All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:48
November 4, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I can't believe it.
It's already Friday.
Here we are, folks, rearing and ready to go the Rush Limbaugh program from high atop.
Our little Kwanzit hut here in the EIB Southern Command.
It's Friday, so let's move.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
I am really looking forward to this today, folks.
Based on my email, some of you have done a 180 and left me.
Such examples.
All right, Rush, I knew you were too good to be true.
We don't buy ketchup to fuel our cars and heat our homes and get ourselves to work.
You've lost me forever.
That's from the oil profits discussion of yesterday.
I'm sure many of you want to unload on anything.
So this is a day, Open Line Friday.
You choose, for the most part, what we discuss on the phones, 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Folks, you got a problem.
Don't hold back.
The media is in full orgasm today.
I have a Washington Post poll.
We have an AP poll.
Both show that Bush is just in horrible shape according to the polls.
Public support now has eroded to its lowest level yet with the Iraq war dragging on, a top White House aide facing felony charges, and the White House rushing to replace a failed Supreme Court nominee.
Concerned that the president's lost his footing, some Republicans have suggested that President Bush should shake up his staff a new AP Ipsos poll.
Found the president's approval rating was at 37% compared with only 39% a month ago.
About 59% of those surveyed said that they disapproved.
And the intensity of disapproval is the strongest to date, with 42% now saying they strongly disapprove of how Bush is handling the job.
Now, folks, we've had a CBS poll out this week, and we know that the sample in that poll was really skewed.
25% Republicans, 35% Democrats, and interestingly found a 35% approval rating.
I don't know yet on the breakdown of this AP poll, but this is becoming a common practice.
Now, remember what I have said to you over, I hate to keep saying that, you know, I found my, Yesterday, I found myself saying, as I said to you last week, and as I told you last week, and I hate getting into the monosyllabic habit of doing that, but it is important to keep saying and reinforcing things.
And the news cycle today is really no more than what the media wants the news to be.
You can get a poll, you can take it, and you can bend it and shape it and come up with a result.
It's pretty close to what you want.
I, frankly, don't have the sense that these polls are accurate.
If I did, I'd be worried about it, but I don't have the sense that they're accurate.
I also don't think that they matter because Bush is not running for anything again.
And some people say, well, but you got to be a little concerned about this rush because it's Bush that advances the agenda that future Republicans will run on.
Well, here's, yeah, I think we're in fine shape.
I still look at the Democrats.
I mean, I'd love to see a poll on those people.
You know, I still sit here and I'm amazed.
In fact, I've been thinking about this.
I just, the more I think about it, the more nothing makes sense.
There has to be a reason I haven't thought of yet to explain what Democrats are doing.
This Groundhog Day business, this going back and rehashing this whole notion that Bush lied about pre-war intelligence, they know that that's not true.
They have to know.
They know what they said about it.
They know the intelligence they saw.
They know it's not true.
So what's going on?
It's either they're in the midst.
It could be multiple things too.
They're in the midst of a dramatic implosion and crackup.
Or there's something else that is behind this.
And I've been thinking about some possibilities, which I will share with you.
I know a lot of it is follow the money fundraiser.
Mr. Sterdley, you're right.
I think you're partly right.
Part of it is they're saying and doing things that their kooks want them to say.
I just, I still think that it's one of the most pleasant moments of my day is when I run across stories from the Kook base, wherever you find them, that think the Democrats are finally standing up now.
Democrats finally got a backbone.
Democrats are finally fighting back as though all this mutt and dirty tricks that they've been playing the last five years represents weakness and silence.
No, but there's more to it than just the fundraising.
They're not just trying to echo what the base is saying to get money.
There's something else going on.
I think I have figured it out, but I will share it with you as the program unfolds today.
Back to these polls.
If you look at the Libby case, if you look at any element of the news, Katrina aftermath, Cindy Shehan, it doesn't matter.
The news was reported not as it was in reality.
The news took the shape of the hopes and dreams of those who were reporting it.
The news became what the hoped-for outcome is.
And so they simply started reporting the news as though what they hoped for has already happened.
So the war in Iraq is not a war.
The economy is not the economy because it's burgeoning.
I mean, we're coming back out of these hurricanes pretty strongly.
The hurricanes, natural disaster hurricanes are not natural disasters.
And the possibility of a bird flu pandemic is not really the possibility of a bird flu pandemic.
These events, these issues that we face, they are not challenges to our country and they are not challenges to our well-being and they're not even really problems.
What they are is vehicles.
They are opportunities to attack, to vilify, to weaken the president of the United States, to weaken George W. Bush.
Well, because in the liberal mind, he's not president.
He's just W. He's just a lying kid, a frat boy.
But the latest poll, and it's, you know, the Washington Post, CBS, whatever, it's tainted with the sample that has been constructed.
But it does show that the media liberal complex is doing some harm, however, temporarily.
But I'm not even willing to admit that yet.
Some people think so, but I'm not willing to admit that.
I just, I don't get the sense of depression, doom, and gloom on my side of the aisle that would be there if this were the actual opinion of the public.
For example, I mean, you know, the Scooter Libby story, it's the biggest thing going on in Washington right now, but out there, it really isn't yet.
It's not that big a deal, and yet it is cited as one of the many factors that has led people to be disappointed and disapproving of President Bush.
So I think there's a huge disconnect.
So we've got a war going on, and we're not going to tell you how good the war is.
We're going to focus on war victims.
We will ignore the war heroes.
In fact, the New York Times will even distort the words of war heroes in its pages, not distort, but totally reorient the words of a war hero to make him say something in a letter that he was not saying.
We have focusing on war setbacks instead of ignoring the successes.
We're ignoring good economic news.
In fact, we're ignoring great economic news.
We focus only on the first three days of Hurricane Katrina, and we ignore the positives that have come out of all these hurricanes that have hit, or not nearly as bad as they were.
You know, it's the same old thing, that the attempt here to force Bush out of office and to force him into a never-never land of disapproval is something they think they've achieved.
This is like they think this indictment of Scooter Libby is going to lead to a trial on why we went to war in Iraq.
I mean, it's all fantasy island.
And I think to a large degree, their poll results are as well.
I'll give you an example of this, the audio soundbites, and we come back as Open Line Friday rolls right off.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
And we are back.
Here's the data on the polls out there.
The AP Ipsos poll, which got the lowest approval rating for Bush yet.
Here's the weighting on that.
49% Democrats, 40% Republican, and 9% Independent.
Now, what's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that is that there are far more people identify themselves as Republican today than Democrat and far more that identify themselves as conservative than liberal.
In the CBS news poll that was out this week, Independents were weighted at 41%, Democrats 35%, Republicans 24%.
And the Washington Post poll, the respondents there, the Democrats were 31%, Republicans were 27%, and the Independents were at 38%.
So if you look at all these polls, you see a vastly undersampled Republican participation in virtually all of them.
And so that's one of the ways that you can go out and produce the kind of news that you wish to happen.
And I maintain that a lot of that is what's going on.
Now, give you an example.
Our buddies at Newsmax have just posted something on their website.
They've done a little research and found something out.
A week after Patrick Fitzgerald announced that his investigation had been unable to establish that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent at the time she was outed by Robert Novak.
The press continues to refer to her using the bogus term as covert.
In the last six days, there have been 261 references to Plame's covert status in mainstream media accounts, according to a LexisNexis search.
The wave of erroneous reporting continues despite Fitzgerald's clear denials during his press conference last Friday after announcing the Libby indictment.
Fitzgerald, if you recall, asked about Plame's covert status, said this to reporters.
I'm not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert, and anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this, that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002 forward.
We've not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.
We have not charged that, and so I'm not making that assertion.
He explained instead that Plame's CIA status was classified, but not covert, and yet the media to this day continue to refer to her as a covert agent.
She never was a covert agent at any stage of this whole story.
Just as the indictment has nothing to do with the way we fought the war on Iraq or had pre-war intelligence going into it, but you would not know that by listening to the mainstream press.
So they're continuing to report what they wished this whole thing was about, and they continue to report as though it has come about.
And their alternative reality is a glaring, gaping hole.
Here's the real story about the upcoming Libby trial.
The real story is that media bias is going to be put on trial.
If you want to know the truth, I'll guarantee you something.
These lawyers, these defense lawyers for Lewis Libby are no slouch.
And they are going to demand all kinds of documents.
They're going to demand all kinds of classified material from the government.
They're going to demand to see everything that Libby said to these reporters and that these reporters reported and took in their notes that Libby said to them.
You're going to see a parade of reporters being subpoenaed and called to testify in this trial.
They are likely to question whether political bias of news outlets involved in this whole case played a role in testimony by their reporters against the top White House officials.
The Wall Street Journal is making that assertion today in an editorial.
They said, just wait until defense counsel starts examining their memories and their reporting habits, not to mention the dominant political leanings in the newsrooms of NBC, Time magazine, and the New York Times.
And with a story we had yesterday from our buddies at Newsmax about Andrea Mitchell back in 2003, saying, Oh, yeah, all of us said, no, it was generally known, widely known, that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA.
You don't think that the defense lawyers for Libby are going to get a hold of her and try to get her on the stand in this trial?
This is where the media is.
This is one of those things.
Be careful what you ask for because you might get it.
They wanted this investigation, but it's, I can just tell you that these lawyers for Scooter Libby are, this is hardball.
They've got two things to do.
They've got to get him acquitted and they've got to restore his reputation.
And there are people out there who are trying to destroy his reputation, and that's who you go after when you're trying to restore somebody's reputation.
So you can expect these lawyers to seek broad discovery of classified materials.
In fact, they will also probably demand every piece of documentation on the referral from the CIA to the Justice Department, which asked for this investigation in the first place.
And they want to determine the true nature of her employment.
They'll ferret that out.
They're going to nuke all of these rumors, all of these allegations.
They're going to nuke the template here that is being used by the press.
It was covert.
Wilson is a great guy.
They're both brave, courageous heroes.
Their lives are destroyed.
All this was the basis for the Iraq war.
They're just going to totally nuke this.
And the great thing about it is they're going to make these requests under the terms of discovery.
And you know the government won't want to turn over everything.
You know, the CIA is going to cite national security, all other kinds of privileges.
And I think what these people will do, these lawyers, they will go out, they will create a First Amendment problem by seeking broad discovery of reporters, their notes, their emails, other possible sources who may have discussed Playman or identity with them.
And the media will go nuts.
They will go more nuts than they were during Fitzgerald's investigation.
It landed one of their own in jail.
The defense has a right to information that they have a reasonable expectation will help them.
They have a right to it.
See, folks, what's happened here, and this is what I point that I make constantly on the program.
All we have is the indictment, and all we have is what the special prosecutor said at his press conference.
We have not had one defense comment yet.
We haven't had one retaliation.
And the way it works in our society, everybody listens to the prosecutor and they listen to the indictment, and the prosecutors leak whatever they want to leak to the media, and everybody gets it in their head that the suspect is guilty before the suspect has even been heard from.
And the media is out there just, oh, they're just so excited.
They just can't wait for this.
Well, they're going to get what they asked for.
And this First Amendment problem is going to surface because when these reporters are brought into a trial and all of their notes and all of their emails and everybody else they've talked to about this, and when Playman Wilson get brought into trial, you darn well know they're going to be brought into this too.
You know, Andrea Mitchell probably will be drawn into this since she said it was common knowledge and the prosecution said it was not.
Patrick Fitzgerald said in his indictment it was not common knowledge.
Andrew Mitchell says it was.
A lot of reporters have been saying it was common knowledge.
So the prosecutor had his way.
He had his time.
But now the fight begins, folks.
And this is where it's going to get real interesting.
It's going to take some time because all of this, this flooding of emotions and paper is going to take a while to argue before the court.
But the defense is about to mount its offense.
And it's going to be real interesting to watch the whole template that the media has set up on this story blown to smithereens.
And that's the real story.
That's the real future.
That's the real direction this case is going to go.
It is not going to go where Chris Matthews and the rest of these people think it's going to go.
It's not going to go to, did Bush lie about pre-war intelligence, anything about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame and the whole reason for going to war in Iraq?
And did Bush lie to us all the way through his teeth about everything?
It's not going to go there.
It isn't going to go there.
The prosecution is going to try to prove that Scooter Libby lied to them, not about anything regarding Valerie Plame, but rather lied about his conversations with reporters.
That's what they're going to prove.
And the defense is obviously going to go after the very people who have put Scooter in this circumstance, and that's the news media.
This is going to be fun.
I feel sorry for Scooter that he's in the middle of this and that it has to happen.
But I'm just, you mark my words.
And it's a great lesson to apply every time you watch the news from this day forward.
Because what they tell you that is happening now isn't.
It's what they hope will happen.
What they tell you is going to happen in the future is what they're telling you they're going to try to make happen.
And at every stage of the way, you can look at the Katrina aftermath.
You can look at the National Guard documents, the forged documents.
You can look at the attempts that were made after the 9-11 commission.
They have bombed out.
They have failed.
Now, they think they've succeeded because they've got these poll numbers down.
But they haven't succeeded in getting Bush out of office.
They haven't succeeded in bringing impeachment charges.
They haven't succeeded in electing one Democrat to replace one Republican anywhere yet.
They haven't succeeded at anything.
And I don't want anybody getting all down on the dumps and depressed thinking it's over.
Because folks, every day is just a new beginning.
And we are back open line Friday.
Get to your phone calls here in just a second.
I want to go to the audio soundbites, folks, because this will also help to illustrate what I am discussing and what our buddies at Newsmax have uncovered, that despite the fact that Fitzgerald said nothing about Valerie Playham being covert, they continue to refer to her as covert, that the war is not a war, the economy is not the economy, natural disaster hurricanes are not natural disasters, and the bird flu pandemic is not a real problem.
These are just vehicles.
These are just vehicles that the left, the Democrats, and the media can use to try to hammer Bush and conservatives.
And they create the news that they hope happens.
We had a whole segment on it here from last night's hardball with a great, great summation and just hammer job on Matthews and Katrina Vandenhoeff by Deborah Oren of the New York Post.
But that's who we'll hear from Katrina Van den Hoovel, Matthews and Oren.
Matthews says, Hurricane Katrina, why are these numbers what they are?
35% approval for the president of the war, 64% say it's not worth it.
61% say the charges against Libya are worth prosecuting.
What's going on out there, Hurricane Katrina?
Hurricane Katrina, the failed war in Iraq, staggeringly high oil prices, a sense that this administration doesn't care about ordinary Americans, that it circles the wagons, stonewalls, misleads Americans.
And the good news is that I think Democrats are finally beginning to wake up and act like an opposition party.
Credit to Harry Reid the other night for invoking a legitimate rule to go into private session and to demand questions from Republicans who have stonewalled on intelligence, on national security, undermining national security in favor of circling the wagons.
Let us get some answers.
Now, Katrina van den Hoovel here, ladies and gentlemen, is part of the Kook base.
She is the editor-in-chief of The Nation magazine, which is no different than what you see and read on some of these far-left Kook websites.
And you hear her.
She believes all this.
She really believes.
She thinks that she doesn't know that there have been three investigations that have already uncovered no manipulation of intel, no attempt by administration officials to pressure analysts to shape the intel or to leave certain things out of it in order to make the case.
No such thing.
The Silberman-Robb report, March 31st of this year, is just the latest.
There have been intelligence committee hearings in the Senate, investigations produced the same thing, and yet utter denial.
And she's one of the targets, by the way.
She's sitting there thinking, and Harry Reid's done a great, she's one of these people, I just have to laugh.
Oh, yeah, it's great to see the Democrats finally showing a backbone.
That is not what the Democrats are doing, but if that's what people like Katrina Van den Hoovel think is going on, then the Democrats strategiery is working with them.
Because the Democrats, these guys know who they are.
They know what they said.
They know what their statements are.
They know they can be dredged up.
They know what their votes on the war are.
And so there's something going on here besides them just cracking up.
And it's not just they need to say this stuff to get fundraising up from these groups, which do contribute a lot of money to the Democrats.
There's something else, and I think it's something they're hiding.
But as I say, I will unveil all of that as the program unfolds.
So there's Vandenhoevel, and you hear that the basic parroting of all of these things that she wishes were true, that she actually thinks are true, but really are not.
So Matthew says, well, Katrina, should the vice president testify in this case as the state's witness against his chief of staff, Scooter Libby?
The whole issue of motive.
What was Scooter Libby's motive?
He was linked at the hip to the vice president, his chief aide.
If Libby lied, did he lie to conceal the vice president's involvement, thereby protecting his boss, thereby not getting this news out in advance of the election in 2004?
These are core questions.
I think we need to keep our eyes on the prize and focused.
And for Deborah, one, to dismiss what happened in the Senate the other day as a stunt is so abusive toward any concept of minority rights in a democracy.
And two, to deny that this indictment is the tip of the iceberg.
Here's Deborah Oren's response, by the way.
Katrina, I'm simply drawing conclusions from what the prosecutor said.
The prosecutor said this was a very narrow case.
The war was not on trial in this case.
There was no charge in the indictment involving outing a covert agent.
Hence, no covert agent was outed because the prosecutor knows the original Mr. X who told Robert Novak that first got this name out.
No charges have been put against that person or against Robert Novak.
Hence, there was no outing of a covert agent because she wasn't covert.
So Matthew says, well, but you're counting an awful lot of people on the left, like all the major newspapers and the wire services and networks.
Everybody's off base but here, but you.
Is that what you're saying?
One of the most amusing things about this whole thing, actually, is how the left has suddenly fallen in love with the CIA.
I find that hysterical.
But I come back to the beginning.
This case has been horribly misreported by the press.
And you have to just go...
But we're reading the indictment.
Yeah, I'm reading the indictment.
You don't seem to be.
There is no outing in the indictment.
There are prosecutions going on right now for perjury, for obstruction of justice, for misstatements.
There's an investigation that continues of Carl Rove.
This is serious business.
But however it started, it's ending this way.
You can't talk sense to him.
You can't.
She did her best.
She did her best to drill home the reality.
And Katrina Vandenhoeff will say, what was Scooter Libby's motive?
He's linked to the hip of the vice president.
That's not where this case is going to go.
I mean, it'll include that, but it's not where it's going to end up.
This is going to end up being a big investigation of how the media operates.
This is going to be a big investigation of what the media knew and when did they know it?
And what did they know that they denied that they knew?
What were they trying to keep quiet about?
What were they trying to keep secret?
There's a lot of media people on the record of saying, hey, it was widely known that this woman worked at the CIA.
So it's a very narrow case, but you hear they're living this illusion.
They're living this false reality, this alternative reality, even because they wanted it so badly.
They're just going to pretend that they got it.
And since they didn't get it, they're going to try to make it happen anyway.
And when they do that, obviously their eye is off the ball and they're going to get sandbagged.
And if I look, I can have Chris Matthews in here right now.
I could be telling you this.
He would discount everything I'm saying.
I couldn't get through to him any more than Deborah Oren could get through to him.
So you're saying I'm wrong, every major newspaper's wrong, and all the major networks are wrong?
Yes!
Yes!
And you've been wrong for how many years?
Yes, you're wrong.
Do you care about credibility?
Do you care about your future?
Do you care about not becoming a laughing stock?
Yes, you're wrong.
Well, it may have started that way, but it ain't going to end that way.
And that's his bottom line.
And all of them.
So when their eye's not on the ball, they're going to get broadsided, blindsided.
And they think they're watching it, and they will be.
They'll be watching it with their own two eyes, seeing things that don't happen, reporting things that haven't happened as though they're about to happen.
And then when they get blindsided, you watch.
This is going to make you a prediction.
Before this is all over, these people that were calling Patrick Fitzgerald, the prosecutor's prosecutor, are going to be cursing this guy like they were cursing Ken Starr because this prosecution is going to end up involving them just like the investigation did.
Brian in Virginia Beach will start with you on Open Line Friday.
Nice to have you with us.
Nice to talk to you, Rush.
Listen, I'm just wondering if you would give us your take on these riots that have taken over France and what it says about the demise of their beloved socialism over there.
Well, this thing started out innocently enough.
It started out with just some gangs trying to steal car parts.
And there are four, there are, I think, 20 suburbs of Paris, 20 small cities near Paris, where this activity is going on.
Four of them, I believe, where this activity is intense.
And it started out with just a bunch of people stealing car parts.
And these are really poor neighborhoods.
These are really downtrodden, typical neighborhoods you get in socialism.
This is really poor, and the cops never go in there.
The cops never go into these areas to stop any of the crime.
Well, the people that do abide by the law in these neighborhoods finally had had enough, and one lady gets on the phone watching some car thief do his little number out there, and she calls the cops.
Well, you call the cops, the cops came in, and the people who have been getting away with crime in these areas unopposed got offended that anybody would dare send authority in after them.
And that started all these riots.
And the French at first said, Well, it's just a bunch of hooligans, and uh, we're not going to let these people violate the laws of this republic.
We're going to enforce the laws of this republic.
And the and the rioters said, Oh, yeah, and they ratcheted up the rioting and they started burning things and blowing up cars and everything else.
So, the French military or the French government sent in special ops teams.
I didn't even know the French had special ops.
Why do the French have special ops?
Why do they have special ops?
But they apparently do.
They sent 400 cops in with military-style gear, and they couldn't stop it.
De Villi Pan, the poet, what is he, the prime minister and Shirock, what is he, the president?
Yeah, so the president, vice president, they both canceled foreign trips to deal with this crisis.
What has come to be learned about the population here that's going berserk is that it is like 80% Muslim, and most of it is from Algeria.
Most of them are Algerians, and most of them are from, as Amir Tahari said today in the New York Post, from the from black nations in Africa.
And most of them are Muslim, and they don't believe in French socialism.
They don't believe in this great, idyllic, peaceful coexistence with the French because they don't believe in socialism.
They believe that Islam ought to rule France.
This is simply, I'll tell you what this is: this is a result of arrogance and hubris on the part of the French for thinking their system is the best in the world, and anybody that came to it could be tamed and would live side by side with one another in a wonderful experiment to show how humanity can get along.
They also thought they were buying insurance by not helping us out against Saddam and Iraq.
That's a huge lesson here.
That's what they're scratching their heads about.
De Villi Pan probably wants to go to these neighborhoods.
Don't you know I put my life on the line at the United Nations Security Council in Chirock, too?
Doesn't matter.
All they did was show what a bunch of weak people they are.
They showed how easily malleable they are.
We all know why they did what they did at the Security Council.
They had all kinds of financial dealings with Saddam, not just the oil for food program, but other things going on as well.
I wouldn't be surprised if the French are involved in this whole Joe Wilson story somehow involving these forged documents about Yellow Cake and Niger.
There are too many forged documents going around in this whole story.
And it seems to me that it wouldn't surprise me if the French, trying to stop us from doing anything in Iraq, would set Bush up with this phony story and a bunch of forged documents.
I don't know this.
I'm just guessing, but I don't think the French, let me put this as a negative.
I think the French are as dirty in this as anybody can be, and they're getting their just desserts here.
I'm not experiencing Schaddenfreud over this because this is going to happen everywhere.
These people are not stood up to.
The bottom line is today, France, tomorrow, well, yesterday, Madrid, today, France, where next?
Well, wherever nobody wants to stand up to them, and wherever a nation of people thinks we can purchase goodwill by hating the United States, is going to find themselves in the same circumstance.
It's happening now.
At the root of this, by the way, I should point out is the lax immigration problem that the French have.
See, what was happening, these people were dribbling in small groups, and the French said, this is good.
This is able to assimilate into our fine, upstanding, superior culture.
Well, they started immigrating in much greater numbers, and then they said, hell with assimilating.
We're going to live in France as we lived in Algeria.
We're just going to move Algeria to France.
And the same thing's going in Great Britain.
And that's why immigration, among many other reasons, is such a key issue here.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
It's Open Line Friday.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchor man, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
And we go to Naples, Florida.
Hi, Sarah.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Great to have you with us.
Well, thanks.
I just, you know, I know you're a great cheerleader for the president, but I just think things are starting to fall apart.
And I think it's due to his incompetence.
I think he really hasn't been very successful at any job he's ever had.
And I think that he blew it with this war, and he blew it with Katrina.
And I just think he's being exposed for really what he is.
How did he blow it with the war?
Well, I don't think he planned it properly.
I don't think, I mean, now we're going to go from a one-star general to a three-star general.
Yeah, I agree with you there.
We need a four-star general in this.
Well, it's why he started to do something.
Yeah, and how about now 2,025 dead soldiers?
Who would have ever thought that in a war?
I mean, I'm stunned.
I'm glad you called, actually, because I can't believe that it's actually disintegrated to this degree.
It's not a smart war we're waging at all.
And they're a very smart enemy, and we're not being very smart about it.
No, I yeah.
Yeah, we need, we need, who do you think would be better doing this than Bush?
Because we do have a problem.
I think it's Rumsfeld.
I mean, I think he could get rid of it.
No, no, I know.
You're giving me all the skunks.
I want to know who do you think would be good to do this?
Who should be?
Who's running a war?
Yeah, who should be?
Give me a smart person to run the war.
I mean, obviously.
I'm not in that.
That's not my job.
And I don't think it's anybody's job at the White House's job.
Wait a minute.
No, no, no.
Sarah, wait a minute.
You're very, very sharp.
You're very smart.
You can see that Bush and Rumsfeld are not smart, and they're not the right ones to be your guy.
Well, but you've got to know who then is.
I mean, you can't have one without the other.
If these guys are in the city, I'm afraid it's the same as with Vietnam, that the Pentagon is not running things.
think that the white house is and if the pentagon were in charge not the not the well but see that's Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
But that's Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's the Pentagon.
Yeah, but he's the civilian part of the Pentagon.
I'm in the military, just like in Vietnam.
They didn't let the military do the job.
And it didn't work.
So you'd think they would have learned from that.
It's not working this way.
Well, you've got to have an idea that there's got to be somebody out.
What would be the smart way to fight the war?
We all want to know.
Well, I would think that they would let the military figure it out and they would work with the military.
I don't know.
But wait a minute.
Wait a minute, Bush has constantly said the generals are running the war, that Abizade over there, he's always said that he, oh, you don't believe.
Oh, that's right, because Bush is a liar.
I forgot.
We can't trust anything Bush says.
Well, I think it's kind of turning out to be that way.
I think he really has just sort of been exposed.
Yeah.
Who's exposed him?
Gee, I think he's done it to himself.
I really do.
What did he do in Katrina?
How did he screw up the hurricane?
I thought the hurricane, in fact, I thought the hurricane was designed to destroy New Orleans and kick all those Democrats out of there and scatter them around the country.
I thought Bush did a great job.
And Katrina, I mean, if it's going to hit anywhere, New Orleans is a perfect place to hit.
How did he screw that up?
That's one area I'm willing to give him credit.
You know, I feel badly for you, Rush.
I think that you're losing it.
I just think you've got to admit that maybe this guy's wrong, and you're going to defend him.
Well, I'm trying to agree with you.
I'm trying to agree.
Okay, so we have a minor disagreement about Katrina.
You think he screwed it up.
I think he did a great job steering that hurricane work.
So did Brownie.
You know, what was that all about?
Who?
Michael Brownie?
Good job, Brownie.
Excellent job.
Oh, Michael Brown, the FEMA guy?
Yeah.
The FEMA guy.
He just took the fall for Bush.
Bush did all that stupid stuff, not getting FEMA down there.
That was on purpose.
So all those people in New Orleans would be scattered.
You got to change your thinking on Bush.
That Hurricane Katrina was a brilliant political move by Bush, Sarah.
You got to rethink that.
Back here in just a second.
We love liberal callers on this pro.
We always put them at the front of the line because there's always so much to learn from them.
And that's what Open Line Friday is all about, folks.
We've got more to come right after this top-of-the-hour break, and we'll get straight to it.
▲
Export Selection