All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:26
November 22, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, I said, folks, it's basically true.
Bill and Hillary Clinton disagree on the pull out of troops from Iraq.
Well, we know where Hillary stands, Bill's, you know, waffling back and forth depending on the audience.
But can anybody tell me when was the last time Bill and Hillary disagreed over a pull out and what happened?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's the award winning, thrill packed, ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds.
Rush Limbaugh program on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchor man, firmly ensconced, doing a play by play of the news and commentary as America's truth detector.
All this combined is one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
We are ditto camming today.
And it looks like we'll do the fourth hour today.
I promised yesterday to be a fourth hour, today or tomorrow it'll be today.
So for those of you who subscribe at Rushlimbaugh.com, we will continue at the conclusion of our over the air broadcast at 3 o'clock Eastern Time.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is 800-282-2882 and email address rush at EIBNet.com.
All right.
Let's talk a little bit about the war here.
There's a Harris poll out.
The Wall Street Journal has the story America's confidence that Iraq will be a successful venture in developing a democratic and reasonably stable government has declined sharply since August, according to a new Harris Interactive poll.
Three months ago, 40% of U.S. adults were confident that Iraq would be able to develop a stable Democratic government, but now only 32% of U.S. adults say they are confident that this will happen, according to a recent telephone poll of 1,011 adults.
Despite this decline in confidence, public opinion on some other key issues related to Iraq has seen little change in the last several months.
About 63% of those polled favor bringing most of our troops home in the next year, compared with 35% who say the U.S. should keep troops in Iraq until there's a stable government there.
Likewise, the 41% of adults, all adults, who believe that the insurgents are being contained by security forces, virtually the same number as those who believe this in the two previous polls.
Now the uh there's the as it isn't is in every poll, there's conflicting data.
You wonder about the respondents, because while this is reported that Americans' confidence in the future of Iraq is at a new low if you dig deep into the internals and look what what you will find is that people at the same time see that it is much better in Iraq than it was.
For example, a survey of all adults, overall life for Iraqis, better or worse.
In June 68 to 27, better.
In August 65 to 31, better.
Now 68 to 28 better.
Though people see that it's better in Iraq.
Overall infrastructure for Iraqis better, 62 to 30.
Security for Iraqi civilians, 52 to 43.
Uh so the uh and and by the way, insurgents uh being contained by security forces that is trending downward from 42 to 41%.
Well, actually, it's coming up.
It's trending upward 39 to 40%.
So dig into the internals and you find that the same people who have no confidence in the future of Iraq think Iraq's doing much better.
So what are we to make of the poll?
I'll tell you what we make of it.
We rip it to shreds because it comes from the mainstream media who have a vested interest in this being the uh the belief of as many adults in this country as possible.
Now I know these polls, if you look at these polls, folks, they're just they're distressing to you and they are upsetting.
But it's a good thing to remember.
And you know, it's one of the things that that I think saves us as conservatives is our memories.
It's a good thing to remember that George W. Bush was reelected last year by a comfortable margin.
The anti-war candidate was rejected.
John Kerry, who Served in Vietnam, by the way, and whose wife has dropped his last name.
John Kerry ran a campaign based on exactly what the Democrats are trying to do today.
If you listen to the Democrats today, and if you listen to uh uh Mertha or any other you listen to the mainstream press, it's a replay of the 2004 presidential campaign.
This is their new idea.
They're just gonna keep hammering this.
They've added this new element that Bush lawed about pre-war intelligence, which pure sophistry.
It's just absolute sophistry, and has been demonstrated time and time again by all kinds of in fact, grab audio soundbite uh number number five.
Uh Mike, if you now my number my number five was number twenty-two from yesterday, I think, but uh uh.
It's number four, the big long three-minute thirteen thing.
Is that what your number five is?
Yep, yep, yep, good.
Because what the RNC has done and what a lot of people have done have gone back and just collected the actual audio of all these Democrats in 1998 and 2002 saying the exact thing that George Bush has been saying since 9-11.
And of course, it's interesting to watch the media report this.
The media says, and Republicans are saying that the Democrats were saying in 1998 and 2002, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then they go ask the Democrats, what do you think about what the Republicans are saying?
Rather than report what the Democrats said and point out the obvious hypocrisy and and and sophistry of it.
They say Republicans accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy.
Republicans say that the Democrats said X back in 1998 and 2002.
Instead of just reporting it.
But it's essentially it's the same campaign.
And they lost.
That is the point.
They lost on this campaign.
And don't forget the polling data I shared with you from the first hour.
Bush's numbers may be down, Republicans in Congress are down, Democrats in Congress at the bottom.
Whatever this bad news means, it doesn't mean good things for the Democrats.
And that's where they're fooling themselves because they think that it will redound positively to them.
The anti-war candidate was rejected.
John Kerry, who served in Vietnam and whose wife has now dropped his last name, was saying everything the Democrats are saying today, and he was defeated.
The public spoke, and they spoke in a way that was much more representative than these damn polls are.
And I don't believe that things have changed that much.
Especially when you go back to Friday, you look at that House vote.
And there's a great there's a great Washington Times story on this today.
The Republican who initiated last week's overwhelming House vote to keep U.S. troops in Iraq said he'll do it again if Democrats don't cease their calls for withdrawal.
If they start this again, we're gonna call the vote again.
So J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Republican, who members credited with suggesting holding a votes.
Far as I'm concerned, J. D. said, if they haven't learned from this, if they go back to this cheap talk, I'd be more than happy to call for another vote.
Democrats said, it's not clear what message came out of the House vote last Friday, because the Republican resolution was not the same as Mr. Mertha's resolution.
The Democrats are unsure of the message for Friday's vote.
Let me help out.
There was a resolution put forth to pull the troops out of Iraq.
And only three Democrats voted for it, despite the fact that 100%, well, 99% of them are out there demanding it.
So when it came time to put pedal to the metal...
When it came time to actually be counted, no Democrat hands were raised.
So it's all just talk, it's all politics, it's not even about the war, but the problem for them is that they've now maneuvered themselves politically into a situation where they are invested in our defeat.
They no longer can, well, I mean, they can try, but they're not gonna get away with claiming credit for any victory when it happens because they have made it plain they don't think it's possible, and they think this is already a failure, and it's a lost cause, and it's a worthless cause, and we need to pull out now.
That's their position.
And if they're gonna try to go back after we achieve victory and say, hey, we helped, they're just gonna be laughed at and heaped with scorn.
Now listen to this.
This is three minutes and thirteen seconds, and here's what we've got Madeline Albright.
We got slick Willie, we get Howard Dean, we got Sandy Burglar, Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Dingy Harry, uh Tim Russard interviewing Hillary.
We have the Breck Girl, John Edwards, and Evan Bai, and an ending statement in this little montage from President Bush.
These Democrats that you are going to hear are all speaking either in 1998 or in 2002.
Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here.
For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
And it is a threat against which we must stand firm.
Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.
There are such a thing as international outlaws.
I'm not sure China has one, but I'm quite sure of the case.
He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
Sandy Burglar.
Someday, someway, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has pen times since 1983.
Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.
There's no question about that.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.
Thank you.
And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Jay Rockefeller.
And so there's much we don't know.
Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community.
And I think that the president is approaching this in the right fashion.
Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?
I doubt it.
I can support the president.
I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our uh national security.
Starting on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
It's just that simple.
Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein.
I think he was right on in his speech tonight.
The lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction.
So, regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action.
When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.
Well, it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war.
It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life.
They deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.
We'll take a break and be right back on that note.
Stay with us.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Hey, Aldermont, grab the feminist update.
I have a great one here.
Not immediately, but I just want you to have time to find it, have it standing by.
It's once again from Michigan.
You know, that's that's what what was her name?
Catherine McKinnon.
That's it.
At uh remember when she taught it, taught law at uh at Michigan University, I mean I think it was Michigan, could have been MSU, but I think it was Michigan.
She said all sex is rape, even the sex of marriage.
They got they got some feminist babes up there now, Michigan State University professors that uh have topped.
That have topped Catherine McKinnon.
I mean, this is just it's just it's it's it's too good.
Uh in the meantime, having declared last Wednesday while he was in Dubai that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a big mistake, former president Bill Clinton now thinks the Bush administration policy may succeed.
You know, Dick Morris has a column, and he was on television last night saying the same thing, and he was really upset.
And wondering why where was the outrage when Clinton did this?
When over Can you imagine if George H. W. Bush 41 had gone to Bosnia and said this is a mistake, we have no business being here.
But you have all these ex-Democrat presidents going over just you know a few hundred miles from the scenes of battle and basically demoralizing the troops, saying the whole enterprise is worthless.
Then Clinton comes back and does a flip-flop or a waffle.
He was speaking to Arab students in Dubai, which is the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
He said, Saddam's good, it's a good thing, but I don't agree with what was done last night, though.
He told well, Sunday night, he he he told an audience of 700 in Valhalla, New York, that the recent vote on an Iraqi constitution went well.
And the next test will be whether the once dominant Sunni Arabs participate in the December 15th elections.
If they do, he said, the enterprise could still work.
We we could look at having a fairly substantial drawdown of troops next year.
So it's it's as I said, Bill Clinton, I don't want to be lacked, and I don't even want to be loved.
I want to be adored.
And I will tell you whatever you want to hear, whoever you are, wherever you are.
The only way you can be Bill Clinton is to not have a conscience.
I'm convinced.
Seriously, the only way you can do it is to not put yourself in his position and do what he does.
Ask yourself if you could go do it.
Could you go over to Dubai and peek to a bunch of Arab students, say, what the U.S. did's wrong, we hadn't no business being there, we shouldn't be there.
It's a big mistake.
It's a good thing Saddam's gone, but I don't think the way we did it was the right thing to do.
Just because you know that's what that audience wants to hear.
Then you come back less than 48 hours, 50, you know, 72 hours later, and you tell a different audience an entirely different thing, knowing full well that what you said 72 hours before has been reported and everybody knows it.
You just you just can't have a conscience.
And here once again, uh just uh just to make this point, Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a big mistake.
The uh New York Democrat said she respects Jack Mertha.
Of course, everybody, he's a good man.
Everybody loved Jack Murray.
Why?
No greater guy than Jack Mertha.
Best guy that is in Washington today.
Well, look, folks, as I said, he may be a nice guy, but until somebody proves to me that that wasn't a stunt that he cooked up with Pelosi or somebody in a Democrat leadership, I'm gonna believe it it was, because I know these people.
As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to this kind of politics, Democrats are guilty until proven innocent, and it's up to them to prove their innocence because the assumption of guilt is the thing that makes the most sense on their part.
But you still have Hillary backtracking on this, and you got Biden sort of backtracking and disagreeing with Murpha.
He says he's not there yet.
Hillary uh Hillary said uh that it would be a big mistake.
U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be a big mistake.
I think that would cause more problems for us in America.
It'll matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp.
She's exactly right.
I hate to tell you this, but she is exactly right.
You study bin Laden's movements, Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan, he went everywhere where there was no state.
He went to stateless countries and basically took over.
Taliban ended up running Afghanistan, these warlords like Mohammed Farah Adid Sahib Skyhook ended up running uh Somalia, and of course Sudan's what it is.
Uh and and that's the if if you turn Iraq loose, it's just gonna become the Al-Qaeda headquarters state, and and that's what Hillary is not gonna want to be any part of.
And you know, this is really distancing.
She's really distancing herself here from the from from the Kook fringe that is demanding the exact opposite of what she is saying.
So I think Hillary's rolling the dice at that Kook Fringe is not nearly as influential and powerful as everybody thinks that uh they are.
We will soon find out.
So it seems here, depending on what day, like last week, when Clinton's over in Dubai, he and Hillary disagree On the pull out.
When you come back to Sunday night and Clinton's in New York, seems like he and Hillary agree on the pull out.
So which is accurate?
Do they agree on a pull out or disagree on a pull out?
Uh you know, I asked a question at the top of the hour.
I'll ask this question again.
When was the last time Hillary and Bill disagreed on a pull out?
Who was overruled on that occasion of that pull out and what happened as a result.
See if anybody comes up with the uh with the answer to this.
We have a quick timeout coming up.
We have more of your calls straight ahead on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
What are you shaking your head for in there, Brian?
I'll tell you, sometimes I'm sorry to be distracted by these people, but I don't even know if they're paying attention in there.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Welcome back.
L. Rushbaugh doing what I was born to do.
Here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
You know, earlier this month, citizens in uh cities in Jordan got angry and they took to the streets.
I'm sure the American Democrats and the American left would have loved it if the Jordanians' anger was at the United States.
America get out of Iraq.
The Democrats would have loved that had that been what the Jordanians were saying, but that isn't what the Jordanians were saying.
Angry citizens in Jordanian cities were saying burn in hell, Abu Musab al-Zarkawi.
And they were protesting by the thousands all over the country.
This protest came after the November 9th hotel bombings that killed 59, including family members at a wedding.
And by the way, that date, November 9, in that part of the world, they write the date that way, 9-11.
On Sunday, our special forces and Iraqi forces attacked a safe house in Mosul, killing several terrorists.
Others inside blew themselves up rather than face capture.
It was rumored that Abu Mousab al-Zarkawi was among the dead, but that was later discounted, although still trying to figure out if he was, and they're still doing tests from what I understand.
But what hasn't been discounted is that the attack was based on intelligence.
A tip from Iraqis.
Yes, yes, you understand, friends, there is mounting anger among Muslims, extending beyond Jordan and Iraq.
These Muslims are not protesting Abu Grab, Senator Turban.
They are not protesting pre-war intelligence, Senator Reed.
They aren't showing up on Al Jazeera's version of Meet the Depressed, claiming that America's losing the war.
Nope.
These Muslims aren't demanding that we tucktail and run and follow the Bill Clinton Somalia model, and they aren't demanding that we turn Iraq and its resources over to the likes of Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden.
They want Zarkawi to burn in hell.
They want the people who blew up those hotels and killed those people punished.
They are not blaming anybody but those people for doing it.
Unlike America's Democrats.
9-11 happens and somehow it's our fault.
What did we do?
We are evil.
We deserved it.
What did we do to make them hate us so?
The Jordanians and the Iraqi Muslims are not looking at it that way.
They are fed up increasingly so with the terrorists.
A growing number of Muslims in this volatile region of the Middle East understand something that the faint-hearted American left is not.
And that is that dramatic successes are taking place in Iraq, including elections.
The tide is turning against Abu Mousab Arzarkawi and his evil Al Qaeda terrorists.
Victory is being earned, hardship by hardship day by day, yet American leftists, American Democrats continue to preach that we have Lost.
Continue to demoralize the troops.
Continue to say it's a lost cause and a worthless cause.
They continue to demand our defeat.
The people in the region understand who it is that's causing the trouble and want those people dealt with.
Democrats and the American left truly standing on an island all by themselves.
They're on the beach in their minds.
They think they're on the beach, but they are in quicksand.
And time now for our feminist update.
We go get the theme song here from our archives.
Grooveyard of Forgotten Favorites.
You gotta hear this one, folks.
Yes.
Actual audio from a pro-choice rally featuring a bunch of wild-eyed long-haired under the arms feminists on the Capitol steps there in the mall, uh, shouting we're fierce, we're feminist, we're in your face, and we overdubbed that with the uh that great tune there by the Forester sisters.
We did speed up and make them sound like chipmunks there, those feminists, but that's actual footage, actual audio of feminists, we're fierce, we're feminist, and we're in your face.
Promoting love and uh happy homes and all the things that these militant feminists do.
All right.
I know that the economy is not the greatest in Michigan.
People are calling today talking about it.
But neither is education.
There's big trouble in Michigan, apparently.
Three female Michigan State University professors, by the way, this is from the Michigan Times.
This is a college newspaper.
Three female Michigan State University professors studied the magazine Traditional Bow Hunter.
And they concluded They concluded that hunting is a form of sexual violence with animals substituted for women.
They describe hunting as quote, erotic, heterosexual predation, sadomasochism, restraint for aggressive sexual energy and allied with the abuse of women.
After I read that, I said, I'm gonna learn how to bow hunt because I am missing out on a lot, apparently.
The article entitled Animals, Women and Weapons Blurred Sexual Boundaries in the Discourse of Sport Hunting was published by the Society and Animals Forum.
The genesis of the article was the 2003 video Hunting for Bambi, which reached national attention that year when many news outlets reported a group in Nevada was selling hunts, which men paid thousands of dollars to shoot naked women with paintball guns.
The producers of the DVD later admitted the hunters and women involved were actors, like in high budget porn, the star is only an actor and really cannot fix the cable.
Concluding that men turn bows and firearms into phallic symbols.
The researchers, uh, we just lost them in Rio Linda on that.
How can I help?
Uh well, never mind.
If you don't know it, ask your mom.
Concluding that men turn bows and firearms into phallic symbols.
The researchers point to terms and jargon found in the magazine, Traditional Bow Hunter, in order to reaffirm their belief of displaced sexual drive, climax, biggins, homely cow are but a few of the many terms with which they took issue.
So apparently in this magazine, Traditional Bow Hunter, you'll find the word climax biggins and uh uh like as in big ones, uh, and homely cow, and these three feminist professors read that and thought they were being talked about.
Apparently, and uh and other women.
Uh using the terms out of context allows anybody to make them sexual, second, we're talking about hunting, not sex.
The study fails to see the subject matter as merely hunting.
The outrageous links between sexual violence and hunting would cause sensible readers to scoff, but remember the authors are members of the Michigan State University faculty, which makes this paper all the more scary.
Apparently, the woman is an animal argument is only valid until the kill.
When alive and being chased in a sport of hunting, animals are given Human characteristics, but when dead and displayed as a trophy, anthropomorphism is no longer necessary, and the animal simply dead.
Why anthropomorphism would be necessary in the first place is not explored.
Furthermore, why is it not necessary in the second place?
Indeed, their argument is that men are violent creeps who beat up on poor cuddly animals because there are no women running around in the woods to beat up on.
Violence against animals and women is linked by a theory of overlapping but absent referrance that institutionalizes patriarchal values.
This is from these women's paper.
Absent from this study is where the millions of female hunters fit.
And for that is the only logical conclusion of the animal is a woman and woman is an animal thesis.
Not far removed from their illiation would be to say that women obtained sexual gratification from hunting, but actually wish they were sexually abusing women or maybe themselves.
So this is commentary on the piece written by the three female Michigan State University professors, who actually, for who knows what reason, studied the magazine traditional bowhunter, and concluded that hunting is a form of sexual violence with animals substituted for women.
Now you laugh, I laugh, but these women are teaching.
These women are teaching this stuff in the classroom.
What are you saying to me?
I know they're nuts.
But they're teaching other women in classrooms this stuff.
This what do you think?
What kind of st this is a kind of drivel that gave us Maureen Dowd for crying out loud.
Amazing.
It's just amazing.
Hot damn.
I knew it.
I knew this Mirtha thing was a stunt, and it was a stunt.
None other than Howard Feynman in this week's issue of Newsweek confirms it.
Let me just read you two of the relevant paragraphs of Howard Feynman's story in Newsweek.
Mirtha was the one-man tipping point, initially a strong supporter of the Iraq war.
He had voted for it and the money to pay for it.
But in his last trip to Iraq, he had become convinced not only that a war was unwinnable, that the continued American military presence was making matters far worse.
We're the target.
We're part of the problem, he told Newsweek.
Back in Washington, he resumed his weekly pilgrimage to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, visiting severely wounded casualties in a rehab and agonizing over what he saw there.
I think those visits affected him deeply, said a Rosa Deloro, a Connecticut Democrat.
In a long chat with an Irish colleague, he talked about his congressional hero and mentor.
Another blue-collar Irishman, Thomas P. Tip O'Neill Jr.
No liberal on defense, in 1967, O'Neill had stunned President Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause.
Now Mertha thought to himself, it's my turn to confront a president with harsh truths.
So not only was it a stunt, it was a replay.
They are so tied to the Vietnam experience that they're trying to replay it.
Only this time.
Instead of O'Neill telling LBJ, it's over in Vietnam, get out of there, Mirtha said, it's time for me to be O'Neill here in 2005, and I'm going to tell Bush.
and Now get the next paragraph, which was precisely what the Democrat leadership wanted Jack Mertha to do.
A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, I knew they cooked this up.
I knew they cooked it.
They're guilty and it'll prove an innocent on this program, folks, because we know them.
A close ally of Mirtha's Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq and was aware of Mertha's growing antagonism toward the war.
The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the Democratic Party conference.
After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq at the earliest practicable date.
Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance while their own marine charged up the hill, framed by long rows of American flags.
At a press conference, Mertha denounced the Iraq war as a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion.
Mirtha had known he would set off an explosion.
He did.
His arrival on the House floor was greeted with cheers from fellow Democrats because they knew it was coming.
A near riot ensued, and an Ohio backbencher named Gene Schmidt, eager to demonstrate cold bloodedness, was given time by GOP leaders to relate a phone call from a Reen, a Marine whom she said wanted to send Congressman Mertha a message that cowards cut and run Marines never do.
Furious Democrats charged down the aisles, fists in the air, shouting that Schmidt's words had to be stricken from the record.
You guys are pathetic, yelled Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, while Representative Harold Ford of Tennessee charged into the GOP side to confront them.
The melee was so intense that it brought the soothing presence of Tom Delay from his secure, undisclosed location, and Schmidt eventually apologized by a vote of 403 to three.
The House ultimately rejected a boulderized version of Mertha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted to sound as cravenly anti-war as possible.
Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Mertha voted against it.
Obvious trap.
See, the Democrats, a dirty trick and a trap is simply repeating what they say.
All you've got to do is just go quote them, and they accuse you of a dirty trick.
Just quote 'em.
So Mertha was practically quoted in the resolution.
I can't vote for the Well, not only he, but only three of those kooks in the Democratic caucus could.
They didn't even get Sergeant Owens in this vote, did they?
So Sergeant Owens voted present.
Sergeant Owens voted present.
Exactly right.
So it was a stunt.
Pelosi asked Mertha to go do this.
Mertha said, okay, I'll go do it.
Democrats cheered wildly as though it was some spontaneous event on a House floor, and it was all cooked up.
Back after Fr.
How anybody I don't understand how anybody can call here when the subject is Democrats and politics and tell me I'm wrong after this.
I just don't know.
By the way, uh uh President McCain of the media uh uh says that we don't have enough troops in Iraq.
He's going the other way.
We're not pull out.
What pull out?
We don't have enough troops there.
So these guys are all over the place.
Let's go to Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Hello, Dave.
Uh great to hear from you.
Uh Rush, listen, it's an honor to talk to you and Megadetto.
I mean uh I really do at times think you are on loan from God.
You just uh you put everything in perspective, and the uh the last segment on uh what happened at the in the House on Friday was most disturbing because I I think that as you you you've unearthed the whole issue that that this was uh a con by the Democratic Party with Mertha, and it's fell it sounded and smelled just like it.
But what I don't understand is why Congresswoman Schmidt has taken such a beating uh in the press and uh from from people all over the place taking pot shots at her when she spoke for all of Americans.
I am glad that she spoke up and said what she said, I think.
She was she spoke for a Marine.
She was she was relaying the details of a phone call from a Marine in Iraq.
I mean, the the let the Democrats demand an apology.
You know, that just they were basically being called cowards.
It's like it's it's like I said, the worst thing you can do is tell the truth about them because that's when they freak and they start demanding that you uh retract yourself, call it a dirty trick or what have you.
But you know, she's hardly a by the way, this business of her being a backbencher.
The Newsweek piece doesn't mention it was Gene Schmidt that defeated Paul Hackett in uh in that Ohio election.
I can call her a backbencher because she's new, but we played the audio sound bite, and she was strong voiced, and she was convicted, and she refused to be shouted down by those people.
So no backbencher to me was Gene Schmidt.
Thanks for the call out there, Dave.
▲
Export Selection