All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 17, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
November 17, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
All of this counteroffensive by the White House pointing out the Democrats believed in weapons of mass destruction and all the rest of it.
Clinton ordered the attack on Iraq in 98 because of weapons of mass destruction.
All of this counterattack, all of this pointing out that the Democrats' criticism of Bush now is at least hypocritical and destructive to our war aims.
We have finally flushed them out.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have flushed them out.
The real Democrat agenda is now, as of this moment, I just saw him get off the cable news networks here, is on the table.
Congressman John Murthy, Democrat of Pennsylvania, appearing today in a press conference to demand, quote, the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, unquote.
We flushed them out.
The Democrats want to defeat the United States to defeat George Bush.
The real Democrats, the hard core of this party, the mainstream, the Howard Dean Party, are now revealed for what they really are.
All the pretense is out.
All the pretense is gone.
They're down to the bottom line.
The United States must withdraw immediately, surrender and withdraw.
No, and they didn't even put in there the insurgency should withdraw too.
I mean, they didn't even put any fig leaf in there.
They're going to send the helicopters now for the top of the embassy to pull out the good people before they're butchered.
Once in my lifetime was enough to see that.
I hope you feel the same way.
And I hope you understand now what we've accomplished together, what we've accomplished.
Rush has carried this banner alone, virtually alone, for months, trying to get the Bush administration to defend itself against what was a growing critical mass of unrefuted charges.
Bush lied, millions died, and now millions of Americans believing it because they haven't heard the other side of the story, except from Rush.
So here we are, finally with the administration blasting back and forcing the Democrats to come clean on what they're really about.
They're really about surrender.
They really are the party John Kerry wanted when he ran, a party that was more like France.
They really are.
It's over.
No more deceit, no more deception, no more phony fake faces on this thing.
Your real core beliefs are now on the table.
The U.S. should surrender and go home.
It's on the table.
Now, America, take your choice.
As awful as the Iraq War is in many, many, many respects, the fact is, after three elections, we are making progress.
15 of 18 provinces are peaceful, capitalist, and democratic.
We are on our way to having a SUNY involvement and avoid the civil war everybody predicted.
And we are on our way to an Iraq that can stand on its own two feet in 2006 and 2007, and hopefully as Germany and Japan thereafter, without threatening their neighbors, without threatening the world with Holocaust.
That's what we've done before and what we're doing now.
This nation has done that before.
We're doing it now.
And the Democrats at long last have marginalized themselves through Congressman Murtha to the position that I suspected from the beginning was their real agenda.
Defeat the United States to capture the White House in 2008.
Now that it's on the table, Americans can have their choice because the real choices, not the phony choices, not the little fig leaf deals, not the way this has gone.
No, no, we've got this, this discussion is now down to reality.
Bush and the administration and the history of the United States on one side and the cut-and-run Frenchy Democrats on the other side.
That's the way I see it.
1-800-282-2882, how do you see it?
By the way, I just can't let the show go by without making this comment, too.
There's a guy, maybe you saw this in the news, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors, appointed to the board, by the way, by none other than Bill Clinton, appointed chairman by George Bush.
Determined to bring balance to public broadcasting, which has become, through Bill Moyers and others, notoriously leftist-leaning.
Now, the leftists have a hard time appreciating how left-leaning public broadcasting has become and is, because when they hear it and watch it, they agree with it.
Well, it must be mainstream because it's my views.
My views are mainstream, and therefore that's mainstream.
See, that's the way they're indoctrinated to think.
Problem is, in the real world, their leftist views, Bill Moyers and so forth, are, well, more akin to this radical, leftist, Frenchy Democratic Party that I've been describing, that Congressman Murtha finally came clean this morning on.
So Tomlinson gets attacked and is now the former chairman.
And now the auditor, the inspector general of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Kahn's 67-page report, says that Tomlinson was the public enemy for trying to get balance into public broadcasting.
And you know what I say to this is the same thing I said the last time public broadcasting got brought up in the late 1990s when Republicans were the party of cutting the budget and not adding to it in the biggest amounts since Lyndon Baines Johnson, when they were back being the Gingrich Republicans and back with the contract with America, they should have zeroed this thing out in a heartbeat.
Is there really any constitutional justification for your tax dollars, money taken out of your paycheck and given to leftist bureaucrats at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?
Is there any constitutional justification for that?
I don't even think they could find that in a penumbra of a right.
I don't even think they could find that, the Supreme Court could find that in a hallucination of a right in the Constitution.
It ain't there, in plain English.
It ain't there.
There's no budget right to money for the corporation, the subsidized leftist corporation for public broadcasting.
There's no budget right for that money.
And if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, you know, if Big Bird can't stand on its own, then let it fall.
It can stand on its own.
What do you think the Muppets did?
They made tens of millions of dollars for that guy before he died that created the Muppets, Jim Henson.
So look, the stuff that's good on PBS for kids and all that is going to be saved.
NOVA and all that stuff is going to find advertisers.
Haven't they already?
I can't watch on my public broadcasting system thing without getting as many commercials as I do now on ABS, CBS and NBS.
It's just insane to suggest that we should continue to put tax dollars into that operation, which is also already becoming so commercialized.
So let me raise that banner again.
Cut off their money.
Let them sink and swim in the private sector.
Let their ideas get out there in competition with the other ideas without government subsidy.
Let them do what they should do.
And I say this because, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to declare war on the so-called moderates of the Republican Party.
I've had it with the moderates.
They caught my attention when 25 of their members of Congress, self-identified, met with in districts where they have, to be fair, obviously large populations of union members in the Northeast and the upper Midwest and so forth.
These Congress members, when George Bush, in the wake of Katrina, waived Davis-Bacon, waived the Davis-Bacon Act on labor rules applied to projects and said, We're going to waive that and we'll just take the illegal aliens as they come and give them work, the Bush approach.
Then, and by the way, New Orleans is likely to become the largest Spanish-speaking city outside of Miami and L.A. shortly.
Anyway, so here is these congressmen coming saying, You can't do that.
Our union people are upset.
Our reelections are threatened.
And so Bush backed down and reinstated Davis Bacon.
So they got my attention then.
Wait a minute, this tail is going to wag.
What, dog now?
So here is Congressman Charles Bass from New Hampshire, charging that the GOP leaders of the House are ignoring the party's, quote, fundamental principles, unquote.
He wants delay out.
He has a group of 35 self-identified moderate House Republicans.
They call themselves the Tuesday Group.
And he said that we would be a lot better off if we, well, here's his quote.
Quote, I think that obviously with the party's fortunes down, with the message clearly that most Americans would rather see a more moderate form of leadership in the country right now, it's time to govern from the middle.
Govern from the middle.
What does that precisely mean to you?
Well, as you may have already suspected as you grabbed your wallet when you heard the phrase, it means they want more money out of your paycheck.
Olympia Snow on the Senate side from Maine is one of those moderates.
And every once in a while, when she can upset the apple cart, when she can leverage the two or three of them that are in this gang, they will try to raise taxes.
And the first thing they do is try to raise taxes.
Olympia Snow, sitting on the Senate Finance Committee this past Tuesday, where the committee endorsed a package to cut taxes by $60 billion over five years, extensions of the Bush tax cuts.
Snow stepped in with her key vote, pressured the committee to scrap an extension of the lower tax rate for investment income, the 15% on capital gains and on dividends, which has fueled this boom.
We are in an unprecedented economic boom.
5% unemployment.
We had 30,000 this last week, 30,000 fewer claims for unemployment insurance than we did the week before in one week.
Inflation has fallen to under 2.5% this year.
The Fed is doing exactly the right thing.
The American consumer is continuing a high level of confidence.
The American economy is churning out more jobs than we can give to illegals and send to India by far.
And we are a huge engine of global prosperity under these tax cuts.
And Olympia Snow says, oh, no, no, no, no.
We can't do that.
We need more money for government.
People are getting too prosperous.
Government is not prosperous enough.
We need more money for government.
Bill Frist was livid.
He said that the panel's the finance panel's capitulation to Snow's higher taxes, quote, will not stop Congress from extending these provisions, unquote.
So how's he going to do it?
Well, he said, quote, when the House and Senate meet to work out the difference between the two bills in the tax bills, I will insist that negotiators include an extension of the original capital gains and dividend tax relief.
I will not bring a conference report to the Senate floor that does not include this extension.
Period.
So he told Olympia Snow, that's it.
Stuff it.
The moderates who want to lead us down the road to higher taxes, who want to gain reelection by saying, please re-elect me, I've taken more money out of your paycheck, are simply not going to be allowed to represent the Republican Party.
Now, what does represent the Republican Party?
Well, that's another question we'll get to right after this.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
Roger Hitchcock filling in for Rush Walter Williams tomorrow.
Rush back on Monday.
Look, here's the problem with the GOP in Congress.
Ronald Reagan ran up a big deficit, but it was mostly for the military to defeat the evil empire and win the Cold War.
He held deficit spending increases below inflation and in terms of domestic spending.
This Republican Congress, violating the Compact with America, has become the biggest profligate spenders in a long, long time.
The majority of Republicans in Congress have simply forgotten how they got there.
They've alienated their base of fiscal conservatives, and they've been spending money like crazy, money we do not have.
Only the latest, the 2005 transportation bill, which authorized $284 billion in transportation funding, over that, it included 4,000.
Now get this for a moment.
4,000 special projects earmarked by members of Congress and put into the bill to benefit their district.
The only one of which got a lot of attention was the bridge to nowhere in Alaska.
This old-fashioned pork barrel type politics is what got to it is what got the Republicans in large part, not totally, but in large part elected in 1994.
Now they are the practitioners of the same thing they criticized, the same thing they ejected when the Democrat majority was doing the same thing.
So where do fiscally conscious Americans go now?
Especially when, after all of the criticism of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, here's what they did.
Let me give you the behind the scenes on what they did.
They deleted the $223 million bridge to link Ketchikan to an island where there's an airport and 50 people.
They deleted that pork project, but they added the $223 million to the amount earmarked for Alaska so that Alaskan officials could do the same thing without Congress getting the blame.
That's how bad things have gotten with the Republican leadership on spending issues.
I believe the biggest threat to the GOP majority in the House of Representatives and in the Senate next year is not the war.
I believe it's the spending.
I believe it's the deficit.
I believe it's the fiscal irresponsibility.
I believe you cannot have your housing and commerce departments up 86 percent, your Medicaid up 46 percent, your farm bill 180 billion in 2002 over 10 years, your Medicare prescription drug law $724 billion in the first 10 years.
You can't go on this spending rampage and then not understand the tsunami coming of baby boomer retirements, draining Social Security, draining Medicare at the moment when the number of workers coming into the workforce is dramatically tailing off.
So just try to trend those two things in your mind and ask yourself: is this a time where we should be spending more than we have, or is this a time when we ought to be shoring up, you know, like when you watch those squirrels, you know, in the fall.
They're hurrying around, scurrying around, gathering up all the edibles they can, sticking them in their hole because they know winter's coming.
See, are the squirrels smarter than congressmen?
Hell, that isn't even a contest.
Of course they are.
1-800-282-2882.
Now, let me get to Woodward, having warmed up on that.
Bob Woodward.
And you know Bob from Watergate Fame and the 75 books he's written since then on the basis of anonymous sources.
Okay, maybe it's 30.
And a book in the works, as he revealed yesterday, a book in the works about the lead up to the beginning of the Iraq War.
Well, it turns out now that Bob Woodward, two years ago, knew the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife and that she worked at the CIA.
And he learned it from a public official he declines to identify.
Bob Woodward knew it before Libby, Scooter Libby, knew it.
In other words, the assertion in Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby is at the heart of the perjury theory of Mr. Fitzgerald is the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from Tim Russert or anyone else as claimed by Mr. Libby in his sworn testimony.
In other words, nobody's getting prosecuted for the leak.
Libby's getting prosecuted for lying to the feds.
But what if it turns out that, well, okay, it wasn't Russert, it was Woodward or it was somebody.
So many people knew that this woman worked for the CIA, apparently, that it's now going to be impossible to prove a criminal intent here, whatever you think about the politics.
Bob Woodward just blew a complete, blew this Libby indictment out of the water.
And it should be, and I believe it will be, now withdrawn because it cannot be sustained.
It cannot be sustained.
This, by the way, has caused huge ruffles in the media establishment, which causes me great chuckles, which I'll share with you when we come back.
We have 30.
Oh, let me just say this then quickly.
Because we have a situation in which it was easy to marginalize Judith Miller from the New York Times because Judith Miller, the Times was able to say, oh, we're out of this loop because she got so close to Cheney and she was obviously just basically one of the Republicans.
A real reporter wouldn't have acted this way.
Uh-oh, now they got Woodward.
We'll see what happens when we come back.
We're back.
I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush.
And here's the bottom line on Bob Woodward.
He hid from his editor the knowledge that he had a source identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, the wife of former Ambassador Wilson.
And The consternation in today's Washington Post, the agonizing about this and the agonizing behind the scenes in the Washington Post newsroom is this.
No other reporter would be allowed to have that information and not share it with his editor according to their requirements, internal requirements, and would have been fired.
Woodward, who now is asserting, and honestly so, that he protected the name and even the existence of the source of this information and the information itself, even from his own editor, because he was writing a book for his own profit with the information.
Again, in violation of the internal workings of that newsroom.
Yikes.
Judith Miller, they could marginalize as just a bushy in disguise, therefore not a real reporter.
What does the Eastern liberal establishment media do now with their premier reporter, the icon of reporters, the model of all reporters, the mother of all, if I dare say, of all reporters, the absolute source of the entire modern school of journalism that followed Watergate, the eternal fountain of what it means to be a reporter today,
did the same thing as Judith Miller and did it for private profit and did it for his book and damn the public's right to know?
Uh-oh.
This is going to be a big-time problem for the liberal media.
And it's a big-time immediate problem for Mr. Fitzgerald because he's got that indictment sitting out there and he had a material fact that he did not know and was not a part of it.
Now, in an op-ed piece in the Times today, is it the Washington Times?
David Rifkin and Lee Casey, Washington lawyers, cite the U.S. Attorney's Manual, the Bible for U.S. Attorneys, which in essence says that no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction.
In other words, don't go chasing people if you don't know you're going to convict.
They call on Mr. Fitzgerald to dismiss the indictment of scooter Libby because what Libby was trying to do was not mislead Mr. Fitzgerald at the grand jury.
What he was trying to do was make the case that he had heard about Valerie Plain's identity from a reporter.
Now, he may have said the wrong reporter, Tim Russert, or he could have said Bob Woodward.
He had meetings with those two within a couple of weeks of each other in the time in question.
The identity of the reporter is not the issue.
The issue is that so many reporters knew about it that the investigation into whether or not someone should be prosecuted for leaking the identity of a CIA agent was chasing the wrong thing because literally everybody in Washington who knew about these kinds of things knew about it.
In other words, there was no prosecutable leak.
In other words, this whole thing is the political witch hunt that it appeared to be from the beginning to many of us.
It is now proven to be an absolute witch hunt.
And God bless the irony, it's Bob Woodward who's proved it.
Just sit back and wallow in that one for just a minute.
Bob Woodward is the source of proving that the leak investigation was political in the first place and that Libby hasn't committed any crime.
Interesting.
Bill in Chicago, Illinois, Bill, welcome to the Rush Program.
Roger.
Hi.
Hi, how are you?
Good.
Pleasure to speak to you.
Thanks.
I just wanted to point out, I'm in Illinois, and Republicans who do successful in our state are those who tend to be moderate.
And I think that's true for people like Snow.
If we push out the moderate Republicans, the Democrats will end up capturing the Senate.
Well, let me ask you a question.
Do you have any Republican senators from Illinois?
No.
Okay.
So the moderates didn't do too well.
Well, actually, if you recall, Barack Obama beat a very conservative Republican last time.
Well, but there's been some moderates.
In other words, you don't have any moderate Republicans.
Who are you talking about?
Well, no, we had, you know, in the past, we've had very popular Republicans like Jim Edgar.
He was the governor.
And, you know, he was more towards the Olympia Snow type of model.
So the problem is when you go...
Let me ask you this question.
Do you think then that we should raise taxes?
No.
Okay, but that's what the moderates think.
That's what the Democrats think.
Well, I mean, you have a point, but here's ⁇ I think.
In other words, what are we moderate about?
If we're moderate about our dress, our conduct, our civility to each other, I mean, I'm a moderate, okay?
But if moderate means that your paycheck ought to go down so that government's income can go up, I'm not a moderate.
You know, you're right, Roger.
But here's, I think, the dividing line.
It's social issues.
Issues like abortion, prayer in the school.
That's where a lot of moderate Republicans will move toward the Democratic side when you have a candidate who's very conservative on those issues.
Oh, I know that's happened a lot, but Bill, that's not what we're talking about today.
The news today is that the self-proclaimed moderates haven't started with abortion or civil rights or social issues or gay rights or any of those other things on that other agenda.
They've started with raising taxes.
They want to stop the Bush tax cuts, which have generated this phenomenal economy, from actually getting implemented or extended beyond their due dates.
And some of them have these due dates like 2008 on capital gains.
You start saying you're not going to extend that.
People who invest in jobs and properties and developments and all that are going to be thinking twice about those investments, not only because of rising interest rates, but now because they may not have a tax treatment that they're planning on having.
You know, Roger, that's why I like listening to you.
It made good sense.
I appreciate that, Bill.
I appreciate that a lot.
And thanks for the call.
Thanks for listening, too.
I appreciate that a lot.
Here's Terry on Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Hi, Terry.
Yes, Roger.
Hi.
Great program and great to talk to you.
Thank you.
You're my favorite substitute host for Rush.
Thank you very much.
The two premises being forwarded by the left these days, no WMDs in Iraq and no relationship between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime.
Yeah, both wrong.
I wonder if you recall the, as I do, the testimony, and I would have loved to pose this to Stephen Hayes as well.
The testimony of former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Cohen under oath at the 9-11 Commission hearings.
He stated that during the Clinton administration, during the 90s, they were aware that al-Qaeda was trying to get its hands on some VX gas, a very deadly nerve agent.
I learned about it when I was in the Army.
And in order to get some VX gas, where did they go?
He said, Cohen said, they went to Baghdad to get that.
What that proves is two things.
Number one, there was a clear operational relationship between al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime.
And two, al-Qaeda certainly knew that WMDs existed in Iraq because they contacted them, according to Cohen, and went there to try and get this deadly nerve agent.
I specifically remember Cohen sitting there testifying to the committee and saying that.
That's a great point because I have that in my memory too, vaguely, and I'm sure that it's in the book Connection that we talked about with Steve Hayes about from the Weekly Standard.
I tell you what, in the Weekly Standard is his email address for the current issues, November 21 issue of Weekly Standard.
And what I want you to do, here's your homework assignment for today, Terry, is to get that issue of Weekly Standard, email Cohen, rather Steve Hayes, and get Steve Hayes' reaction to it.
And then I'm at roger at RogerHitchcock.com.
Let me know how that goes.
I'd be happy to do that.
I'd love to see follow-up on that.
Can I mention one other thing for you?
Go ahead.
Do you recall a year, perhaps a year and a half ago, I distinctly remember a news report that told of our forces finding some sarin gas and some mustard gas in some Iraqi artillery and mortar shells over there.
Do you remember that report?
Yeah, and it turned out to be residue, but it was still there.
Well, I mean, he used the stuff against his own people.
Does anybody really think he destroyed it all in obedience to the resolutions of the UN?
Yeah, please stand up if you believe that, because I want to see how naive the certain population is.
No, I don't either.
I'll tell you what, Terry, these are absolutely great points.
We have found weapons of mass destruction.
It doesn't have to be a whole field full of stuff.
A couple of 55-gallon drums of sarin gas would kill millions of people if properly applied.
The idea that they haven't attacked us, that the earlier caller, Hal, says, well, he never attacked us.
Well, wait a minute.
9-11 was an attack.
It did kill more people than Pearl Harbor.
How long are we going to have our head in the sand in that part of the political spectrum in this country?
I don't know.
But, Terry, great call.
Good stuff, good information.
You're right.
Is Bill Clinton still listening to Bill Cohen?
Maybe he should listen more.
I'm Roger Hitchcock.
In for Rush, back after this.
Tune into RushLimbaugh.com and get involved with the Adopt a Soldier Program, matching givers of the combo subscription to Rush 24-7 in the Limbaugh letter with our warriors stationed worldwide.
Rushlimbaugh.com for all the information.
And Walter Williams tomorrow coming up with Rush on Monday.
And gosh, I love to use this time for my favorite hobby horses like debunking Paul Ehrlich.
Paul Ehrlich, who's still teaching, still preaching the population bomb, was his 1968 prediction that the world's population would overwhelm its resources and we would have mass starvation by the late 1970s.
The world population not only is not starving, more people are eating more than ever before, but the fact is that the birth rate worldwide is declining at such a rate that there are now, let's see, 120 countries in which the absolute population growth is going down.
In other words, in future years, the population will decrease.
The global fertility rate is now at 2.9 children for every woman of childbearing age, a decrease of nearly 50 percent since 1972.
The UN projection is that the world's fertility rate will fall below replacement levels by 2045 when the human population will start shrinking.
Now, it'll be large then, but it will not be starving.
It will not have exhausted the Earth's resources.
Oil will be discovered.
And if the Sierra Club will let us, it will actually be mined and put into your SUV.
In fact, speaking of oil, if we conquered Iraq for oil, why shouldn't we just conquer the north shore, the north slope of Alaska?
Because the estimate is there may be as much oil there on the north slope of Alaska as there is in Iraq.
Shouldn't we try to what is this mantra again?
We have to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Okay.
Maybe that means, I don't want to be too logical for you here, maybe that means increasing the domestic supply of oil to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
So then the same people who say reduce our dependence on foreign oil, then don't want to vote for Anwar, don't want to vote for drilling the oil we have, don't want to devote some time and money and effort to getting a giant pool of oil out of Alaska and safely into your car, whatever you drive, and you make the choice.
How insane is that?
Almost as insane as Ehrlich.
Not as insane, however, as last night, who told Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle that the voluntary human extinction movement, the voluntary human extinction movement, the VHE, dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the earth.
This makes it makes Ehrlich look like a moderate now.
Here's Lisa in Hickory, North Carolina.
Hi, Lisa.
Welcome to the Russian.
Hey, Roger.
How are you?
Good, you.
Good, good.
Thank you.
I've heard this too many times.
I'm about ready to pull the last few strands of hair I have left on my head.
Yes.
Afghanistan was a good thing.
Iraq was a bad thing.
And why can't these people get it?
It wasn't the Taliban in Afghanistan who declared war on us in the late 90s.
It was Bin Laden and his army of al-Qaeda.
And since when do we ever fight wars and only fight one battalion of an army?
Yeah.
It's insane.
Al-Qaeda is a worldwide phenomenon of extremism among Muslims.
It has adherents everywhere in the world that are dedicated to killing Americans wherever they can find them.
Their capacity to do so varies, obviously, quite widely, but their capacity to do so has resulted in subway bombings in London, Bali nightclub bombings, and hundreds of other examples around the world.
Putting these people at rest, sending them to their 72 virgins, should be the top priority of all of civilization.
And it shouldn't matter where they are.
No.
And that's what Bush has said, and I agree with him 100%.
Exactly, exactly.
And I have one other comment, too.
If Bush really did lie and manipulate all of this WMD thing and apparently, I guess, you know, convinced the entire world on the matter, then why didn't he finish the job?
The first thing he did when we went into Baghdad, if I remember correctly, is he put a bunch of troops and David Kay in there to find them.
If he knew they weren't there, I'm sure they could have been found, and he would have been the hero if that was his conspiracy.
Well, what it coulda shoulda.
It would have been better if we'd found bin Laden and strung him up.
It would have been better if we found WMD and made the case.
Those things didn't happen.
What did happen is that a remarkable number of people in the neighborhood of 50 million are now living with elected leaders instead of tyrannical dictators who killed them willy-nilly.
And amen to that.
Yeah.
All right.
Thanks, Lisa.
I appreciate the call.
We're going to take another break.
Roger Hedgecock here for Rush right after this.
Welcome back to the Russian Limbaugh Program.
Roger Hedgecock here from KOGO Radio in San Diego.
Tomorrow, Walter Williams and on Monday, Rush is back at the golden microphone.
Here's Scott in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
In the meantime, hi, Scott.
Yes, sir.
I very much appreciate your program, Roger.
And as a former U.S. Marine, and this is a real quick comment, so I'm just appalled at the inference for us to retreat.
Marines don't wear armor on their backs.
We don't retreat for any reason or any shape or form.
I believe in this war.
And I've come up with a little flag for the Liberals.
The USA flag, of course, we're very proud to say these colors don't run.
The Liberal flag would say Liberals on the top, Liberal flag, and it would be pink in color.
And it would say this color runs fast.
Runs fast.
Yes, sir.
Scott, good news.
I guess I can't market it now because I've put it out there, but I don't have time to market it.
Maybe someone else would.
Thanks for the call, Scott.
He's referring to the fact, if you're just joining us, that John Murthy, Pennsylvania senior in the Democratic Party, John Murthy from Pennsylvania, has called today in a press conference for the immediate, as he put it, quote, the immediate withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq.
The Democratic Party has been flushed out by Dick Cheney, by the speeches made by the president over the last couple of days, calling their current campaign of deception and lies about what Bush said and didn't, and said, and didn't say, and did and didn't do prior to the Iraq War.
All of that now has been flushed out.
All of that has now been swept away, and Murthy came out honestly and put it on the table.
The real core of the Democrat Party, the Howard Dean Party, is a surrender party, is a frenchified Western European appeasement party that is ready to surrender in Iraq.
Now, it may be there's a lot of things we ought to be doing better in Iraq.
I've called for victory in Iraq.
I've called for a lot of stepped-up operations, phasing out in 2006, which I think is going to be able to be done as the Bush war strategy works.
So it's important, ladies and gentlemen, to get behind it, to keep behind it, recognize the Democrats for what they are.
They said it today, finally.
▲
Export Selection