the political capital.
The next day, and that story was, I am convinced, designed to rabble-rouse the extreme left-wing groups like Ralph Neese at People for the American Way to get in gear and try to change the minds of some of these Democrats who have said that they are tending to vote for Roberts.
So all hell broke loose the next day and demanding that certain Democrats not just rubber stamp this nominee.
We got to fight for this.
This guy is horrible as rotten.
And ever since, ever since, newspapers, Boston Globe, Washington Post, New York Times have been filled with stories replete with warning flags, red flags about the danger posed by this Neanderthal, this racist, this bigot, this anti-Semite, John Roberts.
And today, the Washington Post has a piece, headline, Roberts Resisted Women's Rights, 1982, 86 Memos Details Skepticism.
It is hilarious.
We know that the left has no sense of humor.
We know that they are incapable of laughing.
And you have to just, you have to be suspicious of people who cannot laugh.
There is so much to be amused by, so much to find pleasure in, but not them.
These people are wound so tight they are constantly on edge.
And remember, they're guided by a template.
They're guided by an agenda.
They're guided by their own prejudicial bias.
John Roberts is a conservative.
Therefore, he has to be a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe.
We just have to go find the proof because we know he is because he's a conservative and he's been nominated by Bush and he worked for Reagan.
He's got to be the lowest of the low.
All we got to do is go find it.
And so with that mindset, they're pouring over documents, documents that Roberts wrote while working for the Reagan administration and in the Solicitor General's office.
And they think they're finding evidence that indeed he is a racist, a sexist, a bigot, and a homophobe.
And the big red flag in this Washington Post story is this paragraph.
His remark on whether homemakers should become lawyers came in 1985 in reply to a suggestion from Linda Chavez, then the White House's director of public liaison.
Chavez had proposed entering her deputy, Linda Airy, in a contest sponsored by the Clairall Shampoo Company to honor women who had changed their lives after age 30.
Aerie had been a scruel teacher who decided to change careers and she went to law scruple.
In a July 31st, 1985's memo, John Roberts noted that as an assistant dean at the University of Richmond Law School before she joined the Reagan administration, Aerie had, quote, encouraged many former homemakers to enter law school and become lawyers.
Roberts said in his memo that he saw no legal objection to her taking part in a Claire contest, and then he added a personal aside.
Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that's for the judges to decide.
This reference has them convinced that Roberts is a Neanderthal right out of the Jimmy Castor bunch, and he wants to grab all the butt sisters and drag them back in the cave, and he wants to keep them barefoot and pregnant.
He wants them homemaking.
He wants them baking cookies and cakes.
And he wants them making his coffee.
He wants them to get him his slippers when he comes from a hard day at the law office.
He doesn't want them to become lawyers.
This guy's a sexist.
They don't have the slightest idea that he's cracking a joke here.
Oh, good.
This is the last thing we need is more lawyers.
This is nothing more than a guy making a joke that we all make.
Oh, yeah, this is great.
The next thing we need, more lawyers.
Oh, yeah, that'll fix the country great.
They don't get it.
And the reason they don't get it, they don't see the humor, because they are convinced that this guy's a sexist.
They are convinced he's a Neanderthal.
They are convinced that he probably thinks that women ought not even be able to show their face in public.
That's how conservative he is.
And remember where he grew up?
Oh, yes, we learned yesterday he grew up in an all-white neighborhood with no blacks and no Jews.
Jews.
And the day before that, we learned that his father had it very good in life.
And John Roberts did not know what tough times were at all.
John Roberts was rich.
Rich.
And so now here comes this, he's so out of touch, he hasn't figured out that women don't want to be homemakers.
He wants to keep them in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant and so forth and under his thumb.
It's laughable.
It is comical.
The number of women that put this piece together is a testament itself.
Let's see.
We got Amy Goldstein, R. Jeffrey Smith, and Joe Becker.
Two of those three are women.
We have Cece Connolly worked on this story.
Amy, a bunch of women basically wrote this story, folks.
A bunch of feminist women, a bunch of activist women who are already, you know, an activist feminist is already a member of the group that's constantly angry about something on edge or mad or waiting to be, looking for some reason to be mad.
And they have stumbled right into it here.
Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that's for the judges to decide.
He's making a joke about women.
He's making a joke about actually lawyers.
He's making a joke about, oh my God, do we need more lawyers in this country?
It's something that everybody jokes about, but these people don't get it.
So now they've got this story out there, and they've written it as a hit piece and as a warning flag to all the activists on the left.
Look what we're finding about this guy.
Look what we're digging up about this guy.
Well, as I said yesterday, Ted Kennedy grew up in an all-white neighborhood.
John Kerry grew up in an all-white neighborhood.
Hillary Clinton grew up in an all-white neighborhood.
Ted Kennedy still lives in an all-white neighborhood.
John Kerry still lives in a bunch of all-white neighborhoods.
Hillary Clinton makes sure that she is in a bunch of all-white neighborhoods where she lives.
At the same time, Clarence Thomas grew up in an all-black neighborhood in Savannah, Georgia.
And, you know, I don't look at that as having been much help to him when he was being confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The same liberals upset that Roberts grew up in Long Beach, California, did not say to Clarence Thomas, you know, you're eminently qualified.
You grew up in a poor black neighborhood.
It didn't matter a hill of beans, did it?
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB network.
Back after this, folks, don't go away.
Look at this Washington Post story.
Read some of the quotes here.
Let's see.
Kim Gandy, the president of the NAGS, the National Association of Gals.
Oh, wow.
Good heavens.
I find it quite shocking that a young lawyer, as he was at the time, had such neanderful ideas about women's place.
Folks, this is where we're always going to have them.
They are going to be embarrassed and humiliated constantly.
They can't laugh.
They don't see the humor in anything.
They're just wound too tight.
And by the way, he married a woman who's a lawyer.
His wife is a lawyer for crying out loud.
She's not barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making him cookies and getting his slippers when he comes home from a tough day at the court.
Now, we played a tune here at the top of the hour.
And I've also been referring to the fact that John, the libs are saying in the post here that they wanted John Roberts to do a birth of butts here on the women.
What is a birth of butts?
Rush.
I've never heard that tune, that term.
And we played a song that the term's culled from in the break at the top of the hour.
Some of our ditto cam viewers heard it, want to know what it is.
And it's a big hit, folks, from way, way back in the 1970s.
Yeah, in the early 1970s, a Jimmy Castor bunch should title the tune, Troglodytes.
And there you have it.
The story of John Roberts dragging women back to the cave.
Rado.
And so that's where one of the butts sisters comes from.
Welcome back, folks.
Joe in Philadelphia.
I'm glad you waited.
You're up next at Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Rush, it's a pleasure to speak to you again.
Listen, I was just monologue a little while ago regarding sort of the perspective on the war from the different sides of the aisle.
And, you know, this last weekend I had the opportunity, I actually stumbled across History Channel playing a lot of the sort of reels from what happened during VJ Day.
And, you know, I was sort of glad I stumbled into it because I remember as I watched it how proud I was of our country and how proud I was of our military and all the men and women that served during that time.
And I fast-forwarded it to this time now with the current conflict that's going on.
And it just breaks your heart.
It really breaks my heart to wonder what happened to that patriotism, what happened to that view and that respect and honor and love that we used to have for this country and that I was raised with.
Well, what do you think happened to it?
I don't rush.
I don't know.
All I know is that, you know, I fly the American flag every day at my home, and I walk out every morning and make sure that it's unfurled so that it's flowing in the wind.
And it just breaks your heart and wonder why it is that we are today.
People are more interested in what's happening with Jennifer Annison and Brad Pitt than trying to pick up anything on the news and finding out the truth about what's happening in the Middle East.
And it just, you wonder why it is this way.
And you listen to the people that you had on previously, the colours that said.
All right, hold it.
Hold on.
Let me try to offer you some reassurance here.
Once again, I think what's happening to you is that you are seeing a whole lot of news focused on the malcontents, as epitomized by the Sheehan episode this week.
But there have been countless other episodes, start of Vietnam, and you're assuming that it represents a large percentage of the country.
It doesn't.
That's the dirty little secret.
It doesn't.
George Bush was going to lose an election.
It was going to be in 2004 because of the war.
And he won because of the war.
He won precisely because of the war on terror.
He won precisely because of his leadership on it.
The left that's trying to make themselves look like a vast majority is a shrinking minority, becoming more and more shrill.
They just happen to get amplification.
They happen to get a lot of attention because the media is sympathetic and the media wants Bush to take hits.
The media would love for Bush to be thrown out of office, just like Watergate.
This is just a replay.
The left is just trying to recapture its glory days.
Their power broker days were back in the 60s and early 70s when they were able to end the Vietnam War, they think, to our defeat and throw a Republican president out of office.
And what they realize, it may not be conscious realization, but they know they're losing the ability to do that.
Long ago, they've lost their power.
They can't win elections.
I mean, when's the last time?
A question, folks.
When's the last time you heard any Democrat announce what he's for?
When is the last time you heard one Democrat in terms of anything to do with policy?
Even when it comes up, the war at Iraq and they're asking what's your plan?
They don't have one.
They say Bush should have one.
But whether it comes to, I don't care what the issue, you name it, be it global warming, be it gasoline, the environment, the economy, be it social security.
What are they for?
They do not know.
They haven't the slightest idea.
It's not what they're about.
Actually, to be honest, let me tell you something.
I watched video and I've got some audio sound by some play in the next segment coming up from Crawford, Texas.
As I say, it was a sad loss on the battlefield yesterday when Cindy Sheehan had to leave because the media, what are they going to do?
I mean, a whole focal point of their anti-war coverage is left.
She left the battlefield.
She's MIA and a bunch of rank amateurs have been left in her midst in her absence and they can't carry the weight.
You look at pictures out of there.
You look at the signs these people have and you look at the, you just look at them.
And I just feel sorry for them.
I think these are lost souls.
Now, they are mean and vicious and angry.
They are extreme and they are kooky.
But at the same time, you can't help but feel sorry for these people.
They're just simply pathetic.
You can see that they know that they're oddballs.
You can see that they know that they're out of the mainstream and the norm.
They know that they are the discarded among society.
They're the people that have become the multiculturalists.
These are the people who have failed.
These are the people who failed to amount to much in America.
And they're angry and they're taking it out on every institution of power than they can.
And the military is one of their focal points because it's easy.
They think it's easy.
It's easy to be against death.
It's easy to be against what they consider to be killing.
It doesn't take any rational thought whatsoever, but they're just, they're lost souls.
They're wandering aimlessly out there in vague search of an identity.
And it's sort of sad to see, given that they are Americans.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Well, man, is that ever true?
We deal with the truth on this program in real life.
And if you don't have the courage to deal with that, you will go nuts.
More on the John Roberts battle.
This is another Washington Post story.
This is from yesterday, Dan Balls.
Roberts battle adds to Democrats divide.
What to do?
This story is basically about, okay, the Democrats have to placate the wackos and the kooks, but they can't turn off America at the same time.
The debate over what to do about Roberts is the latest in a series of disagreements over the past three years, putting the party's Washington-based leaders against the traditional liberal advocacy groups or the newer world of grassroots activists stitched together through email and the weblogs.
Note that the term special interest is not used here to describe these wacko liberals, liberal advocacy groups.
If this story was about Republicans, it would be called special interests.
There are also abiding tensions over what political strategy might be most effective in carrying the party back to power.
So, see, it's not even really about the nominee.
This, again, and it's not really about Cindy Sheehan.
It's about the opportunity.
It is about the it's it's it's it's about the opportunity that the circumstance provides so that we can get our power back.
In the meantime, these so-called liberal advocacy groups, the special interests, are watching with bated breath.
And if the Democrats don't follow the script in Washington, they will be heard from.
This is not a party that's unified.
It's not a movement that's unified.
Despite efforts to make it appear otherwise, this is a fractured party.
This is a party where these elected Democrats in Washington, they have to really walk tightrope because they have to articulate just enough kooky things to keep the money flowing in from the base and the wacko fringe.
At the same time, they cannot stray too far off because then they'll destroy their own credibility as sane.
So it's tightrope, and Roberts is probably an ideal nominee to create this tightrope and stretch it even tighter and make the walk across it more precarious.
Stephen, Altoona, Pennsylvania, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you on the air, sir.
Thank you.
Make it do, it's rush.
Thank you, sir.
To ask you what your opinion of the Pittsburgh Steelers were after the first preseason game.
You know, I'm enthused.
I'm jazzed.
And I changed my mind about the Steelers.
I was basically going on just conventional wisdom.
The Steelers last year were 15-1.
And somebody asked me this back 1st of August, maybe in July.
And I said, well, they want to know who I thought the surprise teams this year in the NFLBS.
I don't know yet.
But I can tell you that what won't be a surprise, I said back July, Steelers are not going to be as good a team, and they may not win the division this year.
The other teams of division have improved themselves.
And how do you repeat 15-1?
Second-year quarterback, you never know how things are going to go.
We had a storybook season.
But I'll tell you what, what I loved about that first preseason game was the depth in this team.
They've got linebacker depth.
They've got wide receiver depth.
They've got depth in the secondary for a change and depth at running back.
They've got some great young kids that are not going to be starters that are going to be step in, able to step in for whatever reason.
I don't think they're going to miss much of a beat once they go to the second strings.
I'm jazzed about the Steelers.
How far do you think they're going to go in the playoffs if they do?
Well, that's a tough prediction.
I think they'll make the playoffs.
I think they'll make the playoffs.
I think everybody's always saying, look out for the Cincinnati Bengals this year.
Look out for the Bingwads.
It's all going to come together for them.
And that, you know, don't hold out any real expectation for that.
That's pipe dreams, wishful thinking.
Nothing against the Bingwads, but the Bingwads are the Bingwads.
Always been to Bing Wads.
The Ravens, that's the team you look out for in this division.
If you're the Steelers, it's the number one rivalry.
The Cleveland Browns, they've got some problems, new coach, so forth.
So I think the playoff opportunities for the Steelers are pretty robust.
Renee in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
I'm glad you called.
It's Open Line Fright.
Yes.
Hey, Rush.
Say, I remember where I was the first time I heard you on the radio.
I remember what the sky was like, what I was doing, where I was driving everywhere.
I mean, you said that once.
You had said that the callers remember where they were when we first heard you, and it's true.
I remember where I was.
So you're going to.
Well, then tell us.
I mean, don't just, where were you?
I was driving with my now husband.
He's a faithful listener to you.
And he got me listening to you.
He was my boyfriend at the time.
And we were driving on the back road out of the country out of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin.
Coming out, the sky was blue.
The fields were green.
It was a hilly day.
And the sky opened up.
This guy heard you.
This is the day he brought you out of the cave, right?
Yes.
I have to say, I am a total success story turnaround.
I'm no longer a sympathetic, you know, groggy left-winger.
I'm just a happy, conservative, hardworking person today.
Well, you sound that way.
That's good.
Congratulations.
I'm grateful, and I listened to you a lot, and you've helped me a lot.
So I wanted to tell you that I was getting kind of down this week about this whole Cindy Sheehan thing this week.
I call it the liberal left denial thing with the glaze look in their eyes or whatever.
They just don't look right.
But I wanted to say that I was getting kind of down.
My husband is 42 now, and I'm 36.
We have three kids, and he joined the military.
He enlisted in the winter, and now he's on his way to Iraq right now today.
And we're really proud of him.
He's leaving for Iraq today, did you say?
Today, yeah.
He's on his way there right now.
He's probably crossing the ocean, going to Iceland, and then they're going to hop over to Kuwait.
He's in the National Guard.
And he joined.
He joined after 9-11 happened.
He's just been really restless.
His father is retired military.
His brother is in retired military.
He's prior service, and he's just wanted to join so bad.
And I just had to support him.
And we're so proud of him.
Well, look, God bless you, Cindy.
Thanks so much for the call.
And next time you speak to him, make sure that you tell him everybody in this audience loves him and has profound respect for his decision.
See, folks, this is you hear this.
42-year-old man joins up, signs up, wants to go to Iraq, and then you listen to the caterwauling from these pathetic souls down in the ditch in Texas.
And it really, I'm getting to the point now, and they've exhausted my ability to be angry at them.
We all only have so much in our emotional reservoir.
And it gets to the point.
You look at them, you see them on television, you look at their signs, and they just look pathetically small.
They just, I don't know how, I don't know how to describe this more accurately than that.
They just, they look like people that don't matter and they know it.
And that's sad.
And they're being given this false sense of relevance with a biased media megaphone that is giving them probably the first time in their lives some sense of meaning and meaningfulness and relevance.
And it's all phony.
They're all being used.
And it really is.
It really is a tragedy when you stop to think about it because they're nothing but pawns being made to think that they're relevant and that they matter.
And so now they're beating their chests and they're feeling like Tarzan and it's all an illusion.
It really is.
I mean, when it comes to the contributions that make this country great, you point to those people, say, what are they?
And they're not much.
Certainly not with their activities this week and the past weeks and their ongoing activity to impugn people who do make this country work.
It's just, it's profoundly sad and disappointing.
Here's William in Falls Church, Virginia.
William, I'm glad you called.
You're up next on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hi, how are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
I'm a long-term conservative, a Limbaugh Conservative, going back through Gingrich and Reagan to William F. Buckbay.
It gives you an idea of my age.
One of the most dangerous myths in the world today, Rush, is the same thing we had in Vietnam, and that's that Americans won't support a war when we start getting casualties.
What we won't support is a leader who won't fight the war to win, and that's what Bush has got going for him now.
Our tipping point basically was Fallujah a year ago, and that's when the Marines were stopped about a day away from taking the place after they murdered and butchered the contractors.
At that point, we did the same thing two weeks later.
We sent the diplomats in who negotiated a capitulation, and a lot of people in this country realized that we weren't fighting to win and got mad.
And Bush has never recovered from that.
I don't think it's that we're not fighting to win.
I think we're fighting to win it, but I think we're fighting it also with this noose around our neck called political correctness.
You know what I just, let me tell you this.
Just to prove my point, William, and this is going to enrage you.
But I was reading on a blog today, and I'm not sure.
It might have readstate.org or Captain's Quarters.
I'm not sure.
I don't mean to screw it up, but I don't remember which one it was.
But it might have been just a news story about Colonel Schaefer, who's talking about Abel Danger.
And he was saying, as somebody has pointed out somewhere today, that the lawyers, the Pentagon lawyers, when we were talking about back during the Clinton days and even after 9-11, when we were talking about going after bin Laden and capturing him, the Pentagon lawyers made sure to tell the military, if you do capture him, you've got to make him comfortable.
You've got to treat him right.
You've got to give him decent quarters.
And the lawyers lectured the military on how bin Laden must be treated nice, fairly, and all this other stuff.
And everybody in the military just scratches their heads and what are we supposed to do here?
And you're exactly right.
You're on the verge of taking Fallujah.
Oh, we can't go in.
We got this political correct requirement that we can't appear to be in there destroying the country in the process of achieving victory.
And we can't start being too mean over there or the Iraqis aren't going to like us and so forth.
I mean, it's classic Oprah Winfrey stuff.
It's classic.
We've got to make sure everybody likes us, even our enemies.
And that's what's, I think, the noose around our neck.
I don't think it's a lack of desire to win.
I think it's all these newfound pressures brought about by this cockamimi thing called political correctness.
I think it's the pressure of Colin Powell and the State Department.
When Bush turned the war over to Powell right after Baghdad fell, the State Department's premise, the Powell principle, and Bush adopted this, is you cannot have a decisive military victory because it will destabilize the political situation.
That came out of a Wall Street Journal article, and Joel Mowbray has written about this in some detail.
From that point on, the military was put on a leash.
And the real problem, when they stopped the Marines in Fallujah, and the diplomats went in and negotiated a capitulation, they did the same thing to the First Armored two weeks later at Najaf against Saddar, Badr, what his name is.
In May, a poll was taken, I think it was a Fox poll, it showed 74% of the American public supported military action in Iraq, but Bush's approval rating had dropped to the mid-40s.
Now, the only pollster to actually measure this was Rasmussen last October, right before the election.
He's the one that asked the third option.
This is what used to drive us crazy during Vietnam as well.
How many people favor a more aggressive war in Iraq?
And 67% of the people favored a more aggressive war.
How many people approved how Bush is handling it?
It drops to 42 or 3%.
Bush has never recovered from that.
And even a couple weeks ago, when we went after these people on the western border over there near Syria, the regimental combat commander of that Marine Brigade asked for more troops.
We fought a limited war.
We sent one battalion in and they drove down the road to the place, Hamas or whatever it's called, like they're going to bust up an out-of-controlled fraternity party.
and 21 of them got killed.
That's not how you, this place has been built into a sanctuary over two years.
And we're fighting with as few troops as possible, hoping to keep down casualties.
We have massive operations against the western border over there.
It consists of 1,000 troops, one battalion of Americans, one battalion of Iraqis.
Bush is not fighting the war.
And the problem is, just as in Vietnam, the tipping point came when people, the ordinary people who supported the war, like yours truly, realized that the president wasn't fighting to win.
And Mac DeMarco documented that in a disgusting book he wrote 10 years ago.
But Bush is in that same problem.
If the polls ask a question, the third option, do you favor a more aggressive war, you'd be amazed at the results.
Yeah, well, I wouldn't be.
In fact, I've articulated several times on this program, and I think all these people that are talking about the polls that show Bush support for the war way, way down, are missing a huge segment of the people who wish that we would go kick ass.
Don't take names.
Just go in there and take some prisoner, whatever.
Just end this.
We're the United States of America.
It's silly to get bogged down in a situation like this when it isn't necessary.
And I don't doubt at all that there's a lot of frustration about that.
In fact, I'll bet you a large percentage, if not a majority, of the support Bush has lost is, as you say, because people are dissatisfied with the fact that we're not really giving this as much as we could, as opposed to a bunch of people who become opposed to the war, period, as the left would like it to be portrayed.
I got to run here.
I'm a little long in the segment, William, but I'm glad you called.
Open Line Friday continues in a mere moment, folks.
You know, ladies and gentlemen, I continue to amaze even myself.
When I opened the program today, it was in the vein of being absurd to illustrate absurdity.
And lo and behold, when I do this about liberals, it comes true.
If you weren't here when I opened the program, I did so in a solemn fashion, describing the solemn day that we face today, a sad, sad loss.
When we hear of a tragic loss in war, most of us think of our troops in the battlefield.
And yet, to some people, yesterday was a loss far, far, far from the battlefield and a loss far, far worse than a loss on the battlefield.
A heartbreaking loss, a loss not to a single family, a loss to the entire mainstream media.
Cindy Sheehan's mother suffered a stroke.
And Cindy Sheehan left Crawford.
She left the camera.
She left the microphone.
She left moveon.org.
She left the media with a weekend of no news.
And I asked the question, what will the mainstream medium do?
Will they run reruns of Cindy Sheehan?
Highlights, a retrospective?
Maybe they can interview each other, I said, and talk about what rotten duty it is to have to go to Texas during a presidential vacation instead of Martha's Vineyard when their favorite boy Bill Clinton was president.
Interview each other about the way they've interviewed Cindy Sheehan.
Maybe they can interview each other and talk to each other about how important Cindy Sheehan is.
I said, maybe they go try to find a replacement, but she's going to be hard to replace because she's the mother of a movement.
Well, lo and behold, guess what happened?
CNN actually went and found a replacement.
Cindy Sheehan went home.
What was the press to do?
Well, CNN went back to the playbook.
On their morning show today, they went back to Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 911, and they found a new Iraq peace mom, as the Chiron on screen read, to talk to.
They had to go, Michael Moore had to go back to Fahrenheit 911 because you got to dig deep to replace the field marshal, the field general, Cindy Sheehan.
So they found Lila Lipscomb, ladies and gentlemen.
Lila Lipscomb is the substitute field marshal for Cindy Sheehan, a mother and woman highlighted in Michael Moore's propagandist bunch of bilge.
Well, we'll have the sound bites of this in the next hour.
Also, it was newsmax.com and the story Clinton lawyers fretted over bin Laden's comfort.
Details on these and many other things by Democrats not gaining any traction as a result of whatever is going on that they're protesting.
And it's not just the Washington Times, it's the Washington Post with details.
All coming up.
Stay with us.
Okay, I have set the table masterfully, ladies and gentlemen, for the upcoming hour of the EIB Network's Open Lion Friday edition of the Rush Limbaugh program.
▲
Export Selection