All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:24
December 5, 2005, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I'm just looking for something here.
Okay, remember, every day, Christmas morning here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, get to open up all kinds of presents.
You never know what's coming.
And every night before this program is the equivalent of Christmas Eve as you await the most eagerly anticipated radio talk show everyday program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Telephone numbers 800.
What was that?
No, you cannot exchange any presents you get on this program.
If we open a president as John Kerry audio, it's yours.
Sternly wanted to exchange some of the presents on today's.
Very funny, wise guy.
But no, you can't exchange anything.
We take nothing back on this program.
Once offered, it's yours.
Once opened, you own it.
Telephone number 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Try this headline in the Boston Globe today.
GOP embracing its maverick.
They say, oh, what is the GOP getting friendlier with McCain?
And then the subhead says, tough race makes Chafee an asset.
You know, and this just makes, you know, the specter experience is a mistake.
Why do you keep repeating history here?
Senator Lincoln Chafee hopped out of the driver's seat of his beige Toyota Prius.
I was really hooked after that line.
Senator Lincoln Chafee hopped out of the driver's seat of his beige Toyota Prius, a car with a dent on the side and I am electric emblazoned across the back window and dashed through the rain.
He'd forgotten his umbrella for the office, so he was soaked before he made it inside the Meadowbrook Farms Elementary School.
Then, for the better part of an hour, Senator Chafee talked with a classroom of third graders about the importance of saving the rainforest.
The challenge is to balance between the animals and our needs, Chafee told the children.
We're all part of the earth ourselves.
We have to share it.
The challenge is to balance between the animals and our needs.
With the Republican, let's cut to the chase here.
With the Republican Party's hold on the Senate looking tenuous, remember now this is the Boston Globe.
The party of Wall Street and the religious right is suddenly chummy with its most prominent environmentalist.
With a tough race looming and a solid conservative challenging Chaffee in the primary, Republican elites are sending checks to Rhode Island to help Chaffee.
And the Democrats, eager to regain control of the Senate, are targeting the one Republican to the left of much of their own cause.
Chafee can deny that he's the elephant in the room until he's blue in the face, said Phil Singer, spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, but he'll never be able to hide the degree to which he is beholden to George Bush and the Bush agenda.
Chafee's response to partisans on both sides has been to make an asset out of his quirkiness.
He's soft-spoken and unfailingly polite.
He insists on driving himself around town in his Prius, his hybrid.
He rarely delivers speeches on the Senate floor and rarely raises his lilting voice.
At 52, Cheney is the first to acknowledge his reliance on the Karl Rove political machine.
It means that he is choosing his battles with the president a bit more carefully these days.
He calls it a mutual non-aggression pact with the White House.
Chafee says he'd rather have Rove and company working for him than against him.
Let's take this story here, the Democrats, the Republicans apparently embracing their maverick and going to the mat here to get Lincoln Chafee re-elected.
And we've heard this before.
Yeah, well, once these guys benefit from Bush and Rove and all that campaigning for them and helping them get re-elected, they'll be more loyal.
Right.
We've heard this.
Now, it is Rhode Island, and there may not be a perfect alternative to Lincoln Chafee.
But nevertheless, Dick Armey has a piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal's webpage, opinionjournal.com, called Why Are Republican Leaders Governing Like Democrats?
He says, in all my years in politics, I've never sensed such anger and frustration from our volunteers.
Those who do the hard work at door-to-door mobilization that Republican candidates depend on to get elected.
Across the nation, wherever I go to speak with them, their refrain is the same.
Quote, I can't tell a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats, unquote.
Our base rightly expects Republicans to govern by the principles, lower taxes, less government, more freedom, that got them elected.
Today, with Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, there is a widening credibility gap between their political rhetoric and their public policies.
What will happen to Republicans if these freedom-loving grassroots activists don't show up for work next fall?
Well, the elections earlier this month may be an indication of the answer.
Colorado's Governor Bill Owens, once the future, presidential nominee of choice among smaller government conservatives, teamed up with liberal Democrats in the legislature to expand the state's budget by billions of dollars and grab taxpayer refunds for years to come.
The Democratic big spenders got what they wanted, but it's left the Republican Party fractured and effectively ended Governor Owens' future as a Republican leader.
Here is one of Army's axioms.
You make a deal with the devil and you're the junior partner.
At the national level, where President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress are presiding over the largest expansion of government since LBJ's great society, things are no better.
Our political base expects elected leaders to cut both taxes and spending because they know that the real tax burden is reflected in the overall size of government.
Instead, we have embarrassing spectacles like the 2005 highway bill, costing $295 billion.
It's 35% larger than the last transportation bill, fueled by 6,371 earmarks doled out to favored political constituencies.
By comparison, the 1987 highway bill was vetoed by Ronald Reagan for containing relatively few earmarks, only 152.
We're up from 152 to over 6,300.
Reagan vetoed the highway bill when it had 152 in them.
Overall, even excluding defense and Homeland Security spending, the growth rate of discretionary spending adjusted for inflation is at a 40-year high.
And all of our leaders are complicit in this.
President Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill.
The House leadership refuses to rein in appropriators, claiming, as one of them preposterably put it, there's simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
That's delay that said that.
Army started getting in without mentioning his name.
Now, I'm going to stop at this point, ask you, why does this happen?
We explore this all the time, but in the example that Army gives here of Colorado Governor Bill Owens, why did Bill Owens want to go make a deal with the Democrats in Colorado when he was considered such a strong asset and was said to have such a rosy future as a conservative Republican?
I have no idea, not living in Colorado and not being around the circumstances there on a daily basis, but I can only guess.
I can only guess that in some of these Republicans' minds, and I remember this is pure speculation, but in some of their minds, I think there's this notion that the American people are tired of all the fighting and we want everybody to get along.
And so I think Republicans actually think they're going to be given credit by voters for being cooperative and not being obstructionist and not stopping things, not vetoing bills, not being.
And when you're the governor, of course, you're one person and the press can zero in on you.
A legislature is a whole bunch of people, and an individual is not going to get the same scrutiny in the legislature as a governor is.
And even when the whole body of the legislature gets scrutiny, it's not going to come under as vicious an assault as a governor is.
It's all other things I can think of, but it still astounds me because the election returns are the evidence that all these Republicans should be looking at.
When you run as a conservative, you win.
When you run on conservative ideas and principles, you win.
It's after you get to wherever you serve, be it a state capitol or Washington, and you don't continue to try to implement all that that you run into trouble.
Now, Army says, I've always believed that good policy is good politics for Republicans.
Reagan won against an incumbent president in 1980, declaring in his first inaugural address, government's not the solution to our problem.
Government is the problem.
I, Dick Army, beat an incumbent Democrat in 84 against the dire predictions of my party's political experts on an aggressive agenda of smaller government, social security reform based on large personal retirement accounts.
In 1994, Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years, running on the contract with America.
Conversely, when we let politics define our agenda, we get in trouble.
The Highway Bill is one example in which the criterion of choice was politics.
An even better example was 2003's expansion of Medicare to cover prescription drugs.
This was an explicitly political effort to take health care off the table for the 2004 elections.
I said at the time that the proposed legislation was a case where bad politics has produced a bad policy proposal.
I predicted the deal was bad news for senior citizens and possibly even worse political news for the Republican Party.
And they're still having trouble with this.
People aren't signing up for it because they don't want it.
It's not needed.
So Army writes, here's another one of Army's axioms.
You can't get your finger on the problem if you've got it in the wind.
Bad policy is bad politics.
The 2003 expansion of Medicare enacted by Republicans has dramatically increased the financial pressures on an already broken program, and it has become a political albatross around the necks of Republicans who voted for it.
As the party is smaller government, Republicans will always have a more difficult job governing than Democrats do.
Government naturally wants to expand.
It's always easier for politicians when both you and your political base truly believe that there is a new government program to solve any problem, real or imagined.
And we'll always have to work harder and be more entrepreneurial than our political opponents when it comes to implementing reforms.
To succeed in the future, the Republican Party has to get back to basics.
We need, in effect, another Republican takeover of Congress, reaffirming a commitment to less government, lower taxes, and more freedom.
As in 94, this revolution will be driven by the young Turks of the party, the brave backbenchers, more inspired by Reagan, and the possibility of a glowing editorial on the pages of the New York Times.
Indeed, this is already happening.
And then he quotes Mike Pence and Jeff Flake and Jeb Hensarling, all people we've talked about and praised on this program.
He says, none of this is going to be easy.
The good news for Republicans willing to do the heavy lifting is that the ideas of the left are bankrupt.
Notice that the brightest liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton always move toward our policy ground as they prepare to run for national office.
So, Mr. Army, we have noticed this, and it is frustrating as it can be.
Every election, Democrats start talking about some form of economic growth, tax cuts or whatever.
When they start moving, they know what it takes to get elected, but they only do it at the last minute so as not to anger their base.
It just adds to the frustration level everybody has.
Why would Republicans want to act like them when they can act like us in order to win?
Why do we want to act like liberals after we get elected when it's the liberals who act like Republicans when they have to win elections?
One final Army axiom.
When we act like us, we win.
When we act like them, we lose.
When we act like us and win, and then act like them as we govern, we lose.
I added a little bit to the Army axiom.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back and roll right on right after this.
Antioch, California, and Mike, welcome.
Nice to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Welcome, sir.
Thank you, Rush, big-time listener, a big-time fan.
But I got to disagree with you about running on conservatism.
It didn't work for Arnold.
All his initiatives failed, and now it seems like he's...
Wait a second.
Wait, Now, just a second.
Just a second.
That's a little bit more complicated than that.
How can you say it didn't work for him when he got elected?
Well, you say if you run on conservatism, it works.
And yet his referendums were conservative, the teacher initiative and all that.
And now he's got his tail between his legs, and he's surrounding himself with Democrat activists to manage his.
Well, okay, now you've got a mouthful here.
Let's go a little bit.
Let's backtrack here.
Let's go back a little bit.
I remember during this period of time before the election, I got a little trouble here with some people when I was trying to warn them.
Don't think Arnold's a conservative.
I love him.
I like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I've met him a number of times, but don't think he is a conservative.
He's a Republican, but don't think.
And I caught hell.
I caught some.
I went out to San Francisco.
I was actually in San Jose and I had a little public appearance in front of 4,000 screaming fans last February.
And one of these nice members of the audience got all, she showed up, started heckling me about, see, you were wrong about Arnold.
You were wrong about Arnold.
And I said to her, you know, the easiest way to handle this is for me to call on my husband training.
Yes, you were right.
I was wrong.
But it didn't.
I just display the moment.
But he was never that conservative a guy.
Even when he was running, he appeared so in contrast to any of the other candidates, Tom McClintock, a genuine conservative.
Now, let's go forward.
He still wins.
He wins.
Some will chalk it up to name ID, the fascination that voters had in the election with celebrity and star power.
All these things are factors.
But you jump forward now, and he got off to a great start, and he was doing some bang up good things, and he was saying some good things.
But, you know, they got to him like they get to everybody, the press and the Democrat chorus.
And who knows what's, who knows what's going on behind closed doors in that house, in addition.
And I thought he was off to a rollicking, roaring start.
And if he just stuck with it, these things don't happen overnight.
He's not going to rebuild and reform that state under Democratic control for all these years, overnight in one term.
The effort on these ballot initiatives, there were some people at the outset.
The timing is wrong, that nobody's going to care about these in an off-year special election, an off-off-year special election to boot.
Nobody's going to care about this.
You need to have these things.
Well, there is a general election elsewhere where voter interest in all kinds of things is spiked.
Now, as to this business of hiring a Democrat woman to be his, what is it, spokesman or some chief of staff?
The one thing about this, Arnold is not saying, well, she's changed her mind.
She's on my side of things.
And normally, when that happens, these people renounce, like Ronald Reagan, when he switched parties, he renounced the Democratic Party and told everybody why he left.
When Bill Bennett left the Democratic Party, he made it clear why he left the Democratic Party, why it left him.
And any number of other people who switch parties tell us in this case, Arnold told us she switched parties.
She hasn't said a word about it yet.
Added to the mix of this, do not underestimate Arnold Schwarzenegger as a proud man for getting political labels.
And I'm going to tell you people something.
In the midst of the fundraising and the campaign for his ballot initiatives, who shows up but George Bush and his own presidential Republican Party fundraising machine.
And they were both going after attention and dollars at a time Schwarzenegger considered crucial for his ballot initiative campaign.
And he refused to meet with Bush during this trip.
Schwarzenegger's office tried to get the White House to cancel it.
Don't come out here now.
Post.
Come out after the election.
You're going to come out here.
You're going to steal our thunder.
You're going to take the money that we're trying to raise to get television commercials for our propositions.
You're going to be competing with, don't do that.
And the White House said, our schedule's our schedule.
We're going to go where we're going to go.
And Schwarzenegger said, what the hell do I need this for?
I went to New York or wherever the kid knew.
I went to that convention and I spoke glowingly of Bush.
And Bush is coming out here sabotaging me.
I don't know enough to know, but there are people theorizing that his choice of a Democrat chief of staff is simply him saying, screw these Republicans.
To hell with them.
I'm out here working hard trying to get this stuff done.
They come out and sabotage my effort because they're selfish fundraising deals.
Screw it.
Who knows?
But whatever, when you strip this away, and it's all of this intrigue and gossip or whatever else it might be, you strip it all away.
I still maintain that conservatism works every time it's tried.
Now, in a place like California, where the majority of the population is liberal Democrat and has been for a while, and the Republican Party as an institution is hard to find out there with a magnifying glass, this is something that was going to take a lot of time.
And there should have been a National Republican Party effort, more so, I think, than there was to buck Schwarzenegger up and to help him out up there.
He clearly had some great things he wanted to do, and he was on a roll for a while.
But you can't say the conservatism lost out there.
There are right times to try things and bad times to try things.
But even so, you go back and keep trying for it.
You don't give up.
A man, a legend, a way of life, Rush Limbaugh, talent on loan from God.
Dayton, Ohio.
Phil, glad you called, sir.
You're next on the program.
Great to have you with us.
Thank you, sir.
How are you today?
Never better, since you asked.
Never better.
I am unconfused, sir, from the blue dress area.
I appreciate all that you do, but I have somewhat against you, sir.
All right, bring it on.
Bring it on.
You said a couple weeks ago you were talking about Saddam Hussein and what he needs to do in order to come clean with all these things against him.
And you talked about the Democratic Party and all that they're saying and stuff.
With your influence in the world, even with your half of your brain tied behind your back, you need to be more careful with all that you say.
I think that with what you said, they took that on the other side of the world and they have taken advantage of it.
And I wonder now if you're not as guilty as the Democratic Party.
You're kidding, right?
You're just trying to be funny as a caller.
You have such influence in the world, Rush.
You know that.
You actually think...
And I haven't heard anything from Saddam Hussein's defense ever coming close to depicting what these Democrats are saying until you spoke up.
Well, the trial hadn't started.
I gave the idea before the trial started.
I thought it was only natural.
You may be right.
I might have been the only wizard in the world to have thought of this.
And if that's true, then Ramsey Clark did get the idea from me before he flew over to start representing Saddam.
But it's not something I'm going to apologize for.
Hey, look, if I'm Saddam, my dad was a lawyer.
I know how lawyers work.
I know how defense lawyers work.
Their job is to get their clients acquitted.
And if Ramsey Clark wants to get his client acquitted, I'm telling you, the Democratic Party has provided some of the best arguments for Saddam to use in court.
Bush lied.
President destroyed Saddam's reputation.
He's got a reputation now as having gassed people and raped women and ordered the brutal murder of children and so forth.
And everybody knows Bush lied about it.
What better defense could Saddam have?
The whole point of this was to embarrass the Democratic Party or to have the American people understand where the Democratic Party are choosing sides.
Well, even if that is the point, do you not have the responsibility to protect because of your influence in the world?
Well, what am I supposed to do in these circumstances?
I have a brilliant idea like this.
Am I supposed to not tell it to anybody?
Maybe Ramsey Clark has a subscription to your website.
Well, but that's not the point.
The point is when I come up with these ideas, according to you, I'm not supposed to utter them because of my world influence, which will cause bad guys to take my ideas.
The reason I thought I could get away with this, Phil, is I've been advising the Democrats for 18 years how to fix their problems, and they haven't ever taken one word of it.
Well, they're not facing jail, either.
Yeah.
Well, they ought to be in a dock with Saddam.
Some of them ought to be.
I understand.
I appreciate your point.
I appreciate your concern.
And many in this audience have written and called before you, Phil, asking me not to start divulging what things the Democrats could do to get themselves out of problems because they're going to eventually start taking my advice.
And they never have.
And I appreciate your thoughts on my worldwide influence, but I want to tell you something.
I am by no means the only person who would think to start using the defense that it's obvious Saddam is going to use.
They could come up with that on their own.
And I would rather go out and be out front with it so I can say, see, I told you this is what the Democrats are doing.
They're siding with the enemy.
The Democrats are choosing sides here.
This little stunt of theirs is going to end up being the case for Saddam's defense before it's all said and done.
And when that happens, I can say, see, I told you I know who these Democrats are.
If I had remained quiet and it happened anyway, then I would have had to say, folks, I was thinking about telling you that this is exactly what I thought was going to happen, but I thought better of it because of my world influence.
You would have thought I was making it all up, that I never thought of it, and I was trying to take credit for it.
So rather than have you think that of me, I'll just tell you what I honestly think about these things.
It's so patently obvious to me.
In fact, I was working on an op-ed based on this theme.
And I was going to make it humorous, although it's deadly serious at the same time.
But I think it's going to be a great op-ed someday because it's going to happen.
Saddam is going to take the words of Democrats in this country, from Dick Durbin to John Kerry to Nancy Pelosi to Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, you name them.
And they're going to form the basis of his defense when it gets to those aspects of the trial, those charges about how he shouldn't have lost his country, ought to get his country back.
I came up with some other ideas today.
You're probably mad at me, Phil.
But I suggested that we give Saddam his country back right now.
Just stop the trial because a terrible injustice has taken place.
Put him back in charge of Iraq.
Go find a California interior designer, Democrat, to redecorate his palaces and present them back to him.
Have a big sort of Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade where he's placed in Stahl back in power with all the Democrats who made it happen getting their own car in the float.
They can drive through Baghdad waving as all the terrorists wave back and thank them.
We build him a new fleet of limousine.
We need a Saddam plan, like the Marshall Plan, call it the Durban Plan, where we rebuild the country that we have destroyed, put Saddam back in power.
He's going to need some new limousines, bulletproof limousines, because there will be some enemies that he has out there.
Get him a fleet of these hybrid limousines, make a hybrid limousine, a whole fleet of them, and present those to Saddam, give him his oil fields back, and make him, you know, put him, you know, he ran the oil for food program, and that's a great example of world leadership.
Get rid of Kofi, put Saddam in charge of the United Nations, and let the oil for food program resume operations because that's where the Democrats' stunt is going.
All of this Bush lied, Bush made it all up.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq would have been better off with Saddam.
Well, let's carry it out.
If that's what you say and believe, Democrats, let's just carry it out.
We're horrible people, what we've done.
We've kicked an innocent victim out of his country, and he didn't do diddly squad to deserve it.
He's an innocent man.
We've destroyed his reputation.
The least we can do is install him back in power.
I think that's a logical step, the next logical step of what the Democrats happen to be saying.
The thing is, about all, they don't have a plan, despite all of this.
They don't have a plan.
They're nothing but a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism.
Washington Post today, Robin Wright.
Democrats find Iraq alternative is elusive.
Party's elite differ on how to shift U.S. policy.
This is a bogus headline.
Democrats find Iraq alternative is elusive.
There isn't an Iraq alternative.
It's not elusive.
There isn't one.
Around the country, many grassroots Democrats are clamoring for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.
On Capitol Hill, Democrat politicians have grown newly aggressive in denouncing the Bush administration's war strategy and outlining other options.
But among the Democratic foreign policy elite, dominated by people who previously served in the top ranks of government, there are stark differences and significant vagueness about a viable alternative.
In interviews, veteran policymakers offered no end of criticism about how President Bush maneuvered the U.S. into its present predicament, but they only had one clear vision of what he would do, or only one had a clear vision of what he would do if the Iraq problem were handed over to a Democratic administration tomorrow.
Several accept Bush's premise that a rapid withdrawal anytime soon would leave Iraq unstable and risk a strategic disaster in the broader Middle East.
I'm not prepared to lay out a detailed policy or strategy, said former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrook, widely considered the leading candidate to be Secretary of State for John Kerry.
He said this is just not something you can expect in a situation that's moving this fast and has this level of detail you're looking for.
So this is the guy who was the architect of Kerry saying, I don't have an idea.
I can't be expected to have an idea until I get to the White House.
How can you expect me to have a plan?
I don't have all the intelligence.
So what I did have, Bush lied.
So here's Holbrook asked by the Washington Times: well, what would you do?
Well, you can't expect me to have an answer to that.
That's right.
You know why?
Because you're liberal Democrats and you don't have answers to anything.
All you've got is a bunch of whining little complaints.
People are nothing but a bunch of little kid whining complainers that it's about time you shut the hell up because you don't have any better ideas.
You don't have a single idea.
It's not that your alternative is elusive.
There is no alternative.
Why don't you just admit what you want us to do?
You want us to cut and run.
You want us to give up.
You want us to quit.
You've gone so far as sending Kerry out on the Sunday shows to tell the American people that American troops are terrorists, that they are terrorizing Iraqi women and children in homes under cover of darkness.
Well, why don't you just say that?
Why don't you all gather together and say the U.S. military is immoral?
It conducts torture.
It's a bunch of barbarians.
Why don't you just come out and say it?
We need to pull out, give Saddam his country back.
Why don't you give us your idea?
You don't even vote on this.
You say we ought to get out.
We put it up for a vote.
Three of you vote yes.
Out of your whole caucus.
Holbrook and the rest of the elites can't lay out a detailed policy or strategy, but one Democrat has, and you heard it referred to in this story.
And that would be Jimmy Carters, national security advisor, the well-known Zbig, Zbigniew Bzezinski.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is emerging as the most outspoken, and wait till you hear this, Democratic policymaker with an unambiguous alternative.
Zbig says it's time for Washington to, quote, bite the bullet and withdraw U.S. troops rapidly no later than the end of 2006.
A more prolonged disengagement would jeopardize remaining U.S. troops.
Would somebody tell me what is unique about that?
Does that not sound like virtually every Democrat you're hearing, except for Lieberman?
Kerry's talking about pulling out.
Pelosi's talking about pulling out.
Mirtha's talking about pulling out.
Why the hell are they giving Brzezinski this vaulted status of uniqueness?
He's simply echoing what, oh, I take he's one of the elite, which means that Kerry, Durbin, Kennedy, and the rest apparently are not.
Well, here's their idea, folks.
We can sum it up in song.
This is it in two minutes.
I tell you, every time I hear this music, I listen to this music year-round, by the way, folks, Mannheim Steamroller, but when I hear it during the Christmas season, I just get a tingle, an all over my body feeling of joy and wellness.
That everything's okay.
It just does that.
It's very, very contemplative music.
You sit there and just listen to it, and it, in my case, opens the mind to all kinds of great nostalgia about Christmas's past and whatever the good thoughts are roaming around the deep, dark crevices of my fertile mind.
That music has a way of unlocking them and bringing them to my consciousness.
That's great.
Here's Tim in San Marcos, California.
You, sir, are next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
I'm calling to call about or ask you about Iran's nukes, but if I may, I'd like to comment on John Kerry's calling the U.S. soldiers terrorists.
Yes.
Because you said, how long do we have to pretend that these guys are patriots?
Precisely.
While I was on hold, I went to dictionary.com and I looked up the word patriotism.
And it says, patriotism means love of country and a willingness to sacrifice for it.
And so, according to that definition, loving your country isn't enough.
You have to be willing to sacrifice for it in order to be a patriot.
And I keep wondering, what are the liberals willing to sacrifice for their country?
George Bush.
And that's how they define it.
They have, I mean, Hillary, all these people have redefined patriotism now.
Their definition, courage to criticize the president when he lies to you about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Well, They're perverted, sir.
I mean, they're just, it's maddening.
Your point is brilliant, but don't misunderstand.
I'm not arguing with you at all, but they would answer.
Well, their love of country is saving it from the likes of Bush and China.
They would say that they're willing to sacrifice somebody else, and that's fine, but they're not willing to sacrifice anything for themselves.
And so by definition, they are not patriots, and I can easily question their patriotism.
Oh, go ahead.
I wish a lot of people would join you in doing so because they're out there trying to act courageous and wanting credit for being courageous in doing this.
And they're just a bunch of cowards.
They don't stand by their original votes.
They have to say they were lied.
They sound like a bunch of little kids.
They sound like a bunch of little kids that cannot tell the truth, and they want to be called courageous for this.
Yeah, I agree.
Okay, on to the reason I called, which is Netanyahu has said that he thinks that what Israel needs to do is to be more like Menachem Begin and use the tactics that he used, which is when he attacked Iraq and took out their nuclear option.
And so I'm wondering a couple of things.
First of all, what do you think is going on behind the scenes between the U.S. and Israel as far as how to handle Iran?
I have no clue.
I have no clue on what's going on behind the scenes.
Yeah, but you have some theories.
What sort of things do you think they're discussing?
If I just had to guess, I would say the Israelis are getting very worried, which is why Netanyahu is speaking out, because Bush has authorized the ambassador in Iraq to speak out to the Iranians and work with them, and to speak out to the Iraqi insurgents and work with them.
I think there's probably some trepidation, especially when you add to it that this brilliant guy, Mohamed Al-Baradai, says that Iran is only, what, weeks or months away now from a nuclear weapon.
I think they're scared to death in Israel.
And I'll tell you this, when it comes to nuclear weapons in Iran, they're not going to wait for us.
That's the history of Israel.
They didn't wait in Iraq.
They are not going to take this chance.
I just don't believe they will ever take this chance.
Well, because it wasn't that long ago that we were hearing that North Korea was months away.
Well, that's been a while ago, and we never did attack them.
And so, you know, and they said they wanted to turn the U.S. into a sea of fire, and you have Iran saying that they wanted to wipe Israel off the map.
And so I'm wondering if behind the scenes, if the U.S. is saying, listen, we will support you attacking the- I don't know.
We'll explore this tomorrow because I've got to run.
I've only got two seconds to thank you for calling, but there's a lot on the table for tomorrow.
We'll get to it then.
Okay, got to go.
Among the things for tomorrow, where have all the men gone on college campuses?
They aren't going in the same numbers that women do.
▲
Export Selection