Rush Limbaugh Program - November 23, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 23, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:32

November 23, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Doing what I was born to do, host this program.
	I am Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball with talent on loan from God.
	Greetings, my friends, and welcome back to the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program.
	This is the EIB Network from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
	Telephone number if you'd like to be on the program.
	We'll be getting lots of your calls today, 800-282-2882.
	We told you yesterday about this adjunct English professor at Warren County Community College in New Jersey.
	What was this guy's name?
	John Daly was his name.
	Now, this story was that a freshman student, Rebecca Beach, invited a Vietnam, I'm sorry, an Iraq war veteran to a campus speech.
	And this caused Professor Daly, a part-time English professor at the college, to respond to her in an email claiming that the only real freedom will occur when the servicemen in Iraq turn their guns on their commanding officers.
	So there was supposed to be a big meeting last night, figure out his future.
	He was told yesterday, don't show up the last three days of the week to teach your part-time adjunct English class.
	Well, it turns out now that the adjunct professor resigned yesterday before the Board of Trustees began an emergency meeting scheduled to address the matter.
	As we prepared for that meeting, we received word from Mr. Daly that he had tendered his resignation from Warren County Community College effective immediately.
	Board Chairman Ed Smith said the board has accepted his resignation.
	I think it's a great name for a university board chairman, Ed Smith.
	You know, some like Joe Arpyle, who has a perfect name for a sheriff, Buford T. Justice, who is a perfect name for a sheriff.
	Ed Smith is a perfect name for a college board chairman.
	Some of the 30 people in the room gasped at the news, including the student Rebecca Beach.
	Professor Daly is teaching in a state institution and acting on behalf of the state, and I believe his comments to me is a restriction of my personal free speech rights.
	That's what she said.
	Anyway, that's the thrust of this.
	The real news here is the headline of this story.
	This is from NewJersey.com, their website.
	The headline, provoked professor leaves WCCC Post.
	The professor, the part-time adjunct English professor, was provoked.
	So she sent him a letter.
	She sent him an email asking him a question.
	It provoked him.
	In fact, here's how the paragraph reads.
	Some of the 30 people in the room gasped at the news, including student Rebecca Beach, whose invitation to a campus speech by a veteran of the Iraq War provoked an irate response from John Daly, a part-time English professor at the college.
	So the student invites this Iraq war veteran, and that's provocative.
	That's provocative.
	Provoked professor.
	Unbelievable.
	Not that the student was provoked, not that the school was provoked, not that the Iraq war vet was provoked, and not that the commanding officers in Iraq were provoked, because it was suggested by this guy that they be shot.
	And we learned yesterday that he also went off on Rebecca Beach because he thought she was a member of the Young Americas Foundation, which is a conservative group.
	And he doesn't think conservatives ought to be on campus.
	He don't want her to be there.
	So anyway, the guy quit.
	He's dwa.
	There's also an interesting piece.
	Maggie Gallagher is a columnist, syndicated columnist.
	And I saw a column that she, I guess it's our most recent column.
	I saw it at Yahoo News.
	You know, it's not that I have a big ego, folks, that I keep up with things out there.
	I have a keyword search on the web for my name as a stuff flashes up.
	And sometimes I check it out, sometimes I don't, because I can tell what it's going to be, where it comes from.
	But she has a piece here called The Elite Divide, and it's about the latest poll from the Pew Political Center for People in the Press or whatever it's called.
	And she starts her piece this way: Politically, Americans are saying a pox on both your houses.
	Both parties now struggle to define themselves in ways the majority of Americans like.
	For the best look at where both political elites may be going wrong, check out the Pew political typologies poll released earlier this year.
	The Pew poll divides registered voters into eight subgroups: three on the GOP side who are called enterprisers, social conservatives, and pro-government conservatives.
	There are two centrist groups called upbeats and disaffecteds.
	And there are three Democrat groups.
	And get the name of these groups: conservative Dems, Disadvantaged Dems, and Liberals.
	You don't need divisions of Democrats.
	They're all liberals.
	And just some of them, you know, like some of the nice ones that called here the past couple of days, they're duped, but they're still liberals.
	But what is a disadvantaged Democrat?
	What is it?
	What the hell is a disadvantaged Democrat?
	Okay, wait, I can figure it out.
	Disadvantaged because they are Democrats.
	So anyway, those are the eight groups.
	The GOP elites, remember she says the elites of both these parties are the most divided from the center of the country.
	The GOP elites are recognizable by enterprisers.
	And enterprisers make up 10% of all voters.
	They are mostly men, educated, married, patriotic, affluent, with strong belief in power of military force, market capitalism, and the individual to get ahead in this world.
	Maggie Gallagher says if you want to attach a couple of names to enterprisers, think Ronald Reagan and me, Rush Limbaugh.
	88% of enterprisers believe that most corporations make a fair and reasonable amount of profits, a position supported by only 39% of the general population.
	84% of enterprisers agree that the best way to defeat terrorism is overwhelming military force compared to 39% of the general population.
	46% of the enterprisers watch Fox News.
	They voted for Bush over Kerry, 92% to 1%.
	Enterprisers who define the problem as all those Christian conservatives have a rude shock.
	Now, this is where this thing totally breaks down because the enterprisers do not define the problem as all those Christian conservatives.
	It is the centrist Republicans.
	You know, what's going wrong here with this analysis by the Pew people is that they're confusing the enterprisers with the country club blueblood Republicans.
	And those are the ones that don't like the conservative Christians.
	I've been with these people.
	I know who these blue-blood country club Republicans are.
	I've been with them at dinner parties.
	They come up to me.
	They sidle up to me.
	They say, you've got to do something about those hicks down in the South Russia.
	What do you mean?
	Abortion is just going to kill.
	I've been hearing this for 20 years.
	Now, these are Republicans, make no mistake about it.
	And they are affluent, these people I'm talking about, but they are not the enterprisers as defined by this.
	The enterprisers are not really all that separated from the Christians.
	Ronald Reagan wasn't.
	The so-called Christian right was Ronald Reagan's base.
	It's George W. Bush's base.
	So this breaks down.
	Now, let's get to the liberal elites.
	So who are they?
	Let's do it.
	GOP's base.
	The GOP's base is less riven or driven or split than the Democrats because enterprisers do share the rest of the GOP's religious values just less intently.
	Moreover, enterprisers take a unifying lead on one critical values issue, and that's optimism.
	Working-class Republican voters resonate to the idea that America still is the land of opportunity.
	68% of pro-government conservatives say they often can't make ends meet, yet 76% of them agree that most people can get ahead with hard work compared with 14% of disadvantaged Democrats who don't believe that.
	Does that not sum it up?
	14% of disadvantaged Democrats, only 14% of them believe that you can get ahead with hard work.
	That means what?
	What?
	86% of disadvantaged Democrats think work is worthless.
	That hard work, no wonder they have no faith in this country.
	No wonder they have no hope or belief in opportunity.
	Liberals, 19% of the voters are in charge of crafting the Democrat agenda.
	They are the elites of the Democrats.
	And like the enterprisers, they are affluent and well-educated, younger and more female.
	More than a third have never been married.
	43% seldom or never attend church.
	And only 2% voted for Bush in 2004.
	They stand out from the rest of America in their opposition to military force and religion and their support for taxes and gay marriage.
	So that is, that's a pretty good apt description here.
	You got the conservative so-called elites as the enterprisers.
	The Democrat elites are the liberals.
	And there's this huge gap.
	There's this huge, but even with the disaffected Democrats, they don't believe in the basic values of America.
	What percent of the liberal elites have never been married?
	More than a third have never been married.
	Let me run through this again.
	19% of all voters are liberal elites, and they're in charge of crafting a Democratic agenda like the enterprisers, the so-called conservative elites.
	Liberals are affluent and well-educated.
	41% of them earn at least $75,000 a year.
	They are younger and more female, and more than a third of the liberals have never been married.
	43% seldom or never attend church.
	Only 2% voted for Bush.
	Liberals stand out from the rest of America in their opposition to military force and religion, their opposition to religion.
	They also stand out from the rest of America by virtue of their support for taxes and gay marriage.
	65% of liberals support cutting military spending to reduce the deficit compared to only between 16% and 41% of the rest of America.
	Liberals are the only people who favor raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit.
	67% of liberals believe the preemptive use of U.S. military forces rarely or never justified, a position decisively rejected by centrist groups and all others on the Republican side.
	Well, anyway, so there is this big divide.
	It got me to thinking, how is this manifesting itself in our war on terror and the war in Iraq?
	Because the divide is clearly there.
	I mean, you have the liberals hate military force, don't trust it, think we're the problem, we're evil, versus the good guys, the conservatives and the Republicans, the enterprisers, who realize that once you're attacked as often as we've been, the only way to deal with this is by the Proper projection of power and the use of force.
	So, what can we do to unite liberal politicians and conservative politicians in the war effort?
	Because the whole point of Maggie Gallagher's column is that this is going to have to happen at some point if America is to ever get along with itself again.
	We're not talking total unity, but I mean, this divide is so great, how can we breach the divide?
	I, I, ladies and gentlemen, this is my job, thought about this, and I have come up with a way that we can unite all of our politicians in Washington in this war effort.
	It's real simple when you stop and think about it.
	We've got these insurgents over there in Iraq.
	We've got the Abu Musab al-Zarqawis.
	We got the Ayman al-Zawahiris.
	We have the Osama bin Ladens and all the other Muhammads.
	Well, the Democrats don't seem to be bothered by them.
	Democrat politicians, we never hear them say one negative word about, do you?
	We only hear about the barbarianism of U.S. forces and Abu Ghraib and Klub Gitmo and the secret CIA prisons.
	If you listen to the American left, why we're the enemy, why we're guilty, we're the horror, we're the barbarians, we are the butchers.
	We never hear about how rotten the insurgents are, do we?
	But is there a way to convince them that the insurgents are indeed the evil in this war and that they need to be confronted as such?
	And yes, there is.
	Here's what we do: we simply deputize all insurgents and we swear them in as Republicans.
	From now on, we call Zawahiri and Zarkawi Republicans.
	We just simply make them part of the Republican Party.
	That will guarantee the left will hate their guts and will finally see them as they are.
	We'll be back in just a second, State.
	You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
	Oh, Mr. Snerdley, I'm not joking.
	I think it makes perfect sense.
	If you listen to the American left, the worst enemy this country has is the Republican Party.
	We in the Republican side think it's al-Qaeda and the terrorist networks around the world.
	So in order to get the left to see the insurgency the way we see them, we simply call them Republicans.
	Make them Republicans.
	Go over there and register them as Republicans, absentee Republican voters.
	Make Zarqawi a Republican, Zawahiri a Republican, bin Laden a Republican.
	That's the only chance we got that the left is going to see them as the hateful people they are.
	I think it's a brilliant idea.
	Will it ever happen?
	Of course not.
	But it's worthy of the illustration involved.
	All right, we're going to Peter in St. Louis.
	Peter, I'm glad you called.
	Welcome to the EIB network.
	Yes, hello, Rush.
	Thank you for taking my call.
	Yes, sir.
	I was going to say mega Christian conservative Reagan Republican ditto.
	Thank you, sir.
	And I just want to mention that I called you last year about this time about, we have at least one liberal in our family, an uncle, and I unfortunately wasn't able to execute your advice very well last year.
	Let me say, now, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
	I think I remember this.
	You were going to Thanksgiving and you had this uncle or this relative.
	I guess you said it was an uncle last year, very liberal, and you wanted to know how to deal with him because it's Thanksgiving.
	You don't want to go all these contra tempts and things.
	So you wanted some advice on how to deal with the guy, right?
	Yes, yes.
	Now, what did I tell you to do?
	Just to ignore him and let him go on about his theories and whatnot and so forth.
	I told you, if I remember right, I told you to laugh at him.
	Right, exactly.
	Exactly.
	That mostly too.
	And I tried and I did until finally I just, after dealing with everything that I had to do with that day, it finally got to me where I stood up and stood my ground from what the other relatives in my family had said because they actually took me aside later and quietly applauded me and said, good God, for actually standing up to him.
	Like they wanted to always do it, but never really decided to take the opportunity to do it.
	Well, okay.
	Well, now that you say it that way, now wait a minute.
	I might have misunderstood this last year.
	No, does he take out after you?
	Wait a minute.
	Does he take out after you personally?
	Does he call you names or insult you because you're a conservative?
	No, he just degeneralizes me, I guess, in a way, because you know how I've been more voicing out to the family on saying, oh, did you hear about what was on Russia's program the other day or Sean's program?
	And since I'm the one that always would voice that to other relatives in the family just as a brief, you know, say, wasn't that neat or funny or what we heard and everything?
	And then he'd hear me say that and realize I was more the voice.
	Well, okay, look, I mean, I wish I could be there.
	I wish I could be there because it'd be much easier that way.
	Let me ask you, whose house is it that you go to?
	Is it his?
	Unfortunately, you know, it's my aunt's.
	Did your aunt?
	But your aunt, but he's your uncle's.
	We tried, like I said, it wasn't coming to blows, but it did kind of detract from the happiness of Thanksgiving to just be there and enjoy friends and family and celebrate the meaning of Thanksgiving.
	Well, it sounds like the guy makes it hard to do all that.
	He does.
	He does.
	It's almost at any kind of family function, especially.
	Well, does he bother everybody, or is it just you?
	I don't think too much of everybody.
	I mean, he might mention it to them to kind of find some way to just get out of being that question.
	No, no, no.
	Wait a minute.
	Wait a minute.
	Maybe I'm still not.
	This is happening at the dinner table, right?
	And he's making all these comments.
	Well, not really more at the dinner table than approaching the dinner table.
	It'd be more where you're in conversation in a room with the other relatives, and you might even say it off on the side more, and he'd be more bold to say it in front of everyone else.
	But he'd still, it'd be almost where you're cornered in a way where you're trying to find some way to get around it.
	I've got one that what are you going to do this year?
	I'm going to try to follow your advice from last year and just really, you know, not, this is not, you know, to bring up or have a topic during Thanksgiving or for Thanksgiving.
	Just try to buy a favor from the business.
	If he says the same thing to you this year, if I understood you right, if he says he was listening to this program and heard X and heard Y or whatever, is that what you said?
	He just said he doesn't listen.
	He'd only listen to like one of the things you need to listen more than that.
	You have to have enough time to really listen to it.
	No, That's the wrong thing.
	That's the wrong, wrong way to do it.
	You don't do it that way.
	You just, you turn around to him and say, I can't believe you're actually listening.
	If you're actually listening, how can you possibly draw that conclusion?
	That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard anybody said.
	Mostly people who think like you, Uncle Joe, don't listen to Limbaugh.
	You're listening to him and you're still not getting it.
	And then start laughing.
	OK, it's really do not go on defense.
	That's the key.
	Stay on offense.
	That's the attitudinal way to get past all this and laugh it off.
	Folks, I thought I'd break out the Mannheim Steamroller Christmas bump rotation today.
	The Christmas decorations have been up for a couple months out there.
	We may as well get in the spirit here on our annual Thanksgiving Day show, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
	Now, Peter in St. Louis, I know you're still out there.
	One of the I don't want to be cruel here.
	I mean, I'm not trying to be cruel.
	I'm trying to be helpful.
	You all heard the call.
	Peter called here and was trying to tell me that my advice from last year didn't work.
	You also heard that Peter would not be quiet for me to advise him further.
	So if you're going to call for advice, so I can offer it.
	I didn't have a chance because time was quickly dwindling away.
	But Peter, let me expand on what I said at the end of the call.
	I can tell you, by virtue of the last 30 seconds of your call, I can tell you what your problem is.
	You are taking all this stuff personally, and that is a killer.
	In a debate circumstance, in a family discussion or just with a group of friends, when you start taking things personally, it immediately puts you on the defensive, and then your brain stops working.
	And instead of reciting what you know, you get hung up trying to remember what you know in terms of trying to respond to what these numbskulls are saying to you.
	There's something key to keep in mind, and this is fundamental in having a discussion with an obnoxious, braggadocious, arrogant, condescending liberal.
	And that is when they are talking to you and telling you what they think about conservatism.
	They are not telling you about you.
	Do not grant them the power to start insulting you.
	You know, being insulted is your prerogative.
	Don't give them the power to insult you.
	It's not worth being insulted.
	Understand that these braggadocious, obnoxious, arrogant liberals are simply giving you a look-see at who they are.
	They are telling you who they are.
	They're making the mistake of expressing their own insecurities.
	And in many cases, they're expressing their own ignorance.
	And so the way to deal with this is to just turn it right back on them as they make some statement that you think normally would insult you.
	Don't allow it to insult you.
	Don't take it personally.
	Don't ever even think that they're talking about you personally, even if they think they are.
	Turn it right back around on them and comment in such a way that you are commenting on them, not what they have said.
	If you're going to get into these debates, you're not going to have a pleasant Thanksgiving if you do that.
	Because you're not going to change the mind of an arrogant, ignorant, condescending liberal.
	You're just not.
	The idea would be to shut them up or to silence them.
	And the best way to do that is to just let them know it's not bothering you and that they're making a fool of themselves.
	But you can only do that if you find a way to stay on offense by being confident and not allowing whatever is said to get inside and make you think that whatever's being said is about you because it isn't.
	I guarantee you, it's not in 95% of the cases.
	You're sitting there worried about what he thinks about you based on what he's saying.
	And the fact of the matter, he's like everybody else.
	He's all concerned what everybody thinks of him.
	So he's trying to act like Mr. Big.
	He's trying to act like Mr. Arrogant.
	I know it all.
	He's just being a bully.
	It sounds like to me, especially pulling this stuff at things, he's been making fun of you.
	You go on defense and you allow it.
	That's why just laugh.
	I'm telling you, tell him he's funny.
	You've never laughed so hard in your life.
	You can't believe anybody would actually believe the things he's saying.
	You're glad to have this kind of insight into who he is.
	You thought he was this kind of guy, but now he's letting you know for sure this is cool.
	And just enjoy the hell out of it in that standpoint and realize that the point here is not to change his mind about anything.
	The point is to shut him up.
	And there are countless easy ways of doing it.
	John in Jacksonville, Florida, you're next on the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Good afternoon, Rush.
	Thank you so much for your time.
	My pleasure, sir.
	I am glad I'm able to follow up.
	I agree.
	You just made a great statement.
	I agree with it 100%, which is you really can't change an arrogant, braggadocious individual's opinions.
	But I have a couple questions, and I really do appreciate it.
	I hope you can maybe help me understand if we have time for a second question.
	But the WMDs and this administration's allegation that they were misled or had bad information, and that's where some of the decisions were made to bomb another country.
	Why have we not heard, or maybe you have had clips and you can share them with us, about how they fixed that problem and it's not going to happen again?
	Well, in the first place, one of the problems, we touched on this yesterday, and I was reading a column by Jack Welch, or a column in which Jack Welch was quoted, news story, and he was talking about how Bush ought to be bragging left and right about economic achievements and not taking personal credit for them, but just going out and saying, hey, our economy is damn good.
	Our economy is strong.
	Look at our unemployment numbers even after 9-11 compared to other countries.
	Use the bully pulpit to inform the American people just how great the economy is and sort of counter this negative economy news that's out there.
	By the same token, this whole weapons of mass destruction thing is a puzzle because we know that Saddam Hussein had them.
	We know that Saddam Hussein used them.
	We also know that elements of non-nuclear or non-weapons grade nuclear materials have been found there since we arrived in Iraq.
	For some reason, this administration doesn't want to put that out.
	The idea that the intelligence was flawed and therefore it needs to be fixed and a mistake needs to be made, I think is one of the focal points of why there's such a battle going on in Washington, D.C.
	I think the CIA, for who knows whatever reasons, I'm not in a position to know, but it's clear that since before Bush came into office, the CIA has not done a bang-up job on intelligence.
	We know about Abel Danger.
	They tried to warn everybody about the existence of al-Qaeda, like Mohammed Atta, in the country.
	We know that they had advanced word as a technique that terrorists are going to fly planes into buildings, hijacking them and flying into buildings.
	All this seems to have been ignored.
	And the president has done his best not to humiliate the CIA in the aftermath.
	He's covered up for them, and yet they still persist in doing everything they can to cover up their mistakes, trying to make it look like his.
	And he's not standing up for his side of this.
	Now, your larger question is, are we fixing the intel problems?
	When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, I don't know how much fixing is actually needed.
	We know that Saddam had them.
	We know that Saddam refused to admit that he had dismantled the programs.
	We know that the rest of the world's intelligence agencies thought the same thing.
	We've also learned that the CIA is doing a number of things here to try to take the war on terror seriously, such as these prisons, the interrogations of captured prisoners and so forth.
	And what we face here is an American left that is continuing to try to emasculate our intelligence agencies and our intelligence gathering ability.
	Man, and I think members of the CIA itself, just like there are in the State Department, there are rogue CIA members who are ideologically liberals.
	They do not believe in this administration, and they're trying to sabotage this administration.
	How else are we learning about what all the CIA is doing?
	How are we learning this?
	It either is being leaked to Democrats and the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they're going public with it, or it's being leaked to newspapers.
	Now, we got this argument going over torture.
	We got this big debate going over that, well, the Bush administration wants special torture tech.
	They don't.
	But they don't want to be hemmed in by a piece of legislation that's been written by Senator McCain that basically just does turn every prison into a club gitmo.
	So Porter Goss has been sent over to the CIA to try to clean it out, just like Condoleezza Rice sent to the State Department to try to clean that out.
	And I think they're both having probably some pretty good success based on the number of leaks coming out of both places that are attempting to destroy this administration.
	Like this guy that started making speeches that was Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Larry Wilkerson, when he starts talking about how the administration, Cheney and Rumsfeld hijacked foreign policy.
	Give me a major break.
	The State Department thinks they, they're all unelected, run foreign policy?
	Yes, they do.
	Presidents come and go, but they stay and they're the glue that holds it all together.
	Here come Cheney.
	Here comes Rumsfeld.
	And they hijacked it?
	That's BS, but these guys, as I say, telling us who they are.
	Larry Wilkerson's giving us the biggest window to view the State Department they've given us in a long time.
	Now this nincum poop, Marianne Wright, who was at the State Department for 16 years, now taken over for Cindy Sheehan on the protest march down at Crawford, Texas.
	Sorry, they are again telling us exactly who's inside the State Department.
	This is a great lesson.
	This is a great opportunity.
	CIA leaks, the same thing.
	I happen to believe that there are people at the CIA trying to clean up the messes that have been made, trying to fix some of the problems.
	But let's not also forget the Clinton administration, a good old Jamie Gorellik, who built that wall that said intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies cannot share what they learn with one another.
	Now, how much sense does that make, folks?
	CIA is out there learning about X.
	They can't tell the FBI.
	They can't tell anybody else because it's being treated as a court case.
	Grand jury testimony is secret.
	And the Clinton administration was dealing with terrorism as a legal issue.
	We've got federal judges trying to wrest from the president's commander-in-chief role.
	We've got federal judges trying to say when and if a foreign combatant, an enemy, can be tried as a terrorist or somebody has to be granted all the rights of the U.S. Constitution when they are in fact enemy combatants.
	So there are a lot of people working against this administration, and it's an American left.
	And I'm telling you, I've tried to emphasize this as often as I can.
	What this means to me is the American left is hanging on by their fingernails.
	These are acts of desperation.
	Not to say they won't succeed if they're not fought, but they're acts of desperation.
	These are not acts of confidence.
	These are people that are doing in public what they used to get away with doing privately.
	When they do it in public, we can all see it.
	We can all see the outrageousness and the egregiousness of it.
	And that's what I mean by its desperation.
	They don't have the confidence to be able to get away with this on the sly.
	As to your larger question, are we doing a better job on weapons of mass destruction and making sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again?
	That's not the question to me.
	The larger question is, if we have another 9-11, is the Democratic Party going to sit around and once again try to prevent any retaliation against those who do it?
	Because the argument going on in Washington now is not over intelligence.
	That's a strawdog and that's a smokescreen.
	They're just using that as a political maneuver to keep these sycophant creeps and punks and wackos on the left mollified.
	What this is really all about is the future role of the U.S. military.
	And what will U.S. foreign policy be?
	And will we defend ourselves?
	And are we going to have an accurate and very active national security program and national defense program?
	That's what this is really all about.
	So and the one thing I think the administration is not doing that it could do is thump its chest and talk about its successes.
	Bush is not a braggart to him.
	That's bragging.
	And it's politicizing things, I guess.
	I'm taking a wild stab at that.
	I'm not quite sure why he doesn't stand up and declare all of the successes that are taking place.
	If you go back, I'll give you an illustration.
	You go back to the first Gulf War, which lasted, what, 250 days or 200 days.
	Was there not a press briefing every day?
	Schwartzkopf or somebody went to that tent and the media, and boy, it exposed the media as a bunch of idiots, too.
	But every day there was a progress report.
	Every day, the military called a press conference and they talked about what was going on.
	We did that at the beginning of this war, but we haven't done it.
	I think we need to reinstitute those.
	We need to get some positive news on the war as it's happening from the generals on the ground over there.
	And they can do this with weekly briefings, daily, or however they want to do them.
	But anything would be better.
	What they're doing now is very little.
	Mostly you hear from them when they come testify before Congress.
	And that's about it.
	I think it's just a matter of them getting their story up.
	I got to run here because I'm a little long.
	Quick timeout.
	We'll be back in just a second with much more.
	We say Merry Christmas on this program.
	We also say happy holidays, but we do say Merry Christmas.
	And if it offends some of you, we rub our hands in glee.
	800-282-288.
	Well, it's a national holiday for crying out loud.
	800-282-2882.
	This next story.
	Excuse me, my friends have to get rid of some ashes from my one o'clock cigar that fell on some show prep here.
	Always hate it when that happens.
	This next story.
	You talk about hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of the left.
	This is about Lori David, a well-known environmental, whatever, environmentalist wacko, extraordinaire.
	She's the wife of Larry David, who was the creator of Seinfeld and the Curb Your Enthusiasm on HBO.
	And she's, you know, when she drives around in public, she drives one of these lawnmowers with a couple seats on it that they call a hybrid.
	I think she drives a Prius or something, and so does he.
	But they fly on big corporate jets when they have to go from coast to coast, and they burn their share of fuel and so forth.
	But they've got a second home on Martha's Vineyard that is 14 acres and has seven houses on it.
	Now, that's not, it's okay, fine with me.
	But they were going to have a big bash, have a big bash for Robert Kennedy Jr., who is responsible for Lori David becoming an environmentalist wacko.
	She went to one of his speeches one day, went, ooh, and has become an environmentalist wacko ever since.
	The problem is, according to a notice of apparent violations issued by Martha's Vineyard's Chilmark Conservation Commission, Lori and Larry David were reprimanded last August for building a 26-foot-long barbecue station, stone and concrete bonfire pit, and outdoor theater on an environmentally sensitive patch of their 14-acre North Road property without the proper permits.
	They were also cited for tearing up protected vegetation to make way for a lush, sodded lawn, among others.
	These are crimes against nature, according to people like this.
	The commission has since ordered the couple to remove the offending structures and to restore the area to its previous state.
	Now, I'm familiar with this because where I live, you can't do with your own property what you want because of environmental regulations.
	But these people said, to hell with that.
	We got Bobby Kennedy Jr. coming.
	We've got to throw a big bash and have a theater presentation in a big barbecue pit.
	So they went ahead and did all this without getting the permits.
	Now they recited, they got to put it all back the way it was.
	The hilarious part of this to me is that Lori David, when she found out about this, feigned shock.
	Oh, I can't believe.
	Oh, are you sorry?
	Oh, I didn't realize.
	Oh, we only did it because Bobby Kennedy Jr. was coming.
	Well, he's the environmentalist wacko extraordinaire in this country.
	So in the name of the man who made her an environmentalist wacko, she tore up protected soil.
	The arbitrator in the Terrell Owens case has upheld for the Philadelphia Eagles.
	The Terrell Owens suspension has been upheld.
	The Eagles win.
	The Eagles are right.
	Now to Peter in St. Louis and all of you out there fearing running into liberal relatives at Thanksgiving, I have one more little two or three phrases of advice right after the break here at the top of the hour.
	They make all the sense of the world.

▲