All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 14, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
December 14, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Wow, what a day.
What a day.
I was uh I was at home last night and I was uh trying to get caught up on what happened the past couple days.
And there's nothing going on.
It's really slow.
I get in here this morning and say, eh, there's nearly not much going on.
That's why the media is spending so much time talking about that dam break uh near uh near your hometown in Missouri.
So my gosh, uh we must have succeeded in getting people to tuning out the news because uh hell's a popping out there, folks.
Greetings and welcome.
It's Rush Limbaugh already Wednesday here on the uh fastest week in media.
Rush Limbaugh the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
We are up and running.
We are we are ditto camming today.
I've um I have noticed a little problem with our homepage, no data is displaying, and we're working on that even as uh we speak.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Uh I was so looking forward to Monday because we were going to start the video podcasts on uh on Monday afternoon, as you know, uh the morning update each day after the program.
We're gonna send the video down in a free video podcast uh along with the uh the audio podcast of every day's program.
And I just uh I had something uh unexpected come.
I just a really bad intestinal thing happened.
It just came up out of nowhere and uh had to get it taken care of, and that's that's where I have been, and I appreciate all of your uh emails of panic and uh and concern, warm my heart uh to know No, it didn't.
I was upset that so many of you were upset.
It's just one of these uh uh one of these things that that happens.
It seems like every time that this this time, I love this time of year, but it seems like something always gets some sort of you know, one or two-day stomach thing this time year.
It's not and I I've you know I've not eaten anything unusual or bad.
It's just it's just crazy that happened every year, but it seems that it's uh I can almost make book.
And you know when it happens.
It happens when I decide to leave home and go to a northern climate where it's cold as a witch's upper torso, and then come back, and that's when it happens.
But anyway, everything's fine, everything's clear, everything is cool, we're okay.
Phone number if you want to be on the program today is 800-282-2882.
History making vote in Iraq coming up.
And I'm wondering down the road uh will historians be more amazed that it took less than three years for Iraq to go from abject tyranny to a constitutional government, or that for almost three years, the Bush-hating left refused to acknowledge what an amazing triumph this is.
Uh it it uh it truly is fine.
The Democrats did a pre-buttal today, and they sent dingy Harry out there.
In a pre-buttal, these things have happened before, but normally what you get is a rebuttal or a response.
Uh the mainstream media's close association and allied status with the Democrats allowed for this pre-buttal to be broadcast all over uh television.
And you know, they're out there saying we need a timetable, we need a definition of success.
We need they've been saying the same things, yet Bush, what was this, the fourth speech on Iraq today, or was it the third, and there's been one on the economy?
Fourth speech on uh on Iraq in what two weeks.
And each speech contains more detail, and yet the Democrats continue uh to demand detail.
It's it's it's crazy.
And and uh Mertha and the Democrats keep citing all these polls that say the Iraqi people don't want us there.
Mirtha's still stuck on this business.
80% of the Iraqi people don't want us there.
We know from the ABC poll that's just the opposite.
71% do.
They're looking forward to their future.
They're happy go lucky over there compared to the way they're being portrayed here.
They're really optimistic in Iraq, and it's an ABC poll.
You know, so you you can't say that it's uh it it's a poll that's uh uh uh not objective.
I mean, I'm sure ABC cringed when they got the results and they had to put it out, but nevertheless, uh they they did.
And in this country, if uh, you know, the Democrats, one of the things, and I noticed this during the Clinton Lewinsky thing, all these Democrat operatives that go on television, and they'd say the American people want X, the American people think X, the American people are doing X. And they're doing that now.
The American people want us out of Iraq, the American people are fed up, the American people know it's going nowhere.
The American people know we're lied to.
Well, if that's what the polls actually say, why don't the Democrats vote that?
It all can come back to that.
They have a chance to call a vote and take us out of Iraq to defund the war, and they don't do it.
If they had polling data that suggests and backs up everything they're saying, they would most certainly do it.
Dingy Harry and and uh and Reed, Jack Reed, and who else went out there today after Dingy Harry?
Carl Levin.
People look like they look like utter buffoons, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
It's just it is amazing.
You have Harry Reed seeking to preempt Bush's speech, uh, and this is all the good that he's good for.
I mean, this is this is it.
This is a sum total of Dingy Harry's contributions to this country, frenzied, wild attacks and so forth.
Oh, and how about this story today, the New York Times?
How about this story about these phony ballots being trucked in?
And then Reuters comes and says, No, it's not true.
So now we got competing stories, and the real problem, the real dilemma is, oh my gosh, who do we believe?
You take, well, no, I'm just saying between Reuters and and New York Times, who do we believe?
I mean, that's a toss-up.
Reuters says, nope, no ballots, New York Times, oops, forged ballots, phony ballots came in there.
I was hoping the New York Times story was true.
Turns out it's not, but I was hoping the New York Times story was true because then I would be able to say with fair confidence levels that the Democrats were behind it.
Oh, when I saw that last, this is this is hunky dory and super duper.
But it turns out to have been a total story, a total a total sham.
The New York Times once again has run a story, has no basis in fact whatsoever.
Imagine if the New York Times was in charge of pre-war intelligence, ladies and gentlemen.
We couldn't trust the New York Times for news to be truthful every day.
Imagine if they were in charge of pre-war intel.
But this pre-buttle crap, and that's what it is, to me, is laughable.
As I say, if things are so bad there, if the polls are right about Americans not supporting the war, why don't the Democrats vote us out of it?
And then, you know, I don't know why anybody cares anyway.
Don't they admit each day they don't know anything?
Democrats say don't know anything about intelligence, they don't know anything about this, they don't know anything yet, they're on television demanding and claiming to know all of these details about how horrible things are going, how rotten things are, how hopeless things are.
Carl Levin, try this.
Carl Levin says elections could lead to civil war.
And we have audio sound bites coming up on all this, so sit tight.
Carl Levin says that elections in Iraq could lead to civil war.
Now, uh it doesn't surprise me.
Democracy has not been kind to the Democrats in this country lately.
And they, in effect, are starting a civil war in this country because they can't win them.
They're putting us, they are roiling this country, they are driving a wedge as deep as they can, numerous wedges between people on various issues in this country.
They've got their own version of a civil war going, so Levin may know what he's uh talking about, because when they lose elections here, they in effect start their own version of a civil war.
And that's their wish.
The bottom line is Levin hopes there's a civil war.
They're invested in defeat.
Levin hopes it all falls apart in Iraq.
That's the thing you need to take away from this.
But they have no more knowledge or credibility to speak about this than you do or any other average guy off the street.
These are simply opinions that are motivated by partisan politics that are amplified and aired by a sympathetic mainstream press.
I mean, folks, there may be a civil war one day, as there was in our country.
You may not know it because you may have graduated from the American public education system.
We had a we had a civil war in this country once, the greatest democracy on the face of the earth.
And we had a civil war.
We can't ensure that the rule of law will exist forever.
We can't even predict that for our own country.
Look at our own problems that we're now having with judicial activism and that we're trying to get our arms around and solve.
But the idea that there is perfection in this is silly.
The Democrats demanding perfection, and you know something, it's what liberals always do.
Liberals look at the imperfections everywhere and seek to rectify them.
These perfections lead to what they consider to be inequality, and they get on to this mad this radical madcap egalitarian kick, which suggests that everybody must be totally equal, which is in utter denial of human nature.
But I uh I will say this: if if they have in Iraq the kind of people that we have in our country, such as the Democrats agitating constantly to divide us along religious income, gender, and age differences, there will be a civil war.
In other words, if the Iraqis come up with a party that's the equivalent of the modern day Democrats, there will be a civil war.
There's no question.
If they want to divide the people in Iraq on religion and income and gender and age differences, then you can count on it.
The Democrats today once again demonstrate that they are weak on national security policy.
And I think whoever suggested they go out there first is an idiot.
Because they go first and they put their flapping gums out in the in the in the personage of Dingy Harry and then Carl Levin and then Jack Reed, followed by George W. Bush.
The contrast couldn't be greater.
It's uh it's not quite this, but it's like when Reagan would go out and do a State of the Union address, Democrats would send Fort Worthless Jim out there with those raised bushy eyebrows to respond.
It wasn't, it wasn't even a contest.
This wasn't a contest today.
Terms of statesmanship, substance, optimism, all of these things.
Anyway, I gotta go.
Quick timeout here.
We'll come back with some audio sound bites, lots of stuff.
I mean, I I gotta I got three stacks here that are huge.
I'm gonna try to get to as much of it as possible, plus as always incorporating your kind and gracious phone calls.
Sit tight.
The EIB network and no rush will roll right on just after this.
I can't believe folks.
I I'm getting all kinds of emails.
I checked them here during the break.
You're selling out, you're hiding.
You're not telling us what was really wrong with you.
Come on, folks, I'm here.
I'm back.
It was two days.
You know, medical privacy is a big deal here.
I can't just blab my medical privacy all over the place here.
I c here's all I can tell you.
This is what this is what one of the doctors said to me.
What have you been eating anything unusual lately?
And I said, Yeah, I've been eating a lot of Democrats for lunch.
He said, Well, they were toxic and they have poisoned you.
And if you if you if you if you if you don't want to get sick, you just stop eating as many Democrats for lunch.
I said, It's hard to do.
I do it every day on the radio.
I eat their lunch.
I eat them for lunch.
Well, if you keep doing that, you're gonna continue to be toxic.
So that's as much as I can tell you.
By the way, have you ever wondered why Bush has to do all these speeches on Iraq?
This is the fourth one.
There's an answer for it.
The Media Research Center has done an Iraq study.
This is uh Brent Bozell's group.
And they have they have they have calculated that ABC, CBS, and NBC still air six negative Iraqi stories to every positive one that they air.
And of course, every one of those negative Iraq stories features numerous sound bites uh and video clips with uh with Democrats.
And that's why.
So Bush is out there, and this is it's okay.
I mean, this is President's doing what he should be doing on this.
He's leading, and that's you know, don't complain that he has to go out and do it, because the more he does it, the worse the Democrats look.
Let's let you hear how he sounded today.
Uh leads off his speech, I think takes it right to the Democrats here who have criticized victory.
We are confronting new dangers with firm resolve.
We're hunting down the terrorists and their supporters.
We will fight this war without wavering, and we will prevail.
In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front.
And over the last few weeks, I've been discussing our political, economic, and military strategy for victory in that country.
An historic election will take place tomorrow in Iraq.
Thank you.
And as millions of Iraqis prepare to cast their ballots, I want to talk today about why we went into Iraq, why we stayed in Iraq, and why we cannot and will not leave Iraq until victory is achieved.
Well, the press today is obsessed with one aspect of what the president said, and that is their headline is Bush accepts responsibility for faulty pre-war intelligence.
That's the big headline.
That's all they've taken out of this.
That to Them is the action line, if you will.
That's what moves the story forward.
The facts of success on the ground is not the media template.
So anything about that, the successful election, the peaceful circumstances in Iraq now, the fact the New York Times ran a bogus story about forged ballots being trucked in in a tanker.
All of that, that doesn't move the story forward.
That's not part of the media's action line.
Bush accepting responsibility for faulty pre-war intelligence.
Why, that's the action line, and it's absurd because the president has always taken responsibility for this war.
The United States did not choose war.
The choice was Saddam Hussein's.
When he made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.
This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam.
And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.
As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.
And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities.
And we're doing just that.
Now the headline in a f in a in a in a I don't even know what any fair in just an objective world would be that the president made the right decision and is explains why.
That's what this speech was all about today.
And that would be the headline.
President explains in greater detail reason for going to Iraq.
Nope.
Headline, Bush accepts responsibility for faulty pre-war intel because that's the action line.
That's the gambit.
That is what's uh hopefully going to be used to elect Democrats in mass numbers next year and in 2008.
Here's more from the president this morning.
At the same time, we must remember that an investigation after the war by Chief Weapons Inspector Charles Dolpher found that Saddam was using the U.N. oil for food program to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions, with the intent of restarting his weapons programs.
Once the sanctions collapsed, and the world looked the other way.
Given Saddam's history, and the lessons of September the 11th.
My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision.
Saddam was a threat, and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.
Rado Rado Rattle.
At this point, ladies and I would like to reference this uh newsweek piece that uh all the uh all the media is uh having an orgasm over Bush detached, Bush living in a bubble, Bush this, Bush not in contact, Bush sitting up in the White House, doesn't talk to liberals, doesn't talk to the media, doesn't talk to Democrats, doesn't talk to people who oppose him, and so Bush doesn't really know what's going on out there.
He lives in an absolute dream world where he makes up this fantasy of reality.
Can you believe this?
If there's anybody creating alternative realities out there today, it's the media and the Democrats.
Hard to distinguish the two, but that's who they are.
Now let me tell you something about this piece.
It was written by Evan Thomas, and uh Evan Thomas to me is a hack.
Evan Thomas to me is a shill, and he's a fraud.
But in addition to that, here's who he is.
Evan Thomas, who wrote the Newsweek piece, is the grandson of the founder of the ACLU.
That man's name, Norman Thomas.
He was also a huge socialist.
In fact, Norman Thomas gained early fame by denouncing an immoral, this is a quote now, immoral, senseless struggle among rival imperialisms.
He was talking about World War One.
Norman Thomas ran for president as a socialist six times in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.
As redstate.org says, he's sort of like Lyndon LaRouche before it was cool to be Lyndon LaRouche.
He was a wacko.
He was an absolute kook.
And he had a son, and his son had a son, and the son's son, the grandson is Evan Thomas, who is now working at Newsweek and writing these pieces about Bush in the bubble.
The dirty little secret is that Newsweek has done this before.
The last time Newsweek ran a story about a Republican president who was detached and out of it and had no clue what was going on, living in a bubble, Simply listening to his friends, not talking to the Washington establishment.
The last time they tried this, I think it was 1981 or 82 about Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus.
No matter what, you can count on this.
The media will repeat its template and playbook, just as the Democratic Party does.
And the uh Evan Thomas, by the way, in case you uh don't remember, Evan Thomas is the schlub who said during the 2004 presidential campaign on television, it might have been on Chris Matthews' show, that the mainstream media would be worth 15 points to John Kerry.
Fifteen points in pre-election polls and in the actual election results.
The mainstream media would be worth 15 points.
This is from Newsweek and Evan Thomas.
That's who it is that wrote the piece, claiming Bush is detached and living in a bubble.
Smartest thing Bush could do is avoid the Liberal Democrats in Washington.
If more Republicans would do so and govern as they promised to when they campaigned, we'd be a lot better off.
Back, my friends after this.
America's anchor man serving humanity here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
And we will get to your phone calls here in a jiffy.
I gotta get more Bush and then Dingy Harry.
And we have Carl Levin and Jack Reed and a couple other sound bites I want you to hear.
But first, folks, I gotta do it.
I gotta, I got I have to conduct a little test here.
Uh because the the uh uh broadcast needs to know this.
Uh I need to know it for the quality to broadcast.
I got a new printer, got a new color printer as a Xerox, but I paid for it, so this is not a plug to Xerox 8500 DX or DT or MB or whatever it is, but I had to print something here, because I think it's louder than the other printer.
And you know, I've I am constantly printing things out during the program because show prep never stops.
I just see I got somebody here from the White House.
Well, let's see what let me print this and see if you hear it.
I just hit the print button here, and I'm going to be quiet.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Thank you.
You hear that.
Is it distractingly loud?
Not distracting, but it's there.
Okay, folks, so if in the future, if you hear that sound, it means that my printer's working, and I I don't want it to take away from the professionalism of the uh of the program.
I think it should it should you should hear it as ongoing uh uh progress.
We're not stopping here.
We're staying up to date and printing the latest data as necessary to keep you on the cutting edge.
All right, here is the final soundbite we have from the president.
His uh speech today at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
And in this bite, he takes aim at the critics on the very day they've chosen to do a pre-buttal to his speech.
One of the blessings of our free society is that we can debate these issues openly, even in a time of war.
Most of the debate has been a credit to our democracy.
Some have lost irresponsible charges.
They say that we act because of oil.
That we act in Iraq because of Israel.
Or because we misled the American people.
Some of the most irresponsible comments about manipulating intelligence have come from politicians who saw the same intelligence I saw.
Yes, and then voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein.
Raddo Raddo.
These charges are pure politics.
They hurt the morale of our troops.
Whatever our differences in Washington, our men and women in uniform deserve to know that once our politicians vote to send them into harm's way, our support will be with them in good days and bad, and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory.
All right.
I tell you, this is necessary.
This is good, taking it right to them, calling them irresponsible.
Now let's talk about this pre-war intelligence because the Boston Globe forgets that we are here.
The Boston Globe has a story today by Rick Klein, and the headline, Democrats to Press for Iraq intelligence counter Bush claim on sharing reports.
Democrats in Congress this week want to force the White House to release the daily intelligence briefings that President Bush reviewed in the months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq and attempt to undercut the president's claim that lawmakers saw the same reports that he did before voting to authorize the war.
Bush has said repeatedly in recent weeks that the senators and House members who gave him the power to depose Saddam Hussein by force did so because they had seen uh all the in same CIA assessments and agreed that Iraq's weapons program was a national security threat.
But Congressional Democrats point out that they didn't have access to the president's daily briefs that summarize American intelligence for the president each day.
This is mind boggling.
Forget this intelligence, which we'll deal with in a moment.
What about the intelligence the Clinton administration was passing out in 1998?
This is where where are you, Mr. Klein?
Can't you go back to your own archives and look at what your own paper published in 1998 or 2001 and 2002?
Go back and look what Bill Clinton said.
We've done it.
If we can do it, you can do it.
Go back and look at what John Kerry said, at what Tom Dashell said, and what Harry Reed said, Jay Rockefeller, we've done it.
We've published it in the Limbaugh Letter.
We've put it on my website.
The intelligence that Saddam had all these weapons of mass destruction was building up has been on the books since the early 90s.
The United Nations had a number of resolutions demanding he get rid of the stuff.
He ignored them all.
But here we have it, once again, the Boston Globe.
History begins when Bush assumes office.
Well, let's go back to November 27th.
I told you about this the day this story was published.
It's an editorial from the Boston Herald.
And the headline of this, a revealing look at intelligence.
Now the source for the Boston Herald's piece is human events, which the Herald refers to here as a relatively obscure conservative weekly.
Well, it's only relatively obscure to liberal Democrats.
It's sort of like this Evan Thomas claiming that Bush lives in a bubble.
I will bet you that George W. Bush knows a hell of a lot more people who live in Texas and Missouri and Nebraska and Iowa and Kansas and the great great heartland of this country in the Red States than Evan Thomas knows.
And I will bet you that Evan Thomas knows a hell of a lot more people who live in, say, Aspen or the Upper West side of Manhattan than Bush does.
Now you tell me who's more in touch with America and who lives in a bigger bubble.
If you ask me, the people that live in the bubble in this country are the American press, the DC press, the DC culture, and the media, they're the ones who, after the 04 election results, don't forget, talked about how, yeah, you know, we may have to send foreign correspondents into Missouri and the Great Heartland to find out what these people actually think.
If there's a group of people totally out of touch with this country, it's the Democrats, and it's the media, particularly in the Washington, New York, and Boston corridor.
They're the ones who live in the bubble.
They're the ones who look with average or look upon average Americans with utter contempt and disdain, and to sit there and write a piece that Bush is out of it is simply absurd.
Bush is doing what every responsible Republican ought to do and not count out to these people and not consider what they want, because their desires focus and center around Bush's destruction.
Why would Bush want to bring these kind of people in to learn what he should know and to think?
As I say, if other Republicans in Washington would follow the Bush model, we'd be a lot better off the way we're being governed in the Congress and in the Senate.
The same thing goes with this asinine report here from the Boston Globe today on intelligence.
Democrats now claiming that they didn't see the same thing Bush did.
Well, let's go back to this November 27th editorial.
President Bush, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, insists that the Democratic war critics in Congress saw the same pre-war intelligence that they did.
Critics such as Kerry say that's just plain flat not true.
Human events has an interesting side light on the dispute.
It's called attention to a Washington Post report.
Ah, actually, the source here is not human events.
It's the obscure Washington Post.
The relatively obscure Washington it must be obscure because nobody remembers seeing this in the Washington Post, so nobody must have read the Washington Post, or they would know that this was in there.
What was in the Washington Post 18 months ago?
It was a story that said, quote, no more than six senators and a handful of House members, according to Congressional staff members who controlled access to the document, read beyond the five-page summary of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, concluding that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons and was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program.
So there was this n it was a 90 page, 92 page estimate provided by the CIA to members of Congress before they voted on October 11, 2002 on whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Let's go back to this period of time.
Back in the fall of 2002, the president was preparing and banging the drums of war.
The Democrats, fearing the upcoming uh midterm elections and looking at the polls, saw that most people were supporting the president.
They wanted to make sure they got in on the action.
They had already authorized the use of force for the president following the 9-11 attacks.
But they wanted a separate debate this time so they could go on record.
They demanded intelligence reports.
They were presented the 92-page estimate from the National Intelligence Estimate, so they could be up to speed on it before their vote on October 11th.
It turns out that according to the Washington Post, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page summary.
Senator J. Rockefeller, Democrat West Virginia, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, earlier this month repeated that only six senators had read the document, saying he was one, and the committee chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, was another.
Senator Feinstein, who prodded President Bush to make sure the estimate was finished in time, said that she was another who read the whole thing.
Senator Lieberman couldn't remember if he read it, and Senator Clinton declined to say whether she had.
Kerry admits he did not read the whole document.
No, I got a personal briefing of the Pentagon.
I didn't need to read that.
I have people in high place.
Hey, tell me what I need to hear.
Well, that's not the equivalent of reading the whole thing, apparently.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reed, one of the loudest we was my misled winers, admits he didn't read the whole thing either.
Now we know everybody who's anybody in Washington normally relies on document summaries.
Details are left to staffers, but you would think that in a matter of war and peace, the people who have to make the decisions would read 92 pages laying out the intelligence supporting the war, essentially the same material on which the president's relying.
They got it, folks, and only six of them read it, and some of them were Republicans.
And now they're back, and here's Rick Klein of the Boston Globe.
All he's got to do is look at the Boston Herald, his competing newspaper and say, hey, my story today is BS.
My story today is a pack of lies.
My story today is nothing more than Democrat propaganda.
My story today is nothing more than Democrat PsyOps.
It's Operation Doom and Gloom.
That's the PsyOps operation, and the Democrats have cooked up with the media.
So all of this pre-war intelligence is nothing more than the Democrats, once again trying to have it every way possible, not just both ways.
They want to be able to have flexibility to be able to change their position on Iraq day in and day out.
And they've asked the media to give them this flexibility.
And is there any doubt that they'll get it?
When we come back, we'll let you hear from Dingy Harry, Carl Levin, and Jack Reed during their pre-buttle to Bush's remarks today.
Folks, I I want to issue an apology here before we get back to the um dingy Harry and Jack Reed, Carl Levinbytes, and that I'm sorry because it's my fault.
Three weeks ago, the uh uh Comp USA people, official sponsors here of the EIB network.
You know, every week we have a new high-tech product or gadget that is my pick of the week.
And two or three weeks ago is this that that Sony uh digital camera, the nude one.
If you remember us in the N one, I said N is in nude, which tickled uh Brian and still laughs about it when I mention it.
So it it's 8.1 megapixels, and the thing is just the picture is unbelievable here, and each picture is 2.93 megabytes.
You can blow them up and there's no graininess and it's touch screen fascinating thing.
So I I was so excited about it when I when I tried it that I went out and bought a bunch of them to give people for Christmas.
And it turned out that I didn't buy enough because I started giving them away to people I didn't intend to give them away to.
And uh so now I'm short.
The people I intended to give them to, I don't have enough to go around.
So I sent Brian out, said go out to the Comp USA store in Okeechobee and ask him how many they got.
He said, they don't have any.
Uh-oh.
I was doing this yesterday, in fact.
Uh he said, Well, I found three down a plantation.
I said, Well, if you don't mind, go down there pick them up.
He got a thirty-minute drive, got down there, two of them are gone.
Only one left, so I got that one.
So I said, Well, I'll go to the Sony website.
Bound to have some of the Sony website, went to the Sony website, got this little red text message next to the picture of the camera.
Sorry, due to unprecedented demand.
Delivery of this product cannot be made before December 23rd, which means if you want this for Christmas, you're screwed.
And it's my fault because I mean we uh advertise these, and I don't know anybody else who was.
So they're but they're they're they're back ordered.
And I'm afraid the same thing's gonna happen to his iPod, this iPod, these video iPods are amazing themselves.
Uh and that's the pick of the week this week.
You know, we're starting our video podcast today.
Uh I sent my brother one.
This and and you know, hey damn bivalent about this stuff.
He's just totally, totally obsessed with it now, learning how to do all the things it'll do.
Uh so if we're unshort of those, I'm just gonna take the blame in advance.
It's my fault.
Well, no delivery by the twenty twenty-fourth is Saturday and the twenty-fifth Sunday, so the twenty-third's the last delivery day, at least you get Saturday, but they're they're saying we they don't deliver on Saturday.
They don't have FedEx delivery on Saturday.
Uh they don't offer it Sony.
That's their point.
That's what they're saying twenty-third.
They're meaning can't get it to you before Christmas.
All right.
Back to I just wanted to apologize, uh, folks.
Uh this we're used to this happening, uh, but but not this time of year.
I mean, this is a bad time year of people who want things and can't get them because we've made them so popular.
But as I say, we're used to it.
Let's go back to the audio tapes, this pathetic Democrat pre-buttal to the president's speech.
They cannot.
They cannot deal with the concept of victory.
They just can't.
We have three lame responses for you.
These are leaders.
As I say, it's Operation Doom and Gloom, first dingy Harry.
Victory is is in my mind consists of doing well militarily, economically, and politically.
Militarily, we have not achieved success at this stage.
Economically, we're certainly far from that.
I think s for someone who who is looking for a political victory just to put another notch on your gun, it's not that simple.
Because the way that I look at it, it's a it's a sphere of military, political, and economic.
Political victory is exactly what you're hoping to achieve.
You want the notch in your belt, and it comes with the defeat of your own country.
This is rambling incoherence.
Up next, Car Eleven.
To say total victory is a very open-ended commitment.
It is unlimited in terms of our presence.
Total victory could take decades.
I don't think the American public will accept that kind of an open-ended commitment.
Yeah, nothing's worth it to these people.
Victory's not worth it no matter how long it takes, no matter how hard it is.
Victory is just not worth it.
They don't know how long it took for victory in our own circumstances in this country.
Took us what, seven or eight years to write a constitution and get it ratified?
They're gonna do it in three years here in Iraq.
Oh no, that's not fast enough.
That's not victory.
They want defeat.
Car 11 and the Democrats want defeat.
They have no more knowledge or credibility to speak about this than you or I do, anybody else off the street.
These are simply opinions that are motivated by politics.
And these Democrats demonstrate over and over again that they are weak on national security policy.
And I'm telling you what, they are giving the Republicans their issues for 06.
Time and again, these leftists come to the microphone rooting for the enemy, which is what Reed did.
It's what Levin is doing.
They are rooting for the enemy, and the American people, according to a recent poll, don't like it.
The Washington Post poll of a couple uh couple weeks ago.
And the Democrats need to be uh paying the price for this, folks, and it's up to the Republicans to make them pay the price by campaigning against them on this very issue.
Here's Jack Reed, the final bite.
Complete victory is a slogan, not a well-defined objective.
I think part of what we've asked, both the caucus uh collectively and many individually is for a much more clearly defined objective that our military leaders can use to plan not only for the operations in Iraq, but over time for the force structure of our particular army and our marine corps.
Once again, urging and agitating for defeat.
Here is last night in Baghdad, an Iraqi voter.
Just listen to this.
Anybody who doesn't appreciate What America had done, and the President Bush let them go to hell.
Here, here.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Well, the first hour went by quickly, didn't it, folks?
I know when I'm not here, these things drag on and on and on, but face it, these untimely, unexpected absences are gonna happen now and then.
And what they actually accomplish is making you appreciate me even more.
I know I appreciate you even more when I'm not here and can't be here, so it all works out.
If you're on hold, sit there.
We'll get to you in a moment.
▲
Export Selection