All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
October 17, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
As somebody asked me right before the program started today, Rush, where are you going to start today?
It's a virtual smorgasbord out there.
And as I always say, folks, it's a three-hour program.
It doesn't matter where we start because we never finish.
It's an ongoing educational seminar and institution here.
The Excellence in Broadcasting Network and Rush Limbaugh.
Great to have you with us as we kick off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
The telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We've got a lot of great audio soundbites to share with you today, including Louis Free on Meet the Press yesterday.
Going to try to make some sense out of this whole Judy Miller Valerie Flame story.
That's what she wrote her name down as, Flame, in her notes.
In fact, let me just, let me give you a roster of things that are potential items to be discussed today.
It might be fun to do this.
Pretend that you are a news editor, and I have a test for you.
Rank the following stories in the order of importance, in their order of importance, giving more space and better positioning to the top stories and less space and worse positions to the lesser stories.
Here are the stories, and you rank them, you be the editor.
Iraqis pass their constitution.
Louis Free reports of President Clinton's actions and inactions concerning national security and fundraising for his presidential library.
The potential for a bird flu pandemic.
The impact of hurricanes on the economy.
And how about the dramatic fall of prices in gasoline from three bucks down to $250 per gallon?
That's almost a 20% drop.
Judith Miller and Karl Rove grand jury testimony.
Remembering here there's no underlying crime.
Obviously, something other than the original lee care isn't crime being looked at.
Rebuilding New Orleans.
Harriet Myers, White House starting fresh here, starting new.
They want a new starting point.
Introduce her all over again.
The Ronnie Earl Tom Delay Story.
Can you believe this?
Do you believe Ronnie Earl has no evidence to back up this indictment?
Well, they almost have evidence.
They've got some hearsay testimony from one guy, but they've got no list of candidates to back up this indictment.
There is no evidence.
That doesn't matter.
They almost that they don't.
They don't have any evidence to back up this indictment.
And so it's no wonder it took him all these different grand juries to come up with an indictment.
This is stunning stuff.
And of course, this rates page A22 in the mainstream press, as does the Iraqi Constitution.
That rates A22.
That's in the Washington Post.
And of course, there's a mantra about the Iraqi Constitution, folks.
I don't know if you've picked it up yet or not, but the Iraqi Constitution is a failure whether the vote wins or not.
It's a total failure because the Sunnis are unhappy.
And so, I mean, the people are desperate for failure in Iraq.
And even in light of huge success, they have to pass it off as a failure or a coming failure.
There is a media mantra about this.
And that doesn't matter.
Even if the vote succeeded, it's still a loss because they're going to have to rewrite the Constitution because the Sunnis are so unhappy.
But meanwhile, they're staring democracy right in the face in Iraq and not even seeing that that's what happened.
Anyway, more on that as the program unfolds.
We have, well, there's some other stories.
One of them, I'm just watching television here about 35 or 40 minutes ago after I'd finished the intense show prep period for today.
And I saw Dianne Feinstein.
I guess this was on CNN.
And Dianne Feinstein was saying, it is just outrageous.
It is just unconscionable to see how the right wing is attacking Harriet Myers.
It is unbelievable.
She may vote for Myers simply because of the sexism being exhibited by conservatives.
And the conservatives, and I'm sitting here watching this, and I'm just laughing myself silly when I hear a Democrat talk about how horrible it is for people to start destroying somebody's character, particularly a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee where that art has been perfected.
Senator Feinstein, does the name Robert Bork mean anything to you?
Does the name Clarence Thomas mean anything to you?
There have been any number of...
How about Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Bill Pryor?
How about...
How about Miguel Estrada?
You should have voted for all these people.
I guess it's okay when the left destroys people.
I guess it's okay when the left sets out to destroy careers and lives and reputations.
But when the conservatives simply question the wisdom of a nomination.
Well, we can't have that.
It's terrible.
I don't believe what I'm saying.
These people live in a totally different world, folks.
They do live in a totally different world.
I'll give you a little backup for this.
I happen to know this.
As some of you may know by now, I told you on Friday that it asked me to write an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and it ran today.
And I have been hearing all morning long from sources that this op-ed stunned a bunch of people in the mainstream media.
They had not seen anything like this.
They were fascinated by the points made in this op-ed.
It was totally new to them.
It was foreign.
They had no, and like I say in the op-ed, liberals will never understand conservatives.
They never have, and they never will.
One person even said, you know, there wasn't even knee-jerk.
It was so reasonably presented.
And true enough, MSNBC Today quotes from it, as does CNN.
And as I'm listening to people tell me this, I ask myself again, you know, all people would have to do is listen to this program once in the past two weeks, and this op-ed would not be a strange to them at all.
It wouldn't be odd.
It wouldn't be new.
It wouldn't be, oh, wow, we never thought of that.
Why?
I haven't seen that before.
Or if they don't want to take time to listen, I have a website where my program is transcribed.
It's just fascinating.
I have been here over 17 years at an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, and many in the mainstream press are stunned.
They have never heard this kind of logic or reasoning before.
And especially, it was so reasonably presented.
Why it wasn't knee-jerk and it wasn't wild or crazy or mean-spirited or extreme or any of that.
I must have had 10 or 12 emails today from people.
We have people inside all these places, folks.
I mean, and people talk and so forth.
And I've just been chuckling about it.
But it follows right along with Dianne Feinstein.
Here she's listening to what she thinks is harsh, mean-spirited, extreme criticism of Harriet Myers from people on the right.
And it's got her so fired up she might vote for Harriet Myers.
And yet what they have done as Democrats to destroy the reputations and lives and careers of so many conservatives just never even registers.
Which, frankly, was one of the foundations in my thinking in writing the op-ed at the Wall Street Journal.
We've linked to it.
It's on the journal's free website as well as in the newspaper, opinionjournal.com.
We've linked to it at rushlimbaugh.com.
So sit tight.
Lots to come on the program today, as well as your phone calls at 800-282-2882.
Sit tight, and we will be right back.
El Rushball, also known as the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned Maha Rushi, also known as Uberman, your host for life here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Did you see this?
Senator Kennedy attempted this off of Hyannis, Massachusetts, just outside the Kennedy compound.
Senator Kennedy attempted to rescue six men who had become trapped by high tide on a jetty off Hyannis port on Sunday.
Tides had risen over the patchy rocks, which made it difficult to walk back to shore.
So Senator Kennedy and a friend tried to rescue the men using a 13-foot boat, but rough waters forced them back.
I'm told that these six men fought Senator Kennedy off bravely.
They know one thing.
When Senator Kennedy enters the water, he's the only one to come out alive.
And so the twist of good fortune and fate that these men were saved when Senator Kennedy turned back.
Now, from this having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, folks, turning back this Diane Feinstein story, there's also something in this about Senator Biden about Harriet Myers.
Senator Biden, who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Senate Judiciary Committee as a Democrat, said that the religious references to Harriet Myers that the White House mentioned last week are inappropriate.
Biden says it showed that Bush was desperate.
I call that groping.
It sounds like a man who's going down and decides to throw something to his supporters.
Now, this is no accident I mentioned this to you after the Ted Kennedy story.
But again, I have to laugh when Biden talks about, I call that groping.
You know, groping is what Bill Clinton does, not George W. Bush.
So this is, again, it's amazing how the tables have turned on this, but we'll see how long the table turning lasts, folks.
Keep a sharp eye on this.
This next story made page A22, A22 in the Washington Post yesterday.
On the streets of Iraq, scenes of joy and determination is the headline.
For the cooped-up children of bomb-weary Baghdad, Referendum Day was a winner, no matter what the final outcome.
A security ban on private vehicles invoked to keep would-be bombers from reaching targets had a blissful side effect.
The boys and girls of Baghdad took back the streets for a day.
And it goes on and on and on to describe what a pleasant day Election Day was in Iraq.
If you look at this, folks, perhaps the most amazing, awe-inspiring, positive, and triumphant story of the past two years, and it's on page A22 of the Washington Post.
We have paid for this achievement.
We have paid for this achievement with the blood of our sons and daughters and their families.
This has to be recognized and celebrated.
It's a disgrace to bury this on page A22.
They go on and on and on to discuss how this still may yet fail.
This victory may not mean much.
In fact, MSNBC this morning just could not get over the fact, just couldn't get over the fact that due to the Constitution likely passing, that civil war will break out because of the Sunnis.
So the way this has been shaped in the mainstream press is there's no way Bush can win.
There's no way the Iraqis can win.
If the Constitution fails, it fails.
And if it wins, it fails because the Sunnis aren't going to like it and it's going to have to be rewritten in four months to please them or there will be a civil war.
All this, all this reporting, just the same as the reaction to my op-ed, it's absolutely the facts and the reality facing these people escapes them.
Because of their template and because of their prism and their mindset, this whole Iraq war, the whole Iraq excursion, the whole Iraq idea is going to fail.
It has to fail.
Too much has been invested in its failure by us in the mainstream press and by their willing accomplices in the Democratic Party.
So however it turns out, it is a failure.
It's going to fail because it's Bush's war and it's an unjust war and it was unnecessary and Bush lied to take us to war and all of the clichés that we have heard from Democrat propagandists from day one.
So now we've had every element that we have targeted in terms of the development of this country has taken place and on time.
We turned the country over to them called sovereignty on the date we said we were going to do it.
The elections took place on the date we said they were going to take place and the turnout was high, stunning everybody.
In the immediate aftermath of those elections, many columnists, Chicago and Los Angeles, writing, hmm, maybe Bush was right after all.
To which I said, no, Maybe you were wrong after all.
The template here is that you have been wrong on every forecast and prediction that you've made about Iraq.
Bush has been right on every one.
The turnout in the constitutional vote yesterday was higher than even the vote back in January.
So the timetables continue to be met, and yet with each successful timetable, we get closer and closer to abject failure.
We get closer and closer to doom and gloom.
Grab audio soundbite number 2A, Mike.
Every time that there is a success in Iraq, after we captured Saddam, after the first election, now after a peaceful vote in the Constitution, Democrats say, well, the next election, that's a really important one.
The next event, that's really important.
Everybody knew this was going to happen.
Here is a montage of guests from the Sunday shows all talking about you don't have 2A.
You don't have 2A.
Yeah, you should have 2A because if I've got the transcript, you've got it.
It may be labeled something.
Have you got it now?
Here it is.
Here's this montage.
We've got Senator Feinstein.
We've got Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek.
We got Joe Klein in Newsweek.
We got Senator Chuck Hagel.
We got Senator Joe Biden.
It's a short little montage, about 17 seconds, but it makes the case.
I think the election on December 15th is the bellwether.
In the December election, the December elections.
What we're looking for here is like a three-cushion bank shot in December.
What's going to be critically important is this election coming up in December.
It seems to me that it depends, as Chuck said, on the December election.
Now, just go back to last week, and it all hinged on what happened yesterday.
Oh, yeah, what happened, Sunday?
Oh, we might even get the insurgence of terror is going to blow everybody up.
Why, if their turnout isn't big and if that vote doesn't come out, oh, this country is doomed.
They're not ready for democracy.
Now this one's happening.
Oh, we've got to look forward to the next one.
Going to find failure wherever we can.
The Associated Press in a story over the weekend in, in a brilliant illustration of how to turn a positive into a negative, Sunnis appear to fall short in Iraq vote.
Iraq's landmark constitution seemed assured of passage sunday after initial results showed minority Sunni Arabs had fallen short in an effort to veto it at the polls.
The apparent acceptance was a major step in the attempt to establish a democratic government that could lead to the withdrawal of U.s troops.
Opponents failed to secure the necessary two-thirds.
No vote in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces.
According to counts that local officials provided to the ap.
In the crucial central provinces with mixed ethnic and religious populations, enough Shiites and Kurds voted to stymie the Sunni bid to reject the constitution, but the outcome could further divide the nation, with many Sunnis fearing the new decentralized government will deprive them of their fair share in the country's vast oil wealth.
Large numbers of Sunnis voted no and some of their leaders were already rejecting the apparent result.
Sheikh Abdul Salam Al-Qubasi, a prominent cleric with the influential Sunni Association OF Muslim scholars, said if the constitution was passed, the attacks will definitely rise against the occupation forces and the security situation is going to be worse.
Yeah, we know this.
This is how these things happen.
Folks, can I?
Can I?
We're missing the whole point here by focusing on on something as simple as failure.
And now the left is trying to focus on failure.
But can I talk to you about failure?
Can I ask you a real question?
What do you think happens if we lose in Iraq?
What do you think it means to the left?
Let's put it this way, they're the ones eager for us to lose.
They want Bush to lose.
They think they win when Bush loses.
Remember, whatever is bad for America good for them.
Whatever is good for America is bad for them.
I'm talking about politically.
They can't stand successes for this country, particularly in foreign policy.
Bad news for them.
They haven't been on the right side of the war on terror or the war in Iraq since the initial vote, and they're all trying to act like they never voted for it in the first place or that Bush lied to them.
So they're invested in failure.
Well, let me ask you a question.
I want you to think about this during the break.
What does failure mean to the left?
Because I think I know they are.
They're so short-sighted, they're so head-buried in the sand on this, that they have a skewed definition of failure.
Or let's put it this way, forget the word failure.
Let's say we lose.
Let's say that we ultimately lose in Iraq.
Let's say that what happens is defeat, which is clearly what many in the American left hope for.
It's what they've been agitating for.
It's what they're trying to say is happening with each successful event in Iraq.
What does defeat mean to them?
I'm talking about strategically.
What does it mean to them?
Quick time out back after this, stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence IN Podcasting Podcasting Network.
Talent on loan from God.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Now, to be fair, the New York Times did front page the big news out of Iraq.
The Washington Post didn't.
Page 822, but the New York Times did.
Early signs show Iraqi's approval of Constitution.
And the story goes on to say that even in big Sunni-dominated cities, the Constitution failed narrowly.
Failed narrowly.
They still had to use the word fail in there.
But get this paragraph, the first sentence.
But the meaning of the relatively low level of violence remains unclear.
Rather than celebrating the low level of violence, the New York Times down there, why the hell did it happen?
We wanted violence.
We wanted anarchy.
We wanted this place to look like New Orleans on the day of this election.
We didn't get it.
Why weren't they violent?
The level of violence was unclear.
Maybe because they were prepared for it.
Maybe because the insurgency is not as strong as you and the media think.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but maybe it's just not that huge.
Just like what happened in New Orleans wasn't nearly the way we were told it happened for a week to 10 days afterwards.
Even in big Sunni-dominated cities, a lot of votes for the Constitution.
It failed narrowly.
Now, the New York Times gets even with itself for writing a positive story by having this.
Administration's tone signals a longer, broader Iraq conflict.
And the Democrat criticism is all over the place.
There's a guy from the Brookings Institution who says democracy is not the answer.
More troops, no, more democracy, no, but wait, Bush sucks.
That's the bottom line of it.
Others take a harsher view.
Kenneth Pollock, former CIA analyst, now a scholar at the Saban or Saban Center at the Brookings Institution, not sure how it's pronounced, said that Mr. Bush's new tone reflected the fact that their whole theory about how this is going to work out isn't working and almost certainly isn't going to work.
The theory that democracy is the antidote to insurgency gets disproven on the ground every day.
Car 11 was on Meet the Press yesterday, too.
He said that democracy and the political situation is key, and the Brookings guy seems to disagree.
If you ask me, they had a huge bit of democracy going on in Iraq over the weekend.
What do these people think they're looking at?
And here we have a companion story where they lament the fact that the violence was low and the reason for it was unclear.
Folks, this is why we cannot trust these people to be in charge of U.S. national security.
They are not interested in success.
When they look at success, they see a political problem for themselves and that start defining everything as a failure even now after the Constitution in Iraq passes.
Oh, that's even worse.
That's worse than it failing because now if people are going to be really upset, it's going to lead to civil war.
Any bets that it doesn't?
What do you think these insurgents have been trying for all this time?
And I'll tell you what, with as horrendous and outrageously incorrect as the post-Katrina reporting in New Orleans was, and with other examples such as that that we can cite, with the mainstream media now just not seeing things and not getting it.
And remember, the bias is not so much how they report and what they report, it's also what they leave out.
What to them is not news.
So it's a combination of things.
I just am loath to trust them when they take what, and by the same token, they'll take Calypso Louis' event and make it the biggest thing that ever happened.
Now, I asked you on Friday, I asked you to make a bet.
Where do you think the turnout will be bigger?
In the Iraqi elections or at the Millions More March?
And guess what?
There were thousands at the Millions More March.
And that's not tens of thousands, and that's not hundreds of thousands, and that's not a million.
It was a very, very small turnout, and yet that gets a lot of ink as well.
And in fact, is given more credence and more meaning and more substance than the constitutional vote in Iraq yesterday.
So I ask you to think about this to the Democrats and to the left in this country.
How do you think they define failure?
And by that, I mean, what do you think they think will happen if we fail?
What does it mean?
And then what happens next?
And the answer to this, I mean, there's no guessing.
I know what the answer is.
I know what the, I may not be phrasing the question, I'm not asking for you to take a guess because it's unknown.
There is a known answer to this.
I know that they think there's, let me put it this way.
What, what, oh, that's not the right way to put it.
They believe we're going to fail.
What does that mean?
And then what happens after that?
What will be the result?
Let's put it that way.
What will be the result of our failure or defeat?
What?
Don't tell.
No, no, no, no.
Well, but that's Snerdley says the Democrats come back to power.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but that's obvious.
I'm talking about what will be the mechanism they think will get them there.
I'll tell you, the answer, folks, is very simple, and it is frightening in its short-sightedness as far as the left is concerned.
Let me grab a phone call while you think about this for a while.
John in Austin, Texas, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hello, Rush.
I just have one question for you.
Yes, sir.
Would you be willing to live under the Constitution that they voted for Saturday in Iraq?
John, the question is formed on a premise that is deeply flawed.
And that is?
What's my premise that's flawed, Rush?
The flawed premise is that they're not electing a constitution for Americans to live under.
And we are not forcing an American-style democracy on them.
I thought when this all started that what everybody was upset about was that we were pushing an American-style democracy on a bunch of Arabs and Iranians or Iraqis and Islamic people, and that was unfair.
Now they're coming up with their own constitution.
So in fact, okay, we'll get to the point of my question then is you think that that constitution represents something that you can call democracy?
Yes.
Well, wait a second.
Now, wait a second, but you see, you've got to be very careful with the words you use when you ask me a question, because what is democracy?
What is democracy?
Yeah, defined very simply, in the simplest terms you can say.
Mob rule.
That's what democracy is.
It's mob rule.
Well, majority rule, and it could lead to mob rule without any morality.
I don't want to agree with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and James Madison on that.
So if you want to disagree with us, that's fine, Rush.
But democracy.
No, no, Holton, there you go now.
Slow down.
You're presuming I'm going to say and think things that you can't yet know.
Now, what I would call happening in Iraq yesterday at this stage of the game, yep, it's a democracy.
Why?
Because they voted?
Majority rule.
Mob rule.
That's what I said, Rush.
Mob rule.
No, Majority rule.
You get into mob rule later.
The mob over there is the insurgency that didn't vote.
I don't understand.
The mob is the one who vote themselves goodies out of the public treasury.
Mob rule.
That's what we've got here, Rush.
You can't recognize it.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I forgot we were talking about the United States mob rule.
I thought you started out asking me if I would like to live under the Iraqi Constitution, and now you want to talk about the mob rule of the Republicans in Washington.
Sir, do not try to trick this host.
We're too shifty.
We're too smart.
And we've heard from you.
I know where you're going to go before you go there.
I know what you're going to say before you say it.
I know what's in your warped mind before you do.
Let me just get to the nub of this with you, sir.
And was that Ronnie Earle on the phone?
Is his name Ronnie Earle?
That was John in Austin.
Okay.
All roads lead to Travis County.
It sounded like Ronnie Earle.
Again, I have a cochlear implant.
I sometimes confused voices thought it might have been Ronnie Earle.
But he asked me this question, and of course, didn't let me answer it because they're afraid of the answer.
Would you want to live under this constitution with Islamic rule and this and that?
And my answer to that is: well, let me ask you people on the left a question.
If this constitution is so bad, and if this constitution establishes the kind of Islamic government that we have in Iraq or we see in Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, then tell me, why is it that Zawahiri and Abu Zuqab Abu whatever these guys' names, Zarkawi and Zawahiri, tell me why they didn't vote for it.
Tell me why they're trying to blow it up.
If this Iraqi constitution establishes the kind of militant regime that they want, why are they trying to stop this?
Why aren't they running for president and getting the votes of the people?
You left people on the left are intellectually embarrassing.
You are beneath contempt at times.
I just, you continue to amaze me.
Your rage and your hatred has clouded your ability to be reasonable and to see things as they are.
And I might have to stay on track when you call this program.
I mean, I can veer off with you whenever you go because, as I say, I know where you're going before you do.
But you just don't sound good when you call here.
Back in just a second.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Rush limbo.
And we have a Frank in Trenton, New Jersey.
Frank, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hey, Rush Diddos, regarding your question about what happens if we lose in Iraq, I think the left will think that the world will become safer because...
Oh, you're close.
You're very close.
You're very, close.
Because why?
Tell me why.
Because the U.S. will become weakened in its status as the world's own superpower.
So therefore the.
And it is the U.S. which provokes all of this violence and unrest and hatred around the world because of our size.
You're exactly right.
But let me start a little sooner than that because I want to explain this answer to you in just as simple a way as possible.
The left defines victory in Iraq for them as the troops coming home.
They're basing their opposition on this loss of life isn't worth it.
They have the run-up, the body count, the dead in Iraq.
And as it reaches a number like 1,500 or 2,000, they start to count down and they herald it.
They've tried to turn public opinion against the war based on that.
They have tried to turn public opinion against the war based on a number of things and in a number of ways.
So it seems to me that they're defining victory for themselves as bringing the troops home.
Remember now, their template is Vietnam.
The left is looking to the past to find their glory today.
They think that there was much glory, presumed glory, in their past.
So Iraq today is Vietnam.
The entirety of the Bush administration is Watergate.
Hurricane Katrina is the Great Depression.
They can only look to the past to find greatness in themselves, presumed greatness.
They cannot chart a course for this country for the future.
They can't tell us what it is.
And if they have one, they can't be honest about it.
So quite simply, they think that they can make hay, make points, win an election by promising to get the troops home.
And if we get the troops home, they will consider that a victory.
In truth, it is failure if the troops come home before the mission is accomplished.
And here's why.
Because you're exactly right.
They think that once the troops come home, we will be able to go back to a pre-9-11 existence in this country.
And they think that by doing that, we will all be safer and prices will come down.
And, oh, yeah, we'll have the occasional terrorist hit, but we'll not be faced with a constant barrage and threat from terrorism because we will have pulled out of their region and they will show or know that we are now changing tact, that we have no intention of taking over their part of the world.
The truth is, or the reality is, that were the Democrats to secure enough power to actually bring the troops home, it would be the worst possible thing that could happen to this country.
If anyone thinks that the terrorism that we faced in the pre-9-11 days will simply return to that level, or maybe even a little less, you have to have a rude awakening.
Because losing by bringing the troops home and caving without the mission being accomplished over there would result in the terrorists being emboldened.
And folks, the terrorist objective is not just to drive us out of the Middle East, to drive us out of Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever.
They don't like us.
Their objective is to kill us.
Their objective is to do away with our way of life.
There were 20 years of terror attacks before 9-11.
Some of them were pretty vicious.
Some of them were pretty serious.
But they all occurred elsewhere, other than the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which we laughed about because these guys were such bumblers they got caught by not returning their rental van.
And so we laughed a little bit about that one.
Of course, that was the Clinton administration where the image of everybody's just happy as can be, nothing is going wrong, and we're going to have a great eight years was being cast and set.
And so no serious effort to deal with terrorist attacks during that decade occurred.
And by the way, as nothing was done to deter future terrorist attacks after each one during those 20 years, particularly the eight years of the Clinton administration, what then happened, 9-11.
Folks, if we quote unquote lose this, as the Democrats seek for us to lose it by, you know, apologizing, bringing the troops home, saying we've bitten off more than we can chew here, the terrorist attacks on this country and around freedom-loving civilizations around the world are only going to increase.
The recruitment of new terrorists is going to expand geometrically and exponentially.
They will have forced the great Satan, the world's lone superpower, out of Iraq.
And it'll be because somebody like Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or whoever is going to run the Democratic side will succeed in winning the presidency and embark on that policy.
That's what the left wants.
I mean, if you listen to them talk, Democratic Party, it's bring the troops home.
We've got to get the troops home.
This is unfair.
It's unjust.
It's not worth this loss of blood, this loss of life.
Nothing's worth this.
Bush lied to get us into this.
There's no real problem here that we haven't caused and made worse ourselves.
So if we just show them that we're not like Bush, why we'll be able to go back and pick daisies and grill hamburgers and hot dogs every afternoon of the week, never, ever again having to worry about another terrorist attack.
When in truth, it'll be worse than ever if that happens.
And I mention all this only because the circumstances in Iraq are clearly advancing in a positive way.
And yet, the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the mainstream press are doing everything possible to make as many people as possible think that it's leading to failure, to calamity, more death, more terrorism, more destruction.
The exact thing, that exact thing, would be the result of Democrats succeeding with their foreign policy on the war on terror.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Don't go away, folks.
I guess I will get into my op-ed a little bit in the next hour.
And I'll tell you, folks, where there's another crackup occurring, and it is on the left.
The far-out extremist anti-war activists continue to be upset with the mainstream leftist media, particularly the New York Times.
There's a lot going on.
▲
Export Selection