Rush Limbaugh Program - November 17, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 17, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:21

November 17, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the EIB Network at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	We will advance those studies today, you and I together, in a dramatic fashion.
	We have news breaking on WMD.
	I'm going to get to that later in Iraq.
	We're going to pick up the case of Tukey Williams, the next Mumia.
	Will you hear this story?
	Death Row, co-founder of the Cripps gang, lionized now by the lunatic left and actually nominated for a Nobel Prize for his work with youth.
	Not the youth he killed, mind you, but other youth.
	So we'll talk about that today.
	The moderates have got my attention.
	What they're moderate about will take more money out of your paycheck, and we'll talk about that today.
	And amazingly, as the world turns, this is like a soap opera in Washington, Woodward, of all people, Bob Woodward, may actually now save Libby.
	Scooter Libby might be saved by Bob Woodward, and there's a lot of talk today in Washington.
	We'll get to that today.
	Law and Order last night, if you saw it, we'll get into that as well.
	But first, an update on Fields versus Palmdale School District.
	We talked about this yesterday, a sex survey given to students at the Palmdale School District as young as six years old.
	Parents suing the school district after finding out that their kids had been asked a series of sexual questions in class.
	The survey, by the way, included questions on lots of other topics, health and nutrition and habits and that sort of thing, that had actually been sent home for the parents to see before it was distributed to the students.
	What had been left out in the copy that was sent to parents was the sex survey section, incredibly.
	Then the parents found out about it, found out that the children were asked about the frequency of, quote, touching my private parts too much, quote, thinking about sex, quote, thinking about touching other people's private parts.
	This is six-year-olds now being asked this question.
	Not trusting people because they might want sex.
	I won't, there's a dozen of these.
	I'm not going to get into them.
	So what happened yesterday after we talked about this is that the House of Representatives voted to ask the Ninth U.S. Circus Court of Appeals to rehear the entire issue, a three-judge panel, which had been chaired by Justice Reinhardt.
	Judge Reinhardt, the panel, the Ninth Circus has 47 judges, 26 of whom were appointed by Clinton and Carter between them.
	But the three that made this another wacko decision, I mean, this is the, I know, this is the Ninth Circuit is the court that gave us the, that under God in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, the phrase was unconstitutional, that there was in the Constitution a, quote, right to die, unquote.
	Now, I don't know where in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration and where in the Constitution they would have found a right to die, but apparently this is the school of thought, the judge's school of thought, that we just make it up as we go along because we know so much better than you do.
	As a combination of ignorance and arrogance, which could only have been produced by our current public school system.
	Ignorance and arrogance, high self-esteem, and absolutely no clue what they're doing.
	So this is in terms of destroying our Constitution.
	So this is the backdrop of this.
	And the House of Representatives yesterday voted 320 to 91 for a resolution that said that this decision in the Fields versus Palmdale School District case, quote, deplorably infringed on parental rights, unquote, no kidding, and that they should rehear, the entire Ninth Circuit should rehear it to think again before they are overruled again by the United States Supreme Court.
	This is the most overruled circuit court in the country by a large margin, and it is overruled because it sits in San Francisco and thinks that's America.
	Sorry, that's part of America, apparently an undefended part of America, but it isn't all of America.
	By the way, if you're in San Francisco and you decide you're not turning in your gun after the election, a recent election in which San Francisco majority voters adopted a local ordinance banning all guns from all private ownership.
	If you are, since you sit on the San Andreas Fault and you're aware of what happened in 1906 and you're aware of if it happened today, millions and millions of people without food, water, shelter would make New Orleans look like a picnic in terms of the looting that would go on.
	If you're aware of all that, and I think you are, turning in your gun is either A, masochism, B, blind stupidity, or C, a faith in liberalism that goes beyond all facts.
	So I'm confident 95% of you will be D, I'm keeping my gun for the earthquake.
	Okay, so I think that's where most San Franciscans are, regardless of how they vote.
	They vote because that's the way you have to vote.
	I remember being in San Francisco as a law student and voting for Richard Nixon, and it was like $465,000 for whoever was running against him, Humphrey, and won.
	And that was my vote for Nixon.
	I mean, it had the actual total.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Russia, 1-800-282-2882.
	And of course, at RushLimbaugh.com, our Adopt a Soldier program is up and running.
	We want to match generous donors from this listening audience to a combo subscription gift to soldiers stationed worldwide, anyone in the armed services stationed worldwide, for a Rush 24-7 and Limbaugh letter combo subscription.
	So if you're active duty anywhere in the world, you can come to RushLimbaugh.com, sign up for a subscription donated by our listeners.
	And of course, if you're a listener, you go there the same way and sign up your soldier.
	And there you go.
	We're going to ask people to give the gift of Rush in a variety of ways.
	They're in two ways: Rush 24-7 and the Limbaugh letter to our armed forces.
	A part of the campaign to get the truth out.
	I'm afraid if I was serving in Afghanistan, if I were serving in Afghanistan, and all I got was CNN, I'd be discouraged.
	Sorry, I would be.
	I would certainly not be watching.
	I would just be doing my duty and keeping my head down and thinking, okay, I hope things are going well back on the home front.
	Because if I watch CNN, I would think I'm pretty much out here by myself.
	Or any of the other elite media for that matter.
	Now, speaking of the elite media, so that's the update on Fields.
	We're going to continue to pursue that.
	Last night on NBC, a pretty good show, Law and Order.
	I've watched it one or two times and thought it was, you know, meets the minimum standard of entertainment, which, of course, a bar that has been lowered many times over the last number of decades, but still, a pretty interesting show.
	But I'll tell you, last night they went so completely over the edge, it was hard to stomach.
	They were calling them countrymen, but they were talking about the Minutemen at the border.
	And the issue was the death of a coyote, a smuggler, a slave trader, if you will, smuggling people across the border for economic gain, a death, and the immigrants, the illegals, roasting in the truck and all of that.
	And the issue was, did the Minutemen kill this smuggler?
	And that was kind of the thrust of the thing.
	Do we have a little bit of that from law and order?
	Here's a little bit of that.
	Are you one of those guys who sits on the border looking through binoculars, pointing out illegal crossers?
	I am personally responsible for 68 detainees.
	Well, there you go.
	So they kind of made fun of that whole thing.
	And the Minutemen have now, Jim Gilchrist, one of the co-founders, have now asked for an apology because in the hundreds and hundreds of people and hundreds of days that have been spent by volunteers in what amounts to a national neighborhood watch on the border with binoculars sitting in their lawn chairs,
	mostly grandparents, observing, not killing anyone, not detaining anyone, not whipping anyone, not roasting anyone at all, simply reporting what they see, which is the invasion of the United States of America.
	And as they report it to the authorities, asking the Border Patrol to do their job.
	Border Patrol agents, of course, on the field, desperately want to do that job.
	They're higher-ups, politically suspect, because the Border Patrol has never been allowed to do its job, either at the border or against employers who are knowingly hiring, and you know who they are, knowingly hiring illegals.
	So, NBC, you owe America an apology.
	These good Americans who are on the border, who are, I know Bush called them vigilantes.
	I don't think he knew what he was talking about.
	He's wrong.
	The Minutemen on the border are, and I met a lot of them because they sit right here at the San Diego-Tijuana border.
	I mean, keep in mind, I'm sitting in a studio.
	It's, what, 16 miles from the border.
	They are good people.
	They're good Americans.
	And they're trying to point out that you can't have homeland security.
	You can't bar your windows and doors and put up guards of your home and put up cameras and lights and get heavy into homeland security and then leave the back door open and leave the porch light on and leave a little sign next to it, y'all come, or the equivalent in Spanish.
	You know what I'm saying?
	This just doesn't make any sense.
	It isn't homeland security.
	So we can talk about that.
	The Minuteman-like murderer, who's convicted on law and order, was a bit of propaganda put up, well, with, I guess I put it in the same category as commander-in-chief, getting us all ready for Hillary's presidency and so forth.
	By the way, in the real world, and I'll get back to this in just a second, momentum is building for solutions on the border that make sense and that will protect America.
	They need your support, and we'll talk about it.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, Infor Rush, right after this.
	You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
	California Congressman Duncan Hunter, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, proposing that the fence, which has been so successful here in Operation Gatekeeper between San Diego and Tijuana, reduced by 80-some percent the apprehensions across this border.
	And as it's completed, not even completed yet, it's taken us 15 years to get to this point, as it's completed, it will reduce it to zero.
	It works, and Duncan Hunter is saying, why don't you build it from here to the Gulf of Mexico and solve the problem?
	Momentum for that idea, billions of dollars, admittedly, is building.
	And Duncan Hunter says that there are now dozens of co-sponsors with him on this bill.
	In the meantime, Congress is doing some, well, terrible work.
	Tom Tancredo Congressman from Colorado talks about a new law authored by Senator Bennett, a Republican from Utah, that shields religious groups from a federal law which prohibits transporting, concealing, and harboring illegal aliens.
	In other words, for most people, doing those things to help illegal immigration is a federal law violation.
	A new exception has been added to the law at the request of attorneys for the Mormon Church to make religious groups exempt.
	In other words, religious groups can now aid and abet the violation of federal law by illegal aliens coming into the country.
	What the Mormons and Mr. Bennett are not remembering is that the left is adept at co-opting, quote, religious groups, unquote.
	There is a Friends group, which started as a Quaker group in San Diego and is now just nothing but a naked lobbyist group for illegal immigration and open borders in the San Diego area.
	And I think it's duplicated down along the border, aiding and assisting and constantly harassing the Border Patrol and filing civil rights suits and doing everything they can to hinder the enforcement of federal law and increase the number of illegals coming into this country.
	Where they get their financing from has never been asked or answered in this area, but it should be.
	So Tom Tancredo is blowing the whistle on that one.
	And here, one more point from the border, then we'll get to calls.
	From Columbus, New Mexico, the Border Patrol there has been on a month-long, this is Associated Press now, out of the Seattle newspaper.
	And as I say, this illegal thing, which used to be our little problem here in the Southwest, has now apparently got the attention of everybody in this country, as it should.
	It seems that at Columbus, New Mexico, the Border Patrol has been working with a squadron of troops from Fort Lewis, Fort Lewis, Washington, which is how the Seattle paper guys got into this.
	And the mission began in mid-October and is ending this week.
	Hundreds of soldiers from the 14th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Lewis, helped catch 1,922 people crossing the border illegally during that time and seized more than 1,000 pounds of marijuana.
	The soldiers were not involved in pursuits or apprehensions.
	They did what the Minutemen do.
	According to the Lieutenant Colonel in charge, he said, quote, our sole purpose is to observe and report.
	Wonder if NBC will be doing a show about them.
	Here's Dennis in Bullhead City, Arizona.
	Hi, Dennis.
	Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Good morning.
	Hi.
	I just had a quick comment about the Law and Order episode you were talking about.
	Now, I enjoy that show.
	I watch it on a regular basis.
	But it seems like whenever there's any kind of a political issue, they do tend to spin it toward the liberal side in the extreme.
	Surprise.
	One thing I noticed was the one illegal alien that they dealt with personally in the show.
	They painted her rather sympathetically.
	They were careful to refer to her as an undocumented worker.
	And the poor thing had been living in this country illegally for 10 years, and now she was going to be taken away from her family, et cetera, et cetera.
	Yeah, and then at the end, I'm told I didn't see it, but at the end of the program, after the DA, who's kind of the Republican figure, was talking about having to return this woman and then not allowing her to stay even though she was married and had a kid and all that heart-wrenching stuff.
	And he's talking about the necessity of them going back.
	And then he's served coffee by an obvious stereotypically Mexican-looking guy.
	So, you know, this is part of the propaganda mill.
	Exactly.
	And I applaud the Minutemen for what they attempted to do, and I believe their main purpose was to shame the government into doing something about securing the border.
	And it's working.
	Now, if their excuse is they don't have enough money, if you look at the statistics on how much money it costs this country for illegal aliens for medical care and whatnot, use that money to secure the border, and they'll probably have plenty left over.
	Amen, Dennis.
	I appreciate the call.
	Thanks for doing that.
	And I'll tell you, this leads me right to my next point, which is people are saying, well, as Chertoff did the other day, the Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, he said, oh, it's not practical to deport illegal aliens.
	How would we ever find them?
	How do we know where they are?
	It's impossible.
	There's 11 to 20 million people.
	We have no idea where they are.
	I mean, notwithstanding the fact that they can trace a cow from its origin in Canada to the meat shop where it was sold, but they can't keep track of illegal aliens, you know, because of the mad cow thing.
	They can't keep track of illegal aliens.
	It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
	President Bush says, signing the Homeland Security spending bill, quote, if somebody hears illegally, we've got to do everything we can to find them, unquote.
	As if this was a needle in a haystack.
	Hello, try the social security records.
	That's right.
	Try the W-2s.
	Last year in this country, the Form W-2 filed by employers, 9.2 million of them had no, as the IRS put it, quote, no known taxpayer, unquote.
	In other words, they were filed by people with phony names that they couldn't match to the Social Security number.
	They know exactly where these people are hired.
	They know exactly the fact that they're using false names and false numbers.
	And they have a computer.
	In fact, they know it so well that they have sequestered that money that comes in from the W-2, the withholding money, in case there's some later legal problem with these people who have been using fake numbers and fake names.
	They know exactly where they're employed and what they're doing.
	Now, how do you match the rhetoric of we got to catch them?
	We got to do everything we can with the idea that they know exactly where they are and they're making money out of it.
	The interest off that account that they're setting aside is put back in the general fund.
	It helps the deficit.
	It funds the programs.
	It's a wink and a nod.
	It's a corruption in Washington that they don't want people to know about.
	Now you do.
	Now you do.
	Now, Chertoff, not practical to deport illegal aliens.
	Unbelievable.
	And this was unbelievable, too.
	After the fence got 69 percent approval rating in a poll, this business of a fence between here and Brownsville got 69 percent yes.
	Bush sent U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza to Mexico City to the Mexican government to say the Bush administration opposes a fence, which could solve the problem.
	So there's a big gap in the rhetoric between George Bush trying to control the border, as he often says, and the reality of the Bush administration leaving our back door open, the lights on, and you all come.
	Roger Hedgecock in for rush.
	Wow, high taxes, corruption, they can't get a state motto.
	What's next for New Jersey?
	I read today Reuters reporting out of Philadelphia.
	Of course, all the bad news comes out of Philadelphia for poor Jersey, that rising sea levels threaten New Jersey.
	New Jersey could lose 3%.
	Of course, it's in the next 100 years.
	In fact, they're not sure about the 100 years.
	The authors of this study call for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists believe lead to global warming as the most effective way of reducing the rate of sea level rise.
	Then the next paragraph is, cutting emissions would have a limited effect on sea levels over the next 50 years, but it could slow the rate by 2,100 and beyond.
	I think I'll be prepared by then.
	Good grief.
	Anyway, let me talk about George Bush because while critical of him on the border, and I am, and because I think it makes no sense to leave the back door open, which is what he's doing, the stance he's taken in Korea and the stance he's taken on this Asian tour is to be applauded and congratulated.
	He told the Chinese, listen, don't try to conquer Taiwan.
	Look to Taiwan as a model.
	Here's a free market doing even better than you're doing because they've extended freedom beyond the narrow economic issues and into the broad political and personal issues, and they've resulted in one of the most prosperous societies in the world, even though you, China, the Beijing regime, have strong-armed the whole world to try to shun Taiwan.
	The fact is that Taiwan has prospered far beyond, I mean, the gross national product divided by the number of people there give them a standard of living on the order of 10 times mainland China.
	So there isn't any question that Bush is just calling it right.
	He gets to Korea and he says that, hello, you guys want a light water reactor.
	You want some kind of electricity reactor.
	That's fine.
	But unlike Clinton, I'm not just going to give it to you and hope that you dismantle your nuclear weapons.
	You have to dismantle the nuclear weapons first.
	Then we have to verify you've done it.
	Then you can get the nuclear reactor.
	See, this is called negotiation for our side.
	Clinton and Albright were in negotiations for the other side in the Carter model.
	By the way, I think it's working.
	Ladies and gentlemen, at long last, and I don't know, how many months did Rush carry the burden of pointing out the deceit of the Democrats in voting for the war, in voting for the resolution in 98 in the Clinton administration that called for regime change,
	in making statement after statement about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq, and then turning around this year and hoping we don't have a memory and saying, oh, Bush lied, millions died, Bush lied about WMD, never found any.
	We manipulated the intelligence, didn't know what he was talking about, and hoping that we don't remember that they all believed it too.
	And so did all the intelligence networks around the world.
	And so did people who believe it to this day, one of whom we'll have on the program coming up in the next hour, so stand by for that.
	But I think it's working that Bush and Cheney and others have been successful in pointing out this, at the least, hypocrisy, at the least political opportunism, at the worst, a playing with America's armed forces, putting our armed forces in danger over in Iraq because the people, the insurgents, of course, have CNN too.
	They continue to hear the voices of dissent and criticism.
	And dissent is okay, but the idea that the president lied, that there's no support for the war, feeds the idea that if the insurgents can just hang on, they'll outlast America and defeat America, the Vietnam model.
	So Cheney strikes back, and I thought some of this stuff was absolutely brilliant.
	In fact, Cheney, echoing Rush, had this to say.
	The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone.
	Right.
	But we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
	Nope.
	And that's it.
	That's the essence of it.
	And the fact that the papers are now screaming about the on the attack, Bush on the attack, and Cheney on the attack.
	And what was this last one I just saw here?
	This is, Oh, yeah, the backlash for the Republicans.
	Listen, this thing is working.
	This idea that we're going to call this what it is, a campaign by people who said exactly the same thing Bush did at exactly the same time in 2002 that he was saying it, and Colin Powell was saying it, and the French intelligence agency was saying it, and the British intelligence agency was saying it.
	And all the Middle East intelligence agencies were saying the same thing.
	Saddam was a threat.
	He had used and would use, if given a chance, weapons of mass destruction, chemical, nuclear, biological, whatever.
	So Cheney, again, in this speech today, had this to say: These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence and were free to draw their own conclusions.
	They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq's capabilities and intentions that were made by this administration and by the previous administration.
	There you go.
	By the previous administration.
	By the way, the previous administration, this has never happened before.
	I was angry about it when Gore did it in Scandinavia.
	I'm even more angry about it that Bill Clinton is in front of an Arab student, in front of an Arab student population at the American University of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and makes a speech in front of these Arab students with Al Jazeera and all of the opponents' media there.
	And he says that the United States made a, quote, big mistake, unquote, when it invaded Iraq.
	He received a standing ovation at the end of an hour-long session.
	He said, among other things, that were just egregiously, historically wrong, politically indefensible in terms of an America at war and what a former president going to the most volatile area of this war and making these comments,
	what that means for our armed forces, what that means, if you're a grunt in the sweep by the Syrian border today, when your former president, your former commander-in-chief, says, quote, it, the liberation of Iraq, it was a big mistake.
	The American government made several errors, one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country, unquote.
	Well, wait a minute.
	How hard it would be to unite the country.
	He goes on to talk about, Clinton just doesn't get it.
	Quote, the mistake they made, meaning Bush, is that they, when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq.
	Now, let's just take that statement.
	The officer corps of Saddam's army was 80,000 people, just in the officer corps.
	They were 99% Sunni.
	Had we adopted the 99% Sunni army of Saddam Hussein, the Kurds would have immediately seceded from Iraq.
	The Shias wouldn't have been far behind.
	Civil war would have erupted.
	The dismantling of the Sunni-dominated Baathist dictatorship was an essential first step to uniting a truly united Iraq.
	Everyone there knows that.
	Apparently, Bill Clinton does not.
	Bill Clinton goes on to say, we never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders.
	Well, wait a minute.
	At the time we sent the troops, we were sending troops and shouldn't have invaded.
	Now it's we didn't send enough troops.
	And of course, back home, the Democrats are saying, bring the troops home.
	So Bush is wrong when he invades with the troops.
	Then he doesn't have enough troops and then he should bring all those troops home anyway.
	I mean, what position are they actually trying to take here?
	Because it's not constructive.
	It's worse than not constructive.
	It's destructive.
	And Cheney nailed it on this subject.
	The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.
	Amen.
	And then he goes on to name the names.
	And these names need to be named.
	You need to know who in the United States Senate is essentially working for the defeat of the United States, is working to support the insurgency holding out against the United States, is working in short to destroy the infant democracy of Iraq and produce a chaos they can blame on Bush and win the 2008 election.
	I'm sorry, that's exactly as I see it.
	I know many of you don't, and I'm going to take your calls in a minute, but here's Dick Cheney, and I think he's nailed it.
	I'm sorry we couldn't be joined by Senators Harry Reid, John Kerry, and Jay Rockefeller.
	They were unable to attend due to a prior lack of commitment.
	A prior lack of commitment.
	Now, ladies and gentlemen, because you have a memory, I know you already know this, but as the lawyers say, and I am a recovering attorney in the 12-step program, so I do have every once in a while to do this.
	For the record, as attorneys say, let me take you back to December 16, 1998.
	CNN reporting, a grim-looking President Clinton addressing the nation from the Oval Office.
	From the Oval Office, says CNN.
	President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
	The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
	Clinton said then, quote, Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons.
	Unquote.
	End of story.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush.
	Back after this.
	Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh on the Rush program and having some fun here.
	Let's get to the calls.
	Jay in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
	Jay, hi, welcome to the program.
	Hey, Roger.
	Big thing.
	My issue is that conservative radio is still pushing this Iraq war and the support of the Bush administration.
	And what is it, 60, 70% of the American public is against the Iraq war.
	I supported conservative radio all through the Clinton administration, exposing all the liberals.
	I supported, you know, I consider myself a little bit right of a till of the hug, and I was one of those few against the Iraq war, and I'm a Republican.
	Now I'm being made out to be a liberal or an anti-American because I still think that way.
	When are you going to come around to the American public?
	Well, let me ask you, Jay, let's put all those numbers aside for a moment and just talk personally.
	If you were the president of the United States, given the facts as they are today, what would you do?
	I'm sorry.
	What are you offering me as far as this is concerned?
	Was that too complicated?
	Let me go slower.
	If you were the president of the United States today, you, given the facts in Iraq today, what would you do?
	I would bring, okay, here's a good one.
	I would bring back all those dissenting generals that said that we either had to go in with more troops or that we were going in the wrong way or saying that we shouldn't have even gone into Iraq, but they were good generals like General Anthony Zinney, who was a Republican.
	I would bring them back and say, okay, I made a mistake.
	I didn't listen to you guys the first time.
	Now I'm going to listen to you.
	That's what I would say.
	And what if Zinni said, which is what he did say, what if the general said, for example, we need to put in not 160,000 troops, but 360,000 and completely.
	That was my thought.
	Let me tell you, Roger, I had a son.
	I have a son who's airborne who was over there.
	I have more friends that are still over there that I just sent presents over to him for Veterans Day.
	I support the guys in the Iraq war.
	But that doesn't mean that I think the Iraq war was right.
	I think the Afghanistan war was right.
	I think we should have stayed away from Iraq.
	But I'll tell you what I want to do, Jay.
	Since we're already in there, I understand for history purposes we could have this debate about whether we should have had the war in Iraq.
	It's the same debate about whether we should have intervened in World War I, as far as I'm concerned.
	It's water under the bridge.
	Today, we have a situation in Iraq, and you're saying that if you were president and you consulted generals who told you to send in another couple of hundred thousand troops and finish the job and do it right, that you'd do it.
	That's my feeling.
	We can't go out of there.
	Now that we've created a hornet's nest, we can't leave there without finishing the job.
	And right now, we're treading water.
	We're not finishing that job.
	They keep saying things are getting better.
	Over the past three years, either Dick Cheney or Condoleezza Rice has said things are getting better, but they aren't getting better.
	They are getting worse.
	The insurgents keep getting worse.
	Well, Jay, and I appreciate that you're saying that, and I appreciate that most people actually believe it.
	You only believe it because you are, understandably, reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, you're watching the network news, you're watching the cable news, and you're seeing the violence.
	Let me just, if you know this, in the 18 provinces of Iraq, the violence that you've seen recorded is located in three of those.
	In 15 of those provinces, schools are being built, oil pipelines are working, roads are open, people are going to work, hospitals are better than ever.
	In the Kurdish area, they have such a secure capitalist economy in the north of Iraq that they've got Wendy's and other franchise operations up and running in their cities without a problem.
	Now, that's not on TV because it doesn't make the liberal point that Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
	What if it turns out that in this next election, when a parliament is actually elected under their new constitution and the new government gets a handle on these insurgents with the help of the U.S., and those three provinces are calmed down because they do participate in the vote and they do have members in parliament?
	What happens, in short, if Bush's strategy works?
	I think we'll never see a democracy in the Iraqi area.
	I think the Ambar province was the key to the whole place, and they didn't seem to worry about that, and that's still the major problem.
	If you're familiar with Iraq, that is the center of the Sunni area and the center of the country.
	And they just had an election there, Jay.
	They just had an election there, and they just had some pretty good turnout.
	Are you telling me then that it doesn't matter that the Shias in the Shia area?
	Why is the vote a joke?
	Because it doesn't matter if these people vote or not.
	It's the feeling that they have for the U.S. soldiers and the U.S. public.
	And right now, they basically think because we're treading water over there, we haven't either gone in there and won the war, which we haven't, or we haven't gone in there and walked away from it, which we haven't.
	They think that we're basically crusaders in another one of our third or fourth crusades.
	This is the Iraqi mindset.
	And you are not going to convince those people any different.
	They are taught that by the Wahhabi religion from the Sunni, from our friends, the Saudis, from a very early age.
	All right, Jay, I appreciate your call.
	So your choice would be to win the war by sending a couple hundred thousand more troops.
	So, if you're not willing to win the war, then you're willing to put us in another Vietnam.
	Jay, thanks for the call.
	I feel precisely the same way, but I don't feel it's going to take another couple hundred thousand troops.
	I'm for victory in Iraq and ignoring the critics because victory will bring the public opinion around.
	Public opinion now in the United States and in Iraq is divided by the fact that we don't know, given that the constant harping on the dissenters, we don't know whether the will, the American will, to win, is present.
	That's the big issue.
	And I think, Jay, you've nailed that.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, back on the Russ Show after.
	So, weapons of mass destruction, which Bill Clinton in 1998 said was there.
	In fact, he ordered an attack.
	He said the mission of the attack is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs.
	And did they exist or didn't they?
	Well, new information coming up, and I want you to stand by.
	Steve Hayes will join us from the Weekly Standard because, well, people are still wondering not whether there were weapons of mass destruction, but what happened to them?
	Is there new information?
	Well, stand by.

▲