All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
December 29, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here at the EIB Network.
I'm Roger Hedgecock coming at you here from San Diego, where we're about to enjoy the holiday bowl, the first of the uh college bowl games.
Sooners versus ducks, Oklahoma versus Oregon should be a fun uh game coming up tonight.
Um year 2005, and we continue to discuss and wrap up and kind of look ahead.
That's what I'm going to do here for the last two days of the broadcast year uh today and tomorrow, but uh this uh this year continued to amaze in the reporting, quote unquote, of the war on terror and the Iraq war in particular.
The clash between the agenda of too many in the elite media and the truth of what was going on was simply too great.
The variance between what was reported to the American people and what was actually going on in this war was simply too great not to question the credibility of just too many people.
I mean, let's just take, for example, a recent uh discussion that was held with uh Tim Russard on Meet the Press, Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel, both now uh safely retired out of their roles uh in the elite media.
So what do they say to Tim Russet when they're talking about um the uh the war?
Well, Broka says, oh, yeah, on that mass uh weapons of mass destruction, yeah, the French were even saying the same thing.
Huh?
Uh do you think uh Clinton, oh Owen uh Brocock uh is is talking about this, and then Koppel breaks in saying that um the Clinton administration didn't have any questions about WMD under Saddam Hussein either.
And uh Koppel says, quote, the only difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was 9-11.
Brokaw says, right.
Coppel says, quote, if 9-11 had happened on Bill Clinton's watch, he would have gone into Iraq.
Brokaw.
Brokaw, yeah.
In other words, was there really a lie in there?
Well, no.
Clinton would have done the same thing.
Really.
By the way, the news, all you're gonna get this week is um President Bush uh reading.
Uh they're amazed, first of all, A, that he's reading uh down the ranch in uh Crawford, Texas, and B, what he's reading.
He's apparently reading uh When Trumpets Call by Patricia O'Toole, the uh story of Roosevelt Theodore Roosevelt after the White House, and by Robert Kaplan, he's reading Imperial Grunts, the American Military on the Ground.
Uh and of course the press right away had to ask whether or not the book on Theodore Roosevelt after the White House was a prelude to his lame duck status and leaving the White House and preparing himself uh to be irrelevant here in the next couple of years.
That's the take that the media, the national media has to take on these things.
Let's let's talk about real.
Real is that uh I think that George Bush has been misunderestimated again, that the war on Iraq is going quite well.
Are there terrorists there killing innocent people?
Yep, there are.
But if after the third election, the undeniable, unmistakable impulse of the Iraqi people to freedom, an event predicted by George Bush three years ago, that has absolutely come true.
And all the media can do today, you read if you read the New York Times today, all they can do today is discuss how the electoral divisions now in Iraq are simply a prelude to civil war.
That's all they can do is speculate that uh Shias voting for Shias and Sunnis voting for Sunnis and Kurds voting for Kurds means there's gonna be a civil war.
Huh.
Now it might.
You know, it might, but does it necessarily mean that?
Or does it mean the most obvious thing that as in the United States, sections of the country will vote blue state, red state.
Sections of the country in our preceding history will vote because one way because they're in the South, you know, for Democrats, or they'll vote another way because of where they are who they are.
They're recent immigrants, their old line patricians, they're whatever they are.
They have their interests and they vote them.
Does it necessarily mean a civil war?
Is the triggering mechanism of slavery uh is there some counterpart in Iraq?
No, there's no analysis like this.
They just throw this up, hoping again that some mud will stick if you throw enough.
And of course, if you look at the polls, that strategy has has absolutely worked.
Well, some of the polls.
Let's talk about the one that's the toughest for some people.
Wiretapping.
The idea that Bush would listen in, or the National Security Agency would listen in on your phone conversation.
Now, of course they won't.
They're not particularly interested in your calling your mom on Christmas and saying Merry Christmas.
They're really just not.
They are interested if you call Osama bin Laden on Christmas to wish him uh, you know, a happy Ramadan.
Okay?
So if you do that and you have Osama's uh, as we call him around here, OB Laden, if you if you ha if you have that phone number and you're in that conversation with a known terrorist, then you know all I can say to George Bush is thank you for listening to those conversations.
Thank you.
You are protecting us.
That's your job.
Sixty-four percent of Americans, according to the Rasmussen report, said that interception of telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people in the United States was good.
Should be allowed, twenty-three percent disagreed.
Sixty-eight percent said they're following the news reports about the NSA somewhat or very closely, so people are interested in this issue.
And no, no American wants the idea of a federal government so powerful it can listen to you calling your mom saying Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
No.
We definitely do not want that.
But in this issue of protecting the country, and there is a line to be drawn between there, after all there are billions of phone conversations every day, there are maybe a couple of hundred, and I hope there aren't more than that, where we ought to be listening.
Because, goodness knows, uh the uh the Al-Qaeda terrorists and the fellow travelers in the United States are pretty numerous.
We know that, everybody admits that.
Sure they're here, just as the 19 hijackers were here.
And if they're calling back to their mentors in the uh in the mountainous regions of Pakistan, I think the president gains our safety by knowing that and what was said.
And if you think we've just been lucky since 9-11 that we haven't been attacked, you haven't been paying attention.
We've been better than lucky.
We have in fact pursued, pursued the enemy, and listened in on his conversations and thwarted his plans.
And you know, and and let me just make this obvious point.
You know that if Bush had been unsuccessful, if he had not listened in to these conversations, and we had been attacked, well, you know what the news story would say.
Senators today called for an investigation into reports the Bush administration and ignored a flurry of phone calls from overseas to the suspected plotters of the Las Vegas strip bombing last New Year's Eve.
You can just hear the story printing itself.
So it's Bush's fault if he protects us, it's Bush's fault if he doesn't protect us.
What's the real story?
Robert Turner had an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday uh yesterday, uh Times Flying here, uh, that the uh that I think pinned this down.
Whenever you are questioning, does the President have the authority to, you know, fill in the blank.
You need to, as a as a conservative, go back to the Constitution.
Where else do you go?
You're not gonna go to the I just don't go to the New York Times.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just revealing too much here.
I don't go to the New York Times to find out what I should uh believe about the President's powers in any given situation.
I go back to the Constitution.
And uh when you look at the Constitution, and you look at uh what is it, uh Article II, you look at the powers of the Presidency, and then you look back in history as to how those powers have been exercised.
The President, of course, is in vested by the Constitution with uh the powers of foreign relations.
All of them.
All of them.
And you go back to the first Continental Congress, and Robert Turner takes us through this in the op-ed piece.
In 1776, he writes, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence.
That's what they called it at the Continental Congress.
They were they were very outfront about this.
We're going to have a committee on of secret correspondence.
The committee unanimously concluded that they could not tell the entire Continental Congress about what they were doing.
They were in touch with the French to get covert assistance to the American Revolution.
Now, why couldn't they tell their colleagues in the Continental Congress?
Because, as Franklin said, quote, we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets, unquote.
That's the first Congress.
Now, when the Constitution was being ratified, John Jay, America's most experienced diplomat, wrote Federalist number 64, the Federalist papers were written to support a vote on the Constitution here back in 1789 when doing what the Iraqis did this year.
And Jay wrote that there would be cases in which, quote, the most useful intelligence, unquote, may be obtained if foreign sources could be, quote, relieved from apprehension of discovery, unquote.
In other words, if we could secretly listen in, tap in, now they didn't have phones, but read their mail, etc., etc.
If they were relieved from apprehensions of discovery, we might get the most useful intelligence.
Really?
The new Constitution distributed the foreign affairs powers to the president, and Jay said that meant the president would be able, quote, to manage the business of intelligence in such manner as prudence may suggest.
In fact, the Congress made no demand that President Washington share intelligence secrets with them, and most Congresses until the aftermath of the Vietnam War followed that precedence.
Henry Clay in 1818, in a dispute over a diplomatic mission to South America, said to his House of Representatives colleagues that if the mission had been provided for from the President's contingent fund, that is the secret fund, that it would, quote, not be a proper subject for inquiry by Congress.
All through our history it has been understood that intelligence gathering is good for the nation.
We need to know what foreign nations, foreign powers, foreign groups are doing for the president to carry out his constitutional responsibility to protect the nation.
We've known that all the way up to 1975.
Suddenly, Congress begins to pass war powers resolution, foreign intelligence surveillance act, legislation that restricts the president, that says to the president, if you do this, you have to get a court order.
You have to come back to Congress.
You have to tell us.
You have to, in other words, forgetting Ben Franklin's advice, more people you tell, the fewer secrets you can keep.
The um but even during Democrat administrations where these acts have been passed, the FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example, in 78, the Attorney General for Jimmy Carter, Griffin Bell, said that the law, quote, does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution, unquote.
In other words, the power to uh if somebody's in this country and there's some uh threat to the country, that the president, in his judgment, can find out as much as he can find out.
Carter did that, by the way.
He signed orders even without a court order to listen in.
Carter did that.
So not and not to say that because Carter did it, it's right.
It's right if any president does it.
That's what we've done since George Washington.
Clinton did it as well, and even at uh said to the um to the FISA, this uh foreign intelligence surveillance court of review, he said that the president does have the authority to order non-court-approved surveillances.
FISA said uh Clinton in 2000 in uh let's see, did in nineteen something here in the Clinton administration said FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power, unquote.
There you have it.
Is Bush doing anything different than his predecessors?
No.
Is he doing anything that is forbidden by the Constitution?
No.
Is he doing anything that is allowed by the Constitution and history?
Absolutely, yes.
End of story.
Is that the story that you got in the elite media?
Did anyone ever review the Constitution in our history to determine whether Bush was doing something illegal?
I never saw it anywhere except in this piece.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, Info Rush Limbaugh back with your calls at 1-800-282-2882 after this.
Tell you what gripes me too is that uh the Democrats continue to believe we've forgotten what they said in the 1990s.
Here is a a montage of voices.
You pick out your favorite Democrat.
I got them all in here, and what they thought and said about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Al Qaeda, etc.
back in the 1990s.
Check out check this out.
Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here.
For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
And it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.
Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made.
There are such a thing as international outlaws.
I'm not sure China has one, but I'm quite sure.
He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
And someday, some way, I am certain, he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983.
Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons.
There's no question about that.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that the Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction.
We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.
There is a real debate how far off that is, whether it's a matter of years or whether it's a matter of less than that.
And so there's much we don't know.
Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community.
And I think that the President is approaching this in the right fashion.
Do you believe we could have disarmament without regime change?
I doubt it.
I can support the president.
I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interest of our uh national security.
Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
It's just that simple.
Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein.
I think he was right on in his speech tonight.
The lessons we learned following September the 11th were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction.
So, regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action.
*music*
When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support.
Well it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war.
It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began.
These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them.
All right.
Except for that last voice of George Bush, every other voice was a Democrat in that.
I know this is familiar ground, and I know Russia's gone over it in many, many uh times in detail, but I gotta tell you, it still gripes me that those same voices, uh, Pelosi and Schumer and Kennedy and all the rest can turn around in uh in this last year of 2005 and act like it never happened, and and Bush lied, and they never had that opinion, and they never saw the intelligence, and it was all just a Bush lied and and people died, and and where's Cindy Sheehan today again?
I mean, she was in the ditch down there in Crawford for a while.
Cindy, who?
I know.
Ladies and gentlemen, uh getting it all off my chest, and so will FDR after this.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today and tomorrow, the last two broadcast days of 2005, and that's what we're talking about, 2005.
We'll get into 2006 as well.
Uh, let me take you back further than that, though.
It was Christmas 1943, 1943.
And for those uh recently graduated from public schools around our great land, uh, the middle of World War II.
The president's name was Franklin Roosevelt.
He was a Democrat in his third term.
He was uh the fountainhead of all uh liberal programs, and uh the transformation of the United States into what we know now.
He was in the middle of a war.
The war had started, of course, with the attack by the Japanese forces at Pearl Harbor in uh December 7th, 1941.
And at Christmas 1943, lots of people had died.
Not two thousand, not twenty thousand, a lot more.
And around the world millions.
Because this war was a world war, by that time engulfing every nation, just about.
And at that time, lots of voices being raised.
How long are we in this for?
What are we doing?
There's a lot of uh body bags coming home.
Not, you know, the greatest generation since the victory of World War II has been uh has been uh rightfully praised for the perseverance for the uh victory and the peace that it brought.
But during the war, there were voices of pessimism.
There were voices of dissent.
There were voices of partisanship coming from the Republicans, but then a lot of other people too.
Charles Lindbergh thought we would never defeat the Germans.
They were far too much far too powerful and had far too many uh superior weapons.
Charles Lindbergh.
So to a beleaguered nation, in Christmas of 1943, Franklin Roosevelt held a fireside chat in the new medium of radio.
We have a tape of a portion of that.
And while you're listening to it, as he even coughs and so forth.
I mean, it's a very personal statement by Franklin Roosevelt.
Listen to how many times he talks about God.
Listen to how many times he weaves into the conversation, God and Christmas.
Listen, I mean, compared to our current paranoia about Christianity in the official media, compare their icon of liberalism, Franklin Roosevelt, and his willingness to talk about God as president.
Here's uh, and so for two reasons, listen to this.
For number one, a beleaguered president rallying his nation in a wartime situation where pessimism and partisanship had come come bubbling up.
And a nation uh that is called by this president uh for the uh that God is called upon to bless in a very specific way.
Just just listen to these words so long ago.
Christmas nineteen forty-three.
Some of our men overseas are now spending their third Christmas far from home.
To them and to all others overseas, or soon to go overseas.
I can give assurance that it is the purpose of their government to win this war and to bring them home at the earliest possible time.
The American people have had every reason to know that this is a tough and destructive war.
On my trip abroad, I talked with many military men who had faced our enemies in the field.
These hard headed realists testify to the strength and skill and resourcefulness of the enemy generals and men whom we must beat before final victory is won.
The war is now reaching the stage where we shall all have to look forward to large casualty lists, dead, wounded, and missing.
War entails just that.
There is no easy road to victory, and the end is not yet in sight.
I have been back only for a week.
It is fair that I should tell you my impression.
I think I see a tendency in some of our people here to assume a quick ending of the war.
The war and the result means false reasoning.
I think I discern an effort to resume or even encourage an outbreak of partisan thinking and talking.
I hope I am wrong.
For surely our first and most foremost tasks are all concerned with winning the war and winning a just peace that will last for generations.
The massive offensives which are in the making, both in Europe and the Far East, will require every ounce of energy and fortitude that we and our allies can summon on the fighting front and in all the workshops at home.
As I have said before, you cannot order up a great attack on a Monday and demand that it be delivered on Saturday.
Less than a month ago, I flew in a big army transport plane over the little town of Bethlehem in Palestine.
Tonight on Christmas Eve, all men and women everywhere who love Christmas, are thinking of that ancient town and of the star of faith that shone there more than 19 centuries ago.
American boys are fighting today in snow covered mountains, in malarial jungles, on blazing deserts.
They are fighting on the far stretches of the sea and above the clouds.
Fighting the thing that they for which they struggle.
I think is best symbolized by the message that came out of Bethlehem.
On behalf of the American people, your own people, I send this Christmas message to you, to you who are in our armed forces.
Thank you.
In our hearts are prayers for you and for all your comrades in arms who fight to rid the world of evil.
We ask God's blessing upon you, upon your fathers and mothers and wives and children, all your loved ones at home.
We ask that the comfort of God's grace shall be granted to those who are sick and wounded, and to those who are prisoners of war in the hands of the enemy, waiting for the day when they will again be free.
And we ask that God receive and cherish those who have given their lives, and that he keep them in honor and in the grateful memory of their countrymen forever.
God bless all of you who fight our battles on this Christmas Eve.
God bless us all.
Keep us strong in our faith that we fight for a better day for humankind here and everywhere.
President Franklin Roosevelt, uh, Christmas 1943, in the middle of a war, they didn't know what the end would be, but they were confident that the only end they would accept is victory.
The confident that there would be many casualties, much sacrifice, but that perseverance and God's grace were necessary.
An amazing statement by Franklin Roosevelt in the middle of World War II.
And a chance for America to get a little perspective.
Get a grip.
Get a grip.
We are winning this war.
We are deterring the enemy from making attacks.
And God bless George Bush.
Tap all the telephones you need to tap.
If you hear me saying Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to my mother, pass over that one.
Get to the next one where the guys calling O.B. Laden, OB, how you doing?
Where's that money?
We got to throw, you know, we got an IED here to blow up.
Get to that phone call and stop those people, because we are in a war.
So I think most Americans understand that, and they understand that the Democrats, the partisan voices that FDR was talking about, uh, are at it again today.
Today, thirteen members of the House Homeland Security Committee, Democrats, charged that the Homeland Security Department hasn't kept 33 of its promises to better protect the country.
So in other words, it's either in the one day the headline is Bush is invading your privacy by uh by tapping your phone, which he's not.
Not unless you're calling bin Laden.
Um the next day is Bush isn't doing enough to protect us.
In other words, one way or the other, we're gonna get George Bush.
And it's just that transparent, it seems to me.
Two thousand five, a uh a year in which the war and the war in Iraq particularly were so heavily used in this agenda to get George Bush and uh and if necessary to uh stand by uh with the actions of the media, the elite media, to uh witness the defeat of the United States of America.
If that's what it took to make George Bush look bad.
And I'm sorry, that's a harsh kind of thing to say.
But it's actually what happened in 2005.
Agree, disagree.
1800-282-2882.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Back After.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh today, and thank you very much, Rush, for the opportunity.
I appreciate it a lot.
Here's Joe in a cell phone on uh in Ohio.
Hi, Joe.
Hello, uh Roger, and it never ceases to amaze me how deep the bench is behind that great uh golden EIV microphone.
Thank you, sir.
I appreciate that.
Well, you're welcome.
Um, and thank you for uh doing such a great job of keeping us informed and entertained at the same time.
But I want to tell you, I'm one of those uh armed forces reservists who was recalled to active duty after September 11th, because we had a new mission, we had to go and protect our nation from uh the fifth column that's not only here, but it's also in our neighboring country, Canada.
And I would say the one most underreported story in our nation today is the number of what we call open source published in the newspaper reports uh uh investigations, which ended up in finally uh deportations from convictions and even imprisonments of people that were working active al-Qaeda cells in the Great Lakes region, uh both on our side of the border and also in Canada.
And it's been a great joint effort between uh our Canadian law enforcement brethren and our s our law enforcement officials here in the United States to go and root these folks out, make sure that uh they indeed were evil folks, and when they were gathering the information that they needed to go and put up a successful trial to get them out of here.
How many people how many people are we talking about?
Um open sources, over 200 of them since uh September 2001.
So this is without the wiretapping and the torture and all the rest of that stuff.
This is just using using common sense and and you over 200 people.
Oh over 200, yes, sir.
Wow.
Um, I mean it's things from Imans running uh uh uh mosques here in the Great Lakes region.
Uh there's one in the and in in northeastern Ohio that uh was uh was running a huge fundraising operation for Al Qaeda.
Really?
Oh, yes, sir.
Wow.
Now, Joe, in your work of the Great Unsung stories, sir.
Yeah, they they really are, and I think that the part about Canada particularly, so much has been said uh badly about Canada and from Canada to us that I'm glad to hear that that cooperation exists.
But let me ask you, uh were you also, and you don't have to give me any details, but just a yes or no, were you also involved in situations in which intelligence was gathered not from open source but from uh wiretapping?
Um and in fact, I really can't say on that.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I'm gonna assume that that's true, and I'm also gonna assume that the president has every right to do it.
And in terms of of your of your actions on that, has that let me just ask it this way.
If you if there were any such actions, were they successful?
Um well, I mean, the the success stories uh you if you dig in the newspaper, you know, like page 36 underneath the ad for the dog food, you'll find uh, you know, the little blurb there that's just better of fact that so and so was convicted today uh and deported from the country or heck even sent to Gitmo because they were, I mean, truly evil folks.
Yeah.
Well, Joe, thank you for your service to our country.
Thanks for doing what you're doing, and I appreciate the call.
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
If you've got a guy, and there's a guy now, uh, and I'm not even gonna say his name to give them the publicity, but there's a guy now who's been convicted of trying to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.
Uh he was caught.
Uh he was caught red-handed on the thing.
Uh and uh and now his lawyers coming into court saying, well, wait a minute.
Some of that evidence may have been gathered by an illegal tap.
Notwithstanding the fact that the tap is legal, because your terrorist client is in a in wartime is subject to the President of the United States taking action to protect this country under the our Constitution.
It can't be unconstitutional.
It's in the Constitution.
Read Article 2, Section One.
Oh, and by the way, FDR, we just played a little bit of FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
When the Nazis uh landed guys in little rubber boats off the submarine in Florida to tar to do sabotage on the United States, locals, and I don't know whether they called themselves Minutemen or not, locals uh uh uh saw these aliens coming abo uh coming on shore, saw these foreigners coming on shore, and uh called the FBI.
FBI rounded them up, and some days later, after a trial, after determining they were who they were, uh agents of uh Nazi Germany, they were hung by the neck until dead by Franklin Roosevelt during a war.
Because then we had an administration that uh was was prosecuting a war, as FDR just said, to victory.
We had a press who was pro American.
We had a population solidified in their support to win the war no matter what the cost, and the cost was enormous.
Here's Bob and Jackson, Mississippi, is it?
Bob, go ahead.
Yeah.
I was just gonna say that uh FDR speech you played, um almost every single word he said would be totally condemned by every Democrat in Washington now.
I mean, how many times did he say, God bless us and and Christmas and all the words that they don't even want us to be allowed to even say in public or have on any buildings?
And they call him the Democrat liberals hero, and if if President Bush said even a tenth of any of those words, probably our Congress would walk right out in protest.
It's just it's just palls me.
It's just sickening to hear all the what they say now.
You know, Bob, it's a very important point because what you're saying is that uh if you look at the American landscape here, has the Republican Party changed over those years?
Yes, it has.
That party, the Republican Party in the nineteen forties was isolationist, uh was uh opposed to uh a lot of what FDR was trying to do, and raising issues even during the war.
Have the Democrats changed?
Uh I think the Republicans have changed for the better, by the way.
Have the Democrats changed?
Yes, they have, because of precisely what you're saying.
Would any Democrat make that speech today?
No.
And they would think you were a kook for for making that speech if they didn't know the voice and they just read that speech, they'd say, Is this Jerry Falwell?
Who is this?
Uh it is uh i it is it is demonstrable by listening to FDR how changed modern Democrats are from their roots.
And I don't think it's for the better.
All right, let's take a break.
I'm Roger Hitchcock on the Rush Limbaugh program with your call next.
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here at the EIB network.
I'm Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush today and tomorrow.
Let's squeeze another call in here.
Rich in Iron Mountain.
Hello, Rich.
I'll try to be quick.
I've been waiting a while.
Uh anyway, uh uh if I would have had to wait, my family got hurt, I had to wait for a court order for something, and I found that out the president had to do something like that.
I'd be totally outraged.
And uh as a Vietnam vet, I know what it's like to walk away from a country before a job's finished.
And uh the last thing is President Bush was handed a recession, a military that was cut in half, 911, major disasters in our country and other countries around the world, Afghanistan, Iraq, we're still safe.
God bless President Bush.
Rich, I appreciate the the call.
And I want to look forward uh tomorrow when we get together to uh two thousand six.
What are the likely this of course a congressional Election year, what are the likely issues that will be raised?
Will the Democrats continue on this negative doom and gloom on the economy, on the war, on Bush, on integrity, on spying, on torture, on all the rest of these things that have been thrown up hoping that something sticks?
When in fact I think the record of 2005 is that none of those things have stuck.
That for most Americans it's quite clear that just the opposite is true.
Is that right?
Well, we'll discuss it again tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection