I mean, sometimes some of this stuff genuinely makes me mad.
I I one of the things that makes me angrier than anything, folks, is just utter ignorance.
And then when confronted with truth to continue to deny it.
I keep working for a way to permeate that obstacle.
Penetrate that obstacle out there with uh with our good friends, the liberals, but damn, it's hard to come up with a with a way.
They just they just don't want to hear it.
And of course, you can't have uh an honest debate if if if one side is just going to deny facts.
If they're gonna deny facts, well, I'm talking about this business that Bush lied.
I can't get over this.
I can't it this this poll from the CBS New York Times uh uh released today, and if 52% of the American people have bought into this notion that Bush cooked up and lied about the pre-war intelligence, it's just not true.
Bush didn't say anything any differently than any Democrat said, and yet it's like the world began on 2001 when Bush assumed office.
Anything that happened before that is irrelevant and immaterial.
And as I say, it's just it just it just gets sometimes you just have to walk away from it.
Uh but here when I have the opportunity to reach gazillions behind this, the golden EIB microphone, it's just an opportunity I don't want to pass up.
Anyway, great to have you back.
We got another hour of broadcast excellence remaining.
We are ditto camming today.
I want to remind you that starting on Monday, the video podcasts of the morning update will take place.
We've been testing this all week.
We've been videotaping each morning update.
Brian is uh feverishly working on the system here to make it happen, and it will happen.
It will happen seamlessly, just as you get the audio podcasts of the uh radio program each day.
If you're a subscriber, Rush Limbaud.com, so will you get the video podcasts of the morning update 90 seconds?
And uh that'll that I'm just gonna give you a little between us, don't tell anybody.
But it's just a forerunner to other.
I mean, we've got other plans.
I don't tell anybody, though.
I can I don't even know why I have to whisper.
Whatever I say on this program is never heard uh by critics.
Uh they go to other websites to find out what we actually say.
I don't have to whisper.
So that's coming up and the adopt a soldier program continues.
Uh we uh continue to seek military personnel and their families to register so that they can be uh matched up with donors.
This is done at rushlimbot.com.
Simply log on and sign up.
Well, all we have to do is verify that you're legitimately military, because there are a lot of a lot of people, of course, love to scam systems like this.
We have a we have a huge entitlement mentality in this country.
A lot of people think that everything that should that they want, they should have.
And that uh if somebody else has it, they should give it to them.
So we uh we want to make sure that the database is legitimately filled with uh military personnel.
All right, Howard Dean in the hangman's noose of his own making, said that his assertion that the U.S. can't win the war in Iraq was reported a little out of context, saying that Democrats believe a new strategy is needed to succeed there.
We have some audio sound bites.
He was on CNN today, and he was talking with uh Miles O'Brien.
Uh blah blah blah blah blah.
Yeah, Miles O'Brien and uh I'm trying to see if Stolodan asked me, but she didn't.
So let's go to the audio tape.
Uh question from Miles O'Brien.
You uh you say, Mr. Dean, your remarks about the war were taken out of context.
Do you want to recant it, or is that how you feel?
It was a little out of context.
They they kind of cherry picked that one the same way they president cherry picked the intelligence going into Iraq.
Uh right, stop the tape.
This this president cherry picked nothing.
It was all white out, and they gave it to members of Congress.
They saw it.
They say the fact of the matter is it was a 92-page report, and only five or six members of the Senate read it.
Included among those who didn't was Senator Carey.
And that's a classic example of what I'm talking about.
This is just blockhead.
This is just going on television and lying Through his teeth.
And now he's trying to deny what he said.
It reminds me of this guy, Josh Steiner.
Back during the Clinton administration.
Is that what his name, Josh Steiner?
This guy, they found his diary.
Some star, some independent counsel looking into one of the multiple Clinton scandals.
And they found this guy who worked somewhere in the administration, Steiner.
And he had written in his diary something that was pretty damning for whoever it was they were investigating.
They brought the guy up.
It might have been a Senate committee.
It might have been a House committee.
I've been Tom Lantos.
Remember Tom Lanthos when he was talking to Craig, what's his name?
Craig Livingstone.
Craig Livingston.
This is so funny.
I don't know if you people remember this.
We'll get back Howard Dean in a second.
Craig Livingstone, nobody could remember who hired him.
Nobody in the administration for the longest time would admit to it.
Nobody in the administration uh you had to ask yourself, well, how'd he get there?
Nobody knows who hired you guys just walking off the street.
He he was working with some other uh schlub, and they had control those 500 FBI files.
Well, not long before Craig Livingstone was brought up to testify, uh, an Navy admiral committed suicide because Hackworth, the late David Hackworth, was running a story in uh, I think Newsweek or U.S. News, whichever magazine Hackworth worked for, that Borda's medals were some irregularities that he didn't earn them all or something.
They committed suicide out of shame.
Yeah, there's Lantos talking to talking to Craig Livingstone, who's really reminiscing Admiral Burda committed suicide.
As though Livingstone, you should consider this.
You know, Livingstone's looking at him.
At least Admiral Burda committed suicide.
Well, anyway, this Josh Steiner guy was brought up like Livingstone.
And Steiner told Senate investigators that he lied to his diary, which said that Clinton was furious at Roger Altman's decision to recuse himself from a particular case investigation or what have you.
So he had this guy lie to his diary.
He said he lied to his diary.
It's like Charles Barclay reading his own autobiography, and he's asked about something in it by a member of the press and Barclay said I was misquoted.
Charles Barclays misquoted in his own autobiography.
Josh Steiner lied to his diary.
His quote was, I wish my diary was more accurate.
Now, who lies to their diary?
Who lied of all things to lie to?
Who lies to the diary?
The lying takes place on the left in this.
I know both sides do it, but when it comes to this Iraq war intelligence garbage, I'm telling you, Howard Dean cannot go out and tell the truth about anything.
Here's the rest of the bite.
We can only win the war, which we have to win if we change our strategy dramatically.
The Democrats.
Did he say we have to win?
Didn't he say in his previous comment uh Monday that we can't win?
Didn't he say that?
He did say that.
Some of you may not.
Some of you liberal Democrats.
No, he never said that.
I'm going to play you the tape of him saying it.
And if I know you the way I know, you will continue to deny it.
No, he didn't say that.
Here's the rest of this.
Mr. Co-alisting around a very different strategy.
We hope the president will join us.
This is a strategy of strategic reader.
I can't take it.
I can't.
We you hope the president will join you in victory.
This is one of these days where my own sanity is challenged.
I try not to expose myself to these people too much.
I mean, it I mean it uh uh surround myself with what they think and say too much.
It can drive you nuts.
Here's the rest of it.
If we want to serve our troops well, who are doing a fantastic job in Iraq, and if we want to win the war on terror, we cannot pursue the failed strategy that we pursued for the last year.
This is the last three years uh in Iraq, and we got to start telling the truth to the American people about what's happening there.
This is psychosomatic.
There is a desperate need for therapy here.
Folk, this this this is here's what he said.
This is what he is.
Go back.
He's on WOAI Radio in San Antonio, E.I.B. flagship affiliate, Stan Kelly talking to him.
It's on the phone.
Stan Kelly says eventually getting the U.S. forces out of Iraq's gonna have the Iraqis doing a better job of defending themselves and taking greater role.
Are we on the right tack to achieve that goal?
Let's not uh forget.
This was ultimately what America had to do in Vietnam.
Ultimately, they said were they going to turn this over to the Vietnamese, and of course the South Vietnamese couldn't uh manage to take care of their their own uh country.
I wish the president had paid more attention to the history of Iraq before we'd gotten in there.
The idea that we're gonna win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
And I've seen this before in my life, and it cost us 25,000 brave American soldiers in Vietnam.
I don't want to go down that road again.
Get out of there and take the target off our troops back.
All right, so um uh look, the money quote here is the idea that we're gonna win this war is just plain wrong.
The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong.
Now, what did he say?
They took me out of context.
They kind of cherry pick that one.
The way the president cherry picked intelligence.
We can only win the war, which we have to win if we change our strategy.
Well, what's the st but yeah, there's your strategy still is to leave.
Bush's strategy is to stay.
The Democrats are coalescing around a very different strategy.
Yeah, leave, cut and run, quit, give up.
Uncle, call it whatever you want.
We quit.
We are the nation's Democrats.
We give up.
We want to serve our troops well, who are doing a fantastic job in Iraq.
And if we want to win the war on terror, we can't pursue the failed strategy we pursued for the past three years in Iraq.
We gotta start telling the truth, the American people of what's happening there.
What's that got to do with the troops?
Okay, so you just heard him say we can't win the war.
Then you heard him say, I've been taken to the context.
O'Brien says, Well, let's go to the right flank of your own party, Senator Lieberman.
And listen to what he has to say about this.
And they play Lieberman saying, it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years, and that in a matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.
So Brian says, Do you beg to differ with the senator from your party?
I'm not as worried about the president's credibility as I am about the lives of brave American soldiers who are giving their lives and coming back wounded.
We believe that talking uh about the president's uh fail strategy in Iraq is not unpatriotic.
It may undercut the president, but it does not undercut our troops.
We're gonna save our troops' lives, and we're gonna we're gonna learn from the experience of Vietnam and not wait for five years with promises for made for political reasons here at home.
We are for the troops, we're gonna stand up for these troops.
They deserve better support than what they're getting.
Yeah, yeah, and you're you're the guy to give them that support.
Dealing with local, and this is this is the guy they want running their party.
This is the guy they want running their party.
Uh actually, you know, I need to I need to get rid of this frustration.
The fact is, this is a great example of how they just continue to to burn themselves up.
They are imploding, self-imolating, whatever.
They are destroying themselves.
And it's the root of it is they're in incapable of telling the truth.
They can't even be honest with themselves.
They don't have the guts to stand by what they say from one day to the next.
That's why they want the flexibility to change their position day in and day out.
But the the real clincher is they think they're supporting the troops, and they think the troops are very, very supporting.
They can't, you know, you uh Dean says, Well, we can undermine the president without undermining the troops.
Uh-huh.
I'm kidding.
We'll be back in just a sec.
People on a dinner camera.
Rush, what are you strumming the guitar to out there?
I'm uh I'm just listening to the street fighting man by the stones here during the break, and uh before that high time we went by Joe Cocker.
Oh.
At any rate, we are back.
I got two more soundbites here.
One is from Howard Dean, the other one is John Mertha.
Um, this is still on good morning uh, or I'm sorry, American morning with CNN Miles O'Brien, finally after after this cesspool of wandering aimless thoughts that ended up being a pack of lies by Howard Dean.
Miles O'Brien says, Final quick thought here.
With all the debate within the Democratic Party, you lay out a plan, a strategic redeployment, which seems to be gaining some steam in certain qualities.
Where, Miles?
Where is it gaining steam?
In the CNN newsroom?
At the CBS newsroom?
Where is this strategic redeployment gaining steam?
It's not gaining steam anywhere.
Except in People's minds.
Hang on a minute here, folks.
What's the rest of this question?
Strategic redeployment, which seems to be gaining some steam.
The American people don't think the Democrats don't have a plan.
Well, then where's it gaining steam?
What's the question?
What oh.
Okay, here I get it now.
Strategic redeployment gaining steam, except the American people don't think the Democrats have a plan.
Why not?
I think that's mostly press gobbledygook.
The press wants to focus on the differences.
The differences are pretty small.
Perhaps Senator Lieberman accepted.
We want to win the war on terror, and we want to do it smart because we can't do it the way we're doing it now.
Well, now where have I heard that before?
We're going to win it the smart way.
Who said that?
John Kerry.
John Carroll during the 2004 president.
Well, speak of the devil, there he is, right in a council on foreign.
Well, it's a little late, I guess they're running tape.
But uh he decided to do his own response to the Council on Foreign Relations today.
Bush spoke there yesterday.
So anyway, we're gonna win it smarter.
We gotta do it smart.
Uh it's press gobbling.
Howard, let me tell you something.
You wouldn't even be able to see above the sand if it weren't for the press.
The press gobbledygook is the amplification of your insane lunatic points of view.
And on that note, let's go to the Mertha press conference yesterday.
You want to know what strategic redeployment is?
This is just a new phrase.
It's something to substitute for the word cut and run.
It's something they had to come up with because in the focus groups, cutting and running didn't work.
Quitting, giving up, crying, uncle didn't work.
So strategic redeployment, and Mertha defined that in his press conference yesterday.
When I said we can't win a military victory, it's because the Iraqis have turned against us.
They throw a hand grenade or a rocket into our American forces, and the people run into the crowd and and they they nobody tells them where they are.
My plan says redeploy to the periphery to Kuwait to Okinawa.
And if there's a terrorist activity that affects our allies or affects the United States national security, we can then go back in.
Redeploy to Kuwait?
Okinawa.
And then if somebody threatens us, we go back in.
Okay.
Mertha Congressman Bertha, Chairman Dean, Senators Reed, Boxer, Carrie Kennedy, uh Congress people Pelosi et al.
The concept here is victory.
We want to win.
We don't want to give up.
And I candidate, what is the problem that you people have with victory?
I say gladly.
That's what we do here on this program.
We make the complex understandable.
Uh let's see.
I don't get uh uh Yeah, this guy's been waiting for a long time.
Seth in Norfolk, Virginia.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Glad you waited.
Hey Russia's uh glad to wait uh to have some time today, give you a call.
I just wanted to thank you a lot for uh the 24-7 uh invite for the military.
Um I've been getting the uh New York Times uh pumped into my email at work somehow, a special military edition with the downtrodden op-ed pieces every day.
Really?
Oh, it's I mean I was I've been meaning to uh for the last you know six months.
I've been like, you know, I I just I've been meaning to pop off a package to you in an email and show you the thing that they send us and stuff.
I mean, it's to the military, and I mean you would you know I I'm not gonna you know it's free, so you can't complain about something that's free, but you you know, you just got the switch.
What is it?
Is it a summary of what's in the paper every day plus some of the op-ed pieces?
It's yeah, it's actually yeah, it's just like the paper kind of, you know, it's about five or six pages, and then you know the front page stuff, and then the I've seen this.
You know, they used to offer this, and they still may, the New York Times Fact Service.
You could get the five or six-page little summary paragraphs of each story that was gonna be in the paper the next day.
It's what you get if you're well before they had uh broadband wireless broadband, if you're on a cruise ship, it's how they delivered the New York Times with any news to you, stuck it under your cabin door.
Exactly.
So I think I I think I know what this thing is.
I but I just didn't know that they were uh uh targeting it at uh military people now.
Yeah, and I mean, as you said, I mean, this whole show you've been doing just really um sums up the whole issue.
I mean, it they say this doesn't affect the military, but you know, you you're taking shots at the commander-in-chief every day with you know high high pressure hoes there.
And it's not just that, it's what the shots are.
The shots are he lied.
The shots are that this is an unjust, illegitimate war.
We don't deserve to win it.
We have no business being there.
That all you guys do is torture prisoners.
Exactly.
It's uh all of this stuff.
It's not just they're dumping on the commander in chief, they're making a whole effort here for which you volunteered illegitimate.
Exactly.
I've I've spent, you know, nineteen years in the military, I spent a good five or six of them in that region myself um dealing with this thing from every president from Reagan until now.
And um, you know, Clinton, it doesn't that nothing really has changed.
You know, it you know, I spent eight years of my life doing this under Clinton, the whole Iraq thing.
It's just that what you said before, you know, that the nothing has changed.
Nothing changed the day he walked into office and it, you know, suddenly became this big issue.
This has been going on for for many, many years, you know.
And it's just frustrating to see these guys, you know, just whittle away at things and and make people ask questions about what they're doing.
Um they're they really are hurting morale when they do this stuff, and and they I don't even think that they know that they're doing that.
Yes, they do.
You're being charitable and generous.
They uh they some of them know that's happening.
I uh uh some of them have to know.
This is that look it.
You know, you have to one one of the tenets of modern liberalism is that the military is the focus of evil in the modern world because that's the instrument by which this nation projects power, and it is the power that we project that's unfair.
It intimidates and causes enemies.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So they know exactly what they're doing.
I see I have a belief, Seth.
I think that in um in certain, shall we say, sectors of the American left, military defeat is applauded privately.
They don't go public with it, but they like defeats because it shows them that military uh uh means is not the way to real peace.
So they they love it when the military bombs out.
Some of these people do.
You never hear them say it, but they believe it.
And uh and with that as a belief that they ever say it's gonna shape and and and form other things they will say in public, such as this line of rock that we're getting from them now.
Yeah, I I'm a hundred percent with you.
I just I mean, uh I hope that America knows, you know, this isn't it's not a scratch-off lottery ticket, it's not, you know, Ti-Vo, you can get it, you know, whatever show you want.
This stuff takes time, lots and lots and lots of time.
And you know, people have invested lots and lots of time in this and lots and lots of energy and lives and you know, all these things.
And uh Well, the bottom line is you how long were you in, did you say 15 years?
I've been in 19 years.
Um what branch?
Uh the Navy.
You're in the Navy.
So you know for a fact that all this stuff's been going on for 19 years, that Bush didn't make it up out of whole.
I mean, the UN stuff that that happened prior prior to this rush, that it's the other side of the coin, you know, the whole UN issue with with what a what a f I was directly involved with what a farce that was.
What a what a crime that that was being perpetrated by the UN for this UN food for oil.
I mean, it it was just a joke.
And it was and it went on through the whole Clinton years, and it was just a big scam to siphon money off to these other countries.
And it's just I mean, that that it's always, you know, Bush lied, but we should have just kept doing this UN food for oil and stifling this country's growth for the next fifteen years using these dumb sanctions.
I mean uh oh, it's just horrible.
Yeah, in fact, I saw a story.
You're talking about the oil for food program, right?
Yeah, I was directing the.
I saw I saw a story yesterday about the oil for food program, and it oh it was a story about this uh elections chief at the U.N. that got fired because she was engaged in sexual harassment.
They don't fire anybody at the U.N. when they defraud uh uh uh the women and children of Iraq and want to engage in bribery and take bribery and and so forth.
But with a sexually harassed them, but they're not gonna get tough with them and can them on that case.
But the the prelude or the the the lead to the story was uh uh the the oil for food program was um what was the the st this it had to do with uh the the notion that uh I forget how it was exactly worded, but they missed the whole point of it.
Rather than point out the scandal, they said that something else was responsible for taking food and medicine out of the mouths and homes of Iraqi citizens.
It was the bribery and the fraud of that scandal that did that.
Uh It was oh, they they credited sanctions.
They sanctions which prevented medicine and food from getting to the Iraqi people.
Sanctions on Saddam.
It wasn't the sanctions, it was the the oil for food program that was uh the basically nothing but bribery that kept all the stuff from getting to the Iraqi people.
And people overlooked that aspect of the scandal.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, had the UN oil for food program been an honest effort, it may have actually worked.
Might have.
But since it wasn't, since it was just a bribe siphon to Hussein on one side and members of the UN on the other, and and all these other countries that were involved and getting in there, then it was it was, you know, the the law of uh economics works out and follow the money, these guys are never gonna stop this program because they're getting rich off of it.
Well, exactly.
Because you now when you say theoretically it might have worked, theoretically only, you had you had a corrupt dictator on one side, yet a whole corrupt organization on the other.
It had no chance.
And in actual theory, if you set up a program with uh, you know, with with with with corrupt thugs on both sides of the deal, it it doesn't have a chance.
Look, Seth, I'm glad you called.
I appreciate your holding on for as long as you did.
Uh and uh and the uh nice things you had to say.
Walter in Kensington, Maryland, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Well, I just want to make a point.
I I don't want to argue or anything, but uh I I want you to look at it from this way.
You're you're an average person on the street.
You know, I I hear what you have to say, but then you know you see the nightly news, you read different articles, you hear different generals like Clark and Shinteki and uh Shalveilli, what and I know I just botched his name.
And and you hear different points of view of what's going on.
Uh you hear a report that, you know, where Joe Lieberman was, he was in an area of Iraq that's pretty stable.
I guess my point is is what what are people supposed to believe when they get all this information, different information.
Well, can you give me some specific information?
For example, you heard from Ashley Wilkes that you want to know whether or not you should believe.
Well, I guess my question would be when you hear things aren't going on the ground as as as well as the administration says it is, or you hear things like uh, you know, the insurgency is growing, or you're hearing it.
Okay, let's talk about that's good.
That's a good point.
Here's here's here's the way I do it.
The first thing, okay, who's saying it?
One uh Ashley Wilkes.
That's what that's what we call Wesley Clark here.
Okay, who is he?
Well, Wesley Clark's a Democrat.
He's a he's a presidential candidate for the Democrats that uh that did not reach uh the the pinnacle in two thousand four, but he was in the primaries.
Therefore, is he speaking to us as a military person, an objective military person with no interest other than U.S. victory, or is he speaking to us as a liberal Democrat?
Now, so to find that out, I go compare what he's saying to what liberal Democrats are saying.
And I think, hmm, I'm hearing a lot of similarities here between Wesley Clark and a liberal Democrat.
So if I hear a liberal Democrat saying, the bottom line for me is I don't believe it.
I believe none of what they say, I believe very little of what I see them say.
I have to really be proven when they start talking.
I have to really be convinced.
Um and then if if um then I measure what other people are saying against Clark.
And okay, who are they?
Okay, well, they might be generals that are retired like Clark is, but have they run for president?
No.
Are they writing books?
Yeah.
Are they on television?
Yeah.
Are they are they interested in um uh becoming credible commentators?
Yeah, like Clark is.
Are they interested in our victory?
Do they want us to win?
If I if I cut, you know, Clark on the side of the Democrats, Democrats have no interest in our winning, they're invested in defeat.
Clark's echoing what they say, I'm doubtful.
I'm dubious.
Another general on the right who says something about the United States and its efforts and the ability that we have and talks about the military in the sense that I believe and and know them that they're capable, that they can win, that we are winning.
Then I then I do other things.
Fox had a documentary Sunday night on the changing face of Iraq and how there's positive news that isn't being reported.
I put all this together.
Now, in my case, all this happens in a split second, because I know who Wesley Clark is.
I don't have to ask myself, but you might, because you you know, you're trying to figure this stuff out.
But I know these guys.
This process I just described happens a split second.
In other words, if Wesley Clark opens his mouth, I don't believe it.
I don't care what he says, I don't believe it.
When Bill Clinton opens his mouth, I don't believe it.
These other guys, Shinseki, do they have axes to grind?
Are the Democrats really trumpeting the Democrats rallying around these retired generals and propping them up?
Are they saying things about them that aren't true?
John Kerry keeps saying that Shinseki was fired.
Was Shinsecki fired?
No, he wasn't fired, as it turns out.
So if you find enough reasons here to doubt if somebody's lying about one element of a story, the odds are there are other lies in there.
And then you ask yourself, all right, what is their vested interest?
If they're out there saying that we can't win, then the worst thing could happen to them is for us to win.
Yeah, but I mean, but are they saying they they can't win, period, or are they saying they can't win based on the strategy taking place right now?
Because I mean, I'll be honest.
I think every American, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, look, we're there.
Regardless of how we got there, the bottom line is we we gotta finish up.
We can't retreat now.
I agree with you there.
I mean, I think everybody's well-intentioned.
It's just a question of how do we get to that means.
See, I disagree with I don't think everybody is well-intentioned.
That's where you and I differ.
I think uh what if when you just Howard Dean said we need a new strategy.
Uh and uh these and Wesley C we need a new strategy.
Well, okay, are they offering one?
Yeah, get out.
You just said you don't think we should do that.
But their strategy is cut and run.
Now, let me, since you asked, I'm glad you called because this is a great uh segue.
There's a story here from Reuters about the Democrats' struggle on Iraq.
The headline, Divided Democrats struggle for cohesive Iraq view.
And they're all concerned about Dean, and they're really worried.
One of the guys in this story is Harold Ford of Tennessee.
He's running for the Senate or thinking about it, and so they're going to him.
He's considered a moderate voice among the libs in the House of Representatives.
And here's what he said about a unified democratic position on Iraq.
He said, I don't know if that's what we, the Democrats, are seeking.
That is not our responsibility fully to come up with all the answers on this.
Now that tells me quite a bit there.
They don't want to be asked what their answers are because they don't have any.
They don't think they should have to have any because they're not running the show.
Well, okay, if you're going to sit around and say we need a new strategy because this one isn't working, then you better have an alternative.
They don't, and they're unwilling to come up with one.
I put all this in the hopper.
I mean, it's easy.
I could I could say to anybody about the job they're doing, I disagree with the way you're doing it.
Why would I have credibility saying that?
If I'd have never done it, and I've if if I have no alternative.
I mean, it's easy for it's easy as pie for these guys who have no responsibility whatsoever to go out and say we need a new strategy.
The guys saying it are of dubious uh qualification to me, such as Howard Dean and all the rest of these people.
And if you put their track record in history in the context, you don't find support for the military.
You find they're this is the party of McGovern.
And you have to conclude they're not interested in victory.
Hey, Rush, I agree with most of what you're saying.
Can I just make one point?
You mentioned McGovern Democrats.
Um look, I mean, I I will tell you right now, I'm I'm a Bobby Kennedy Hubert Humphrey Democrat, and I will tell you the Democratic Party today makes me sick, sick to my stomach.
And I agree with you about Dinger Reed, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.
I think they're two of the most condescending people on the planet.
I absolutely agree.
But as far as George McGovern goes, I have a lot of respect for that man.
Uh that man served in World War II honorably.
And it's a shame that he's labeled, you know, the party's labeled as a governed democrat.
I wish there were more people that had gusts like George McGovern.
And I just don't like that point.
I look I your your comments about Hubert Humphrey.
I can play you, we did this.
We've got audio sound bites of Hubert Humphrey from the 60s talking about family values.
That would make a Democrat today cringe, and they'd treat him far worse than they treat Lieberman or that poor governor from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey.
The Democrats, look at this this outfit in this little town Manchester, Connecticut, holding a town meeting figuring what to do about Lieberman because he's off the reservation.
They don't allow altering points of view, alternative points of view or differing points of view.
The reason McGovern has has uh uh earned this label is because back in 1972 in the presidential campaign, he sounded no different than the Democrats you cited when talking about Vietnam.
And they went down to a landslide defeat.
And that's why I'm really long here, uh Walter, and I gotta run.
But I'm glad you called.
Thanks so much.
I've enjoyed the conversation.
We will continue in a moment.
I want to mention this story here before we have to get out of here because we've been talking uh we started this.
Yeah, it was this week.
This week is going by so fast.
The story in the Sunday Washington Post, what's happening to all the boys on college campus.
And the uh answer, of course, is that the feminization of the curricula and the the overrunning of uh militant feminism is just is running them off.
Uh here's a story out of Kansas City.
Even as the nation's parents a decade ago began taking daughters to work for a day, the murmurs were there.
What about the boys?
Eventually, society's focus on the plight of girls stirred a backlash from boys' advocates, drawing little media attention at first.
Their arguments gained both statistical strength and often uneasy support in a culture where gender inequities have long made Americans defensive and edgy.
The American Association for University Women also did not disclose poll results showing broad agreement among students of both genders who thought girls enjoyed better treatment by teachers than boys.
What was so bizarre, said Joe Manthe, who now leads a schools program for boys in California, is that it came out right at the same time girls had overtaken boys in almost every area.
And he had this fascinating quote.
And I know Snerdley, you're gonna love this.
You're gonna eat this quote up because I do, because this is a money quote.
Says Joe Manthe, and now man, again, he leads school programs for boys in California.
When the girls were thought to be hurting in schools, the approach was to change the schools.
When it's boys who are in trouble, people say change the boys.
And that's where we are.
And you know how we change the boys?
You give them Rittling.
Back in just a second.
Okay, folks, I gotta get out of here.
I gotta do the morning update.
We've got to do one more test rehearsal, maybe a couple more for our video podcast debut starting on Monday, uh, right after this program.
So uh you have a great day already.
Open line Friday tomorrow.
And we will look forward to being back and uh and seeing you then.
And thanks so much for being with us today and every day we know it makes the most sense for you.