All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:45
August 29, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The fastest three hours in media to prove it.
We've only got one hour to go.
And I it never fails.
When we get down to the end of this program, the email is full of people.
Don't stop.
Keep going.
Our operative policy here is always leave you wanting more, because there's always more tomorrow.
Great to be with you, folks.
A uh a delight and a thrill.
Nice to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, the excellence in broadcasting network, 800-282-2882 is the email address.
And if you want to send an email, we read some of them now that we have time.
We scan the subject line.
That'll be interesting to see what I get now on the subject lines to entice me to read the emails.
Rush at EIB net.com.
All right, we got to talk about the war in Iraq.
The uh as long as the theme today is doom and gloom in the media.
We've had doom and gloom forecasting the arrival of Hurricane Katrina Vanden Hoewel.
We've got doom and gloom going on now in the aftermath.
We have doom and gloom reported all day and today about the U.S. economy.
And of course, doom and gloom about Iraq.
So we may as well treat you to all the liberal doom and gloom that's out there.
And to do that, we'll do the audio sound bites.
We'll start here with Fox News Sunday.
Uh Chris Wallace yesterday hosted uh uh helmet head Dorgan, Senator Byron Dorgan of uh North Deco N North Dakota.
Mitch McConnell was also on the program, but we're gonna focus on uh on Dorgan.
Uh Wallace said, Senator Dorgan, what what's the democratic plan for Iraq?
Uh what what specifically would your party do differently in conducting this war?
We can't get straight answers about what kind of security exists there.
For example, uh July just last month, 171,000 total trained and equipped security force, according to DOD.
Then we discovered only three out of the 100 battalions actually had that training.
Going back uh to a year ago, 206,000 troops, uh Iraqi security forces have been trained.
Uh just total nonsense.
What we need to get are the facts, straight facts, and then we need to evaluate what kind of progress will exist.
When will we reach that point where the Iraqis can handle their own security?
At that point, American troops don't need to be involved in Iraq.
The Iraqi people can and can and should, in my judgment, determine the future of uh did anybody hear a plan there?
I didn't hear a plan, and and neither did Chris Wallace, because his next question was well, Senator Dorgan, I mean, I've heard a lot of criticism, but is there a specific plan as to what you would do differently?
No, look, you asked the the two mothers uh the question about withdrawal.
Uh and the the answer to that simply is if we withdrew tomorrow, there'd be a bloodbath in Iraq.
We can't do that.
We are where we are.
We have troops in Iraq at this point.
But at some point, our goal must be to have sufficient Iraqis trained to provide their own security, at which point we will withdraw American troops.
But the American people can't even begin to understand what the measurements of that are because we can't get straight talk.
We can't get good information about how many troops are being trained in Iraq, really trained sufficient to be able to take over security in Iraq.
Did you hear a plan there?
Did you hear a plan around the edges at all?
Did you hear a plan?
It sounds to me it's the same old lament about we're not we're not training enough uh Iraqi security forces, military, and police.
Uh but I I did hear him say, I don't uh uh don't know if he got uh, you know, some mean memos when he got home, but he did say we can't leave.
And of course, this is not what the mainstream of the Democratic Party wants to hear.
The uh mainstream of the Democratic Party is uh saying we gotta get out of there.
This is where Bush is murdering our kids.
Bush is polluting the country, Bush is doing this for oil, Bush Bush creating nuclear war, Bush's which is horrible.
Uh Bush and Cheney and Haliburner, we gotta get out of there.
What what I heard here uh from Dorgan is pretty much what the Bush plan is.
The Bush plan.
What what is Bush has summed it up in a phrase?
As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down.
Uh and that means get out.
Uh but it's all hinged hinged on uh on getting the Iraqi security forces trained, and there are different stories about that.
Most of them are better, I think, uh than the uh some demo like Biden.
Joe Biden is running around saying that that uh won't he train something like 3,000 security forces.
Absolutely untrue.
Well, we might be able to shed some light on this because on Meet the Press yesterday, Tim Russert had on four, count them four generals.
Among them Ashley Wilkes.
Uh also known as Wesley Clark, General Wayne Downing, General Barry McCaffrey, and General Montgomery Miggs.
Russert says to Barry McCaffrey, Joe Biden, the Democrat from Delaware said there are about 3,000 in his estimation.
3,000 Iraqi security forces.
After 28 months of the war, what is your sense?
How many Iraqi troops are there?
And when when will there be enough Iraqi troops so Americans can come home?
To be honest, I'm I'm reasonably optimistic about this.
I I talked to uh General George Casey and Country and Dave Petraeus, the guy who's actually in charge of trying to build these Iraqi security forces.
My judgment is today there's probably a hundred and ten battalions fielded.
Probably thirty-six of them are capable of taking the lead in active operation, but most of them are out there somewhere in the streets or in a rural countryside.
They're a huge factor, and by next uh next summer they're going to be very important.
So he's optimistic, is he nice?
Next summer this is going to be a wildly different story than it is today.
Uh but notice notice Tim's question here.
How many Iraqi troops are there, and when will there be enough Iraqi troops so Americans can come home?
Do you detect in the question any sense of the purpose of our troops?
I uh I from from the question that Tim asked, I get the sense that, you know, we have no business being there.
This is a total mistake.
We were lied to.
And this is becoming a recurring theme, by the way.
The media's picking it up.
In fact, I've I have even heard some members of the media explain the reason why they're sympathetic to Sheehan.
And the reason why that they're being so hard on Bush is that they think they were lied to about weapons of mass destruction.
That they were all buffaloed, and they feel embarrassed about it, and they got to get even now.
And they got to make sure they don't get buffaloed by the Bush team again, since there were no weapons of mass destruction.
And so this notion that Bush lied is something that really carries the day on the left.
Doesn't matter if it's Cindy Sheehan and and Martin Sheen showed up in that ditch yesterday along with uh what's this Al Sharpton?
I warned him not to go.
You heard me on Friday on this program.
I warned Al Sharpton not to go down there, and he didn't listen to me again.
He didn't take my advice.
This is not something that's going to stand him in good stead down the road.
Uh it you just mark my words, but that's irrelevant.
The point is that there's this idea that Bush lied is something that even the media now is beginning to uh glom on to and take personally that they were lied to.
Uh and so it's it's payback time.
So the the point is our troops are there for no reason.
They're there for a lie.
They're not there to win.
They're there to be brought home.
The only thing about our troops is when are they coming home?
That's the only level of interest anybody has on the left or in the media.
When are the troops coming home?
Because they shouldn't even been there.
They were sent there on a lie.
There's no concept of victory.
There's no concept of coming home after the mission is completed.
None of that.
That doesn't even factor in.
You know, and we've we've taken out a measuring the success of this war on the base of body counts and casualty figures.
We've never measured a war that.
We've never calculated a success of war based on that.
Not until the end.
You do that at the end.
You don't, you don't you don't take these casualty and measure your success on the basis of those.
It's it didn't happen to World War II.
If it had, we wouldn't have lasted.
We'd have pulled out a lot sooner had anybody known what the casualty were.
Um Russert followed up this answer from McCaffrey and said, So what's the hard number of uh security forces and troops, uh, General McCaffrey?
Well, uh you know, you can say the hard number is 182,000, but more likely you've got 36 Iraqis uh battalions right now that are capable of fighting engagements on their own.
Russert then said to um uh General Wayne Downing, uh, all of you have had distinguished military careers leading men into war.
We now have a majority of the American people saying the war is a mistake.
General Downing, how long can you conduct a war that is not supported by a majority of the American people?
I think one of the problems that we're having is that the news media, the opposition to the war, are are framing this entire discussion in the terms of casualties and casualties only.
I think what we don't have is a serious discussion about why you take those casualties.
We're not out there roaming the the the roads in Iraq and Afghanistan looking for IEDs uh to blow up.
Everything we're doing in a military campaign, both the U.S., the coalition, and the Iraqi forces are are aimed at objectives, and those objectives are to promote the political process, and I really think that it's incumbent upon you and the others in the responsible American press to to put the casualties into these kind of contexts.
In other words, what is it that they're they're accomplishing?
I mean, can you imagine us, and it's been, you know, quoted out there in the web, judging the D-Day invasion of Normandy back in 1944 by the casualties that were suffered.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Made this point last week on this program.
Made it last week.
It may have been on Friday that I made that point on this program.
Here's Russert's response to that, by the way.
General Downing, you raised the role of the media.
There was widespread discussion about the role of the media in Vietnam.
The media lost the war and so forth.
But we're in a situation now where Cindy Sheehan, who lost a son, has uh encamped herself down in Crawford, Texas, is coming to Washington.
There are anti-war demonstrations throughout the country.
There aren't.
The reconstruction of the country has not occurred on pace.
Money that was supposed to be used for reconstruction is being used to help secure the country.
General Mex, General McCaffrey, everybody.
We in the media are covering the reality.
Are we not obligated to do that, even though it may not, in fact, encourage, quote unquote, the American people to support the war.
Well, that was Downing's point.
You're not covering the reality when you're judging everything by casualty numbers, and when you have a bias going in that we have no business being there because Bush lied to everybody because there were weapons or no there were no weapons of mass destruction, which there were some.
They've been found.
And we know they were used.
It's absurd.
Uh uh not covering the reality of this.
They're not covering what the objective is.
They're not covering the successes.
We don't know what the death toll of the enemy is.
We're never told that figure.
Nobody ever bothers to get it.
There's not on the scene reporting of some of these skirmishes and battles.
Everybody just shows up after the fact.
We get the obligatory picture of the bombed-out vehicle, smoke and smithereens pouring out from the interior.
But we never find out the context of any of these things.
And the idea that the American people are getting positive news out of Iraq um uh when uh uh is absurd.
There is the the the reality is is uh is probably just uh being halfway in Cindy Sheehan.
To include Shea, there is no massive anti-war protest in this country.
I made this point last week, folks.
The people down in that ditch are being recruited.
It has now been learned that one of the primary organizers of Cindy Sheehan's whole movement down there is this same babe who ran the uh the protests at the World Trade Organization protests up in Seattle.
These are strictly a bunch of anti-American, anti-capitalists blame America firsters that have been recruited.
They're just looking for somebody uh to rally around.
Sheehan, you know, swerves into place here, uh, and she serves the purpose of being exploited.
But I'm a if there were a genuine, a genuine anti-war movement in this country, there would be hundreds of thousands of people down there.
And there would be rallies and marches, and they would be sizable all over this country, and there aren't.
There was a larger group of of uh pro-America supporters that went down to Crawford this weekend, and we've got pictures of that, by the way.
Uh, from people's word or club gitmo gear down there.
We got a new picture or a new gallery, new page of pictures at Rushlinboard.com for all the people that went down to Crawford wearing club gitmo gear to counter protest Cindy Sheehan.
You know what the press says?
Well, those protesters don't count because they've been generated by white right-wing extremists in Karl Rove.
Cindy Sheehan's genuine.
She's spontaneous.
Everything down there happening is happening out of spontaneity, and it's totally real.
Totally, and it's just the exact opposite.
It isn't real.
The whole thing has been trumped up and calculated.
It it it's it's uh you so you end up with more pro-America supporters than anti-America supporters, and they are discounted because they were put up to it.
Uh no, they're doing it in response to a put-up job by the left called Cindy Sheehe.
Quick time out.
We'll be back after this.
We didn't have any sound bites from Ashley Wilkes on Russert's show yesterday, but folks, it was hilarious.
Ashley Wilkes, he arrives uh, by the way, at Meet the Press yesterday with uh uh all kinds of new credentials, in addition to being a general.
Uh, he's now an analyst at Fox News.
And his his strategy, what Ashley Wilkes, this is Wesley Clark, what he said to do.
We should be meeting with Iran and Syria to learn what their hopes and fears and dreams are for Iraq.
We need to be talking to the Iranians.
We need to be talking to them.
What the hell does he think we're doing?
But beyond that, that's just what a free Iraq wants, right?
For us to be talking to Iran and Syria about what they want for Iraq, because I can tell you, they want it to be back the way it was and they want us out of there.
And if Ashley heard that, well, okay, if that's what you want, we better be considered we're gonna be we're gonna be prepared to do that.
Guy's dangerous.
But I'm gonna strip all this away, and I want to get something over with here.
It is clear to me, and I'm an i I'm more than just a casual observer.
It is clear to me that there are members of the mainstream press who are striving today to be named the Walter Cronkite of this war, in the sense that it was Walter Cronkite who turned the tide of American opinion against the war in Vietnam.
And since so much of this is about replicating the big party the media had during the Vietnam War, you can just see certain members of the press today vying to be today's Walter Cronkite of the war.
So I am going to be watching, and I am going to be studying, and at some point, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to, with the power vested in me at EIB, I'm going to dub the next Walter Cronkite of this war.
This is a serious competition, and I'm going to be watching all of these media people on cable and the broadcast networks as they strive to be the guy, the Walter Cronkite, with the report, the show, whatever, that finally is the tipping point that changes the American public's opinion of the war, so that history will record them as the man who defeated Bush and his war for oil.
So I'm going to be watching, and at some point I'm going to, with the power vested in me, dub the Walter Cronkite of this war.
Not necessarily because they succeed in actually doing what Cronkite did, but just because they make a better attempt at it than any of their competitors.
Right now at the top of the list, what I have to say is Chris Matthews.
And Chris Matthews is vying to be the Walter Cronkite of this war on a nightly basis and doing a better job of it than, And this is hard to say because they're all they're all trying to accomplish this.
Paula in Port St. Lucy, Florida, hello, and welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Yes.
Hello, Mr. Rush.
Hi.
Um the first thing that I wanted to say is something in the media needs to be countered above all, and that is the myth that we are training Iraqi policemen.
We are training these men to do what our own policemen can't do.
I mean, how long does it take to train a policeman over here?
And our policemen are not worried about truck bombs.
The Iraqi, quote, policemen that the media keep telling us about are fighting an insurgency.
We are training more highly than we train our own policemen.
You know, and they the media is just glossing over this fact.
And to perpetrate this myth that we're training a le policemen and put it in those terms.
You know, I got to go back to what Abigail Adams said.
Well, wait a second, though.
Exactly.
So but you you you sound like it can't be done?
You don't think it can be done?
I think that that by calling them policemen, we are creating in the American mind an expectation that it can be done quickly, can be done overnight.
Oh, I see what you're saying.
By calling them highly trained insurgency fighters, or let's call them soldiers, what they really are.
Right, security agents.
We're training the Iraqi security forces.
Exactly.
We're training the Iraqi military.
Policeman.
Because if you took our highly trained policemen and put them in Iraq, their training would not be sufficient to face what these Iraqis are having to face.
Well, I see your point.
If you train them to be trained the way American cops are trained, they'll first have to take courses in political correctness.
Gender distinguishment.
Uh they will they will then have to take courses in racial profiling, uh, how not to draw your weapon and when not to fire it.
Uh You cannot stop any crime from taking place until after it happens, which means you can't stop it, and then you go try to arrest the person who committed.
Yeah, I get your point.
Exactly.
These are not policemen.
And as far as this whole politically correct thing, we need to start going by Abigail Adams' viewpoint.
That cannot be politically correct, which is morally wrong.
It is morally wrong to speak poorly of our troops when they are fighting a war.
Therefore, it cannot be politically correct.
And that's another term that needs to get brought back to the basis, like Abigail Adams said.
Well, I can't disagree with that.
I just, I'm...
See, when you use words like moral, and I know there are liberals in the audience, I just it goes in one air and out.
In fact, they get angry and say, Who are you?
Making the complex understandable with optimism and good cheer here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
This is Rex in Park City, uh, Utah.
Hello, Rex.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Uh what you're what you're failing to mention is the tactical error made by Donald Rumsfeld of disbanding the Iraqi army in the first place.
And had we not done that, we wouldn't have to retrain these people and recruit to have an army to fight against the insurgency.
And regarding the liberal media, you know, you you talked about it being a casualty watch.
You have to admit that the president did not help us on cause by landing on an aircraft carrier two years ago and declaiming decl declaring the end of major combat.
Since then, more Americans have died.
And that that's part of the reason why you get that casualty watch on the news.
He did nothing to help his own cause.
Now that's you know, Rex, I appreciate what you're saying.
Uh the the first thing you said, the uh tactical error that Rumsfeld made, uh, that was Saddam's army.
Uh that was Saddam Loyalists.
That was the Bath Party army.
It had to be uh it had to be torn apart.
As for Bush landing on the aircraft carrier, all that is is a rallying cry for you guys.
That that allows you to ignore the substance and the and and the uh purpose here of this war.
You're just looking at reasons to discredit Bush, and in the process, you're willing to take the country's efforts down a tubes, and it's really, you know, you you guys uh confirm for me every time I hear from one of you that we just we just cannot trust you at this point in world history with the leadership of this country, particularly on national security.
Now, Rex, I want to read something to you from Christopher Hitchens, one of your own, Christopher Hitchens, a well-known liberal, and he has a piece uh in the September 5th and 12th issue of the weekly standard.
Now, granted that's a conservative publication, and granted that Hitchens is a hawk on the war, but he is a lib.
And I just I want to read you just a couple of excerpts from this piece, and I want to read to you the the opening paragraph.
Let me begin with a simple sentence that even as I write it appears less than Swiftian in the modesty of its proposal.
Prison conditions at Abu Ghraib have improved markedly and dramatically since the arrival of coalition troops in Baghdad.
I can undertake to defend that statement against any member of human rights watch or amnesty international, and I know in advance that none of them could challenge it, let alone negate it.
Before March of 2003, Abu Ghraib was an abattoir, a f a torture chamber and a concentration camp.
Now, and not without reason, it is an international byword for Yankee imperialism and sadism.
Yet the improvement is still unarguably the difference between night and day.
How is it possible that the advocates of a post-Saddam Iraq have been placed on the defensive in this matter?
And where should one begin?
Precisely.
Why is it that the good guys are on defensive here?
And I'll tell you exactly why it is, is because the good guys happen to feel the compunction and the need to defend everything they do because they live and breathe the Washington, D.C. culture.
And the Washington, D.C. culture is dominant lib, and it is constantly making everybody defend everything they do.
It's look it, it boils down to this.
Conservatives have to defend themselves for being conservatives.
Republicans have to defend themselves for being Republicans before you get the policy, before you get anything anybody does or anything anybody says.
You're guilty if you're a conservative.
You're guilty if you're a Republican.
What are you guilty of?
You're guilty of racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, and all these other things.
Now, I look at liberals and I don't see a whole lot to be admired, but I don't think they hate people.
I don't think liberals are racist, sexist bigots, homophobes.
I don't come up with things to describe them as despicable characters in order to discredit what they say.
I discredit what they say.
In other words, the liberals cannot debate us.
The liberals cannot win in an arena of ideas debate on the issues.
So they have to discredit us.
We are racists, we are sexists, we are bigots, we are homophobes, uh we we are liars when it comes to Abu Grab.
We don't want weapons of mass destruction and so forth, and this gets them out of having to debate.
Why should they debate reprobates?
Why should they have to debate less than human subcultures?
Now, when I look at a liberal, I am eager to debate them.
I am eager to try to set them straight in in the probably failed hope that it can happen.
But they have set up this way of looking and mid it, folks, to the extent that some of you constantly feel like you're on the defensive, is because you feel like to a liberal you have to prove you're not a racist, you have to prove you're not a sexist, well, you're out there trying to prove a negative.
Look at the Pat Robertson episode.
The Pat Robertson episode was all about and survived only because conservatives and Christians are hypocrites and despicable Nazis who want to run around kill their enemies.
Pure and simple.
There was no context to what Robertson said or thought there was no, it was just, it was, it was just made the order.
Robertson allowed everybody on the left to discredit everybody on the right, because Robertson's simply one of them that spoke the truth.
All conservatives, all Christians, racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes, wipe out the enemies that you don't agree with.
So consequently, people get placed on the defensive.
Now, I get frustrated when our leaders are placed on defensive, when they're winning elections, when they're running Washington, when they're running the institutions that the uh that elections empower, House, Senate, White House.
There's no reason for these people to be undefensive.
There's no reason for it whatsoever.
It would have been very easy during the Senate hearings in Abu Ghrab for somebody to stand up and say exactly what Christopher Hitchens just said.
That place is 300% better than it was because we, the United States of America, are there.
Do you know what was there before we got?
You know what it was used for?
It was a torture palace.
It was a series of rape rooms.
It was a murder prison.
It was horrible things happened there.
By a factor of 10, it's an improvement because, but oh no, we got defensive.
Well, we're dealing with this.
Yes, we did some things that are horrible.
It's a mistake.
Liberals want you to admit mistakes, not to give you credit because they want, but rather for you to admit them.
Because it confirms the idea that you are a mistake by virtue of your existence as a conservative.
Well, screw that.
Screw that.
It goes back to what I was talking about last week.
This this air of supremacy, this arrogant supremacy and superiority these people have.
They are not supreme.
They are not majority, and they are not dominant throughout this country.
They think they are, and because they were for such a long period of time, they haven't come to grips with the fact that they're losing and sinking in quicksand.
Now, I want to read some other things here from the Christopher Hitchens piece, because he basically says he he has ten things here that he says positively account for our accomplishments.
In the war on terrorism and in Iraq in general.
Here is number one, the overthrow of Talibanism and Bathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
Abu Mousab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization, Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
Number two, the subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction, a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the EU, but to George Bush and Tony Blair.
The consequent unmasking of the AQ Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite, i.e., oil for food.
The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties on the part of Iran that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism.
Number six, the ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed rather than accept the world and word of a psychopathic autocrat.
The immense gains made by the largest stateless majority in the region, the Kurds, and the spread of this example to other states, the related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.
Number nine, the violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.
And number 10, the training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.
It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation.
It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war.
In other words, stated plainly that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.
His point here is that there are demonstrable successes for our security for the betterment of the Iraqi people, for the betterment of the people in Egypt and Syria and Lebanon, all because of what we've done and Libya.
We have improved the lot of countless millions of people the world over in just this action.
We have certified that Iraq is not harboring weapons of mass destruction.
We have gone in there and actually certified, don't have to rely on a bunch of people that nobody believed or trusted UN weapons inspectors, that this country actually disarmed.
It either was never armed or disarmed itself under the cloak of secrecy and darkness.
We don't know which yet, but regardless, it is not another power that we have to worry about with nuclear weapons and so forth.
That's a classic example of looking at these things positively.
And nowhere in this will the left find anything that they can agree with because it doesn't fit the agenda.
But it is a liberal who wrote this.
Christopher Hitchens.
The continuing criticism from the left that I hear from callers on this program is nothing more than disguised criticism and animosity and unbridled hatred for George W. Bush, which you may hate Bush, but I don't see how your hatred for Bush or any other American justifies America losing the war on terror or America being humiliated, and that's where we lose you people on the left.
Well, in a lot of other places too, but we're growing impatient and don't have time for it.
It's just if you if you can't get on the same page as everybody needs to be on this, we're going to stop trying to persuade you.
We're going to stop trying to bring you along.
We're going to stop trying to explain it to you.
We'll just let you caterwall like Bart Simpson in the corner and continue to make your mischief as you will.
Back after this.
A couple things I just have to pass along, maybe three if I can squeeze them in here before we go, folks.
And if not, I'll hold some of them over tomorrow.
This stack of stuff today is just too good.
Uh Washington Post has story.
Old buddy C C Connolly.
Uh, we love CC on this uh program.
We love Nina Easton.
We love all these babes that uh that that uh have commentator jobs at Fox, still work for liberal papers, and they can do a good job.
We love them.
And CC has a story here today.
Uh access to abortion paired at state level.
That's another one of these examples, folks.
You have to have highly skilled talents and many years of experience to be able to read this story and accurately react to it.
A person such as me has these qualifications, and so I will demonstrate this now.
Here's the opening paragraph.
This year's state legislative season draws to a close, having produced a near record number of laws imposing new restrictions on a woman's access to abortion or contraception.
Three states have passed bills requiring that women seeking an abortion be warned that the fetus will feel pain, despite the uh inconclusive uh scientific data on the question.
It's not inconclusive, CeCe.
This isn't cra.
A 29-week-old fetus human being doesn't feel pain.
At any rate, let me let me go on.
In time is short.
West Virginia and Florida approve legislation recognizing a uh previable fetus or embryo as an independent victim of homicide.
And in Missouri, Governor Matt Blunt, Republican, has summoned lawmakers into special session on September 6th to consider three anti-abortion proposals.
While national leaders in the abortion debate focus on the upcoming nomination of John Roberts, grassroots activists have been changing a legal landscape one state at a time.
In most cases, the anti-abortion forces have prevailed, adding restrictions on when and where women can get contraceptive services and abortions and how physicians provide them.
This is, and people, you have to have a uh understanding how the liberals are going to read this.
How can it be?
Roe vs.
Wade.
What do you mean?
How can this be?
If you listen carefully, in the Roberts debate, the debate among people about his nomination to the Supreme Court.
You've heard people say, hey, wait, it's going to be a lot of stuff done here before we get to Roe vs.
Wade.
The Libs have said, well, we can ask him about this because there's a lot of stuff being done around the edges of abortion, and they've cited things like this, so we can ask him what he thinks about these.
Well, they can, but he doesn't have to answer.
But here's the real question.
How did this happen?
How is all this happening?
How are all these states, with the existence of Roe versus Wade, how are they passing these laws?
I thought that would be unconstitutional to have these laws.
Well, some of these laws were going to get, they're going to get challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, and there will be judgments on these at the Supreme Court.
But until such time, they are constitutional and they are lawful.
The second question or second answer, how did this happen?
Well, if Roe vs.
Wade is ever overturned, this is exactly how the whole abortion question will be handled democratically by the people, state to state, as it should have been in the first place.
But then there's a third answer.
How did this happen?
And that's the one that's most interesting to me.
How can this happen?
Why?
I thought pro-choice was such the majority view in this country.
How in the world is this possible?
I thought it wasn't even close.
I thought anybody who wanted to move in any way to restrict any freedom related to abortion was out of the mainstream.
According to Senators Leahy and Schumer and Kennedy et al.
So how can this be happening?
And by the way, how can some of this be happening in blue states?
At the end of CC's peace.
Not all the restrictive measures came from Republican-controlled states.
Democratic governors in Kansas and Pennsylvania signed budgets that steer millions of dollars to organizations that provide alternatives to abortion.
And in Oklahoma, Democrat Governor Brad Henry signed a law in May that requires parental notification for minors, deems a fetus a victim under assault laws.
And mandates that abortion providers give specific counseling relating to the development stage of a fetus and a list of groups that support women who choose to carry a pregnancy to full term.
California, once deemed a liberal bastion, will consider a ballot question in November, proposing to require for the first time that most women younger than 18 notify a parent before getting an abortion and to require physicians to report all such abortions.
How can this be happening, ladies and gentlemen?
How could these people in these states do it?
It is happening in blue states as well.
How can this be if the majority opinion of the country is pro-choice?
Well, the answer to the question is the majority opinion of the country is not pro-choice.
And to whom do we owe gratitude?
The militant feminazis.
The militant feminists who have made every abortion, regardless of the cost, mandatory, who have made it clear that that's the sole reason they exist.
Every abortion possible can happen.
Over the years, militant feminazism has backfired on them.
With a little help.
Stay with us.
One more thing about the uh Iraqi army.
Rumsfeld didn't disband the Iraqi army.
The Iraqi army cut and ran.
They peeled off their uniforms and fled for the hills or the deserts or whatever.
Any rate, uh from tomorrow's stack of stuff.
How many of you follow the debate for the last 20 years on coffee?
It could kill you, raise your heart attack rate, all these horrible rotten things.
Stop drinking it.
Caffeine, bad for you.
Coffee is now reported to be the top source of healthy antioxidants.
Not only helps clear the mind and burk up energy, it provides more healthful antioxidants than any other food or beverage in the American diet.
According to a study released yesterday.
I'm going to have details tomorrow and I'm going to do it with a huge smile because I never bought this anti-coffee garbage from the first.
Just like all that oat brand stuff they said it's good for you.
Then they found it made no difference.
Can't wait.
See you tomorrow folks.
▲
Export Selection