All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:01
February 3, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, there are you.
Great to have you back here, folks.
Great to have you with us on an unstoppable roll, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network in El Rushbow on Friday.
Let's keep it going.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
Now, Monday through Thursday, we only talk about the things that interest me on Friday.
I take a tremendous career risk, maybe the greatest career risk in big media as I open up the all-important area of topic selection.
That's what we talk about when we take phone calls to you.
Admittedly, rank amateurs compared to me, a highly trained broadcast specialist.
And I don't mean anything insulting when I say rank amateur.
I'm simply being accurately descriptive.
If you want to go the email route, it's rush at EIBnet.com.
So the latest media riff is that Bush, Bush has tricked all these Democrats into these positions that they've taken against security, against victory.
Yeah, Bush tricked them into opposing the Patriot Act.
Bush tricked them into opposing the interception of enemy communications.
Bush tricked them into opposing the detaining of the enemy at prisons.
I get it now.
I understand all this.
Did you see this outrageous hearing yesterday?
It was on while we were on the air, so I couldn't actually pay much attention to it yesterday.
I didn't watch it, but I saw some highlights of it.
John Negro Ponte.
Let me tell you something.
This guy ran circles around him so bad they had to get up and leave.
I'm telling you, no, I saw it snortly.
Jay Rockefeller was out.
This was an outrageous hearing yesterday.
Men who are working overtime to protect this nation, the FBI and the CIA director, among others, attacked by Senate liberals on the Intelligence Committee.
I guess that was a Bush trick, too.
When Rockefeller wrote his silly memo advising the Democrats to politicize the intelligence and security of the nation, that was a Bush trick.
Bush tricked Rockefeller into doing that.
And when the media calls the NSA program domestic spying on Americans, Bush tricked them into using that phrase.
It all makes sense to me now.
Bush is tricking the Democrats into making absolute fools of themselves.
But now they've figured it out, and they're not going to let Bush trick them anymore.
I guess Bush tricked this obscene cartoonist at the Washington Post to draw that piece that had the Joint Chiefs of Staff so up in arms that they wrote a letter.
They all signed it to the Washington Post asking for an apology.
It was not censorship.
They were not asking the Post not to run the guy's work.
I'll tell you, it was on Sunday, by the way.
I'm sure you've seen this by last Sunday.
They published an editorial cartoon, and it made a wounded soldier the butt of a political point.
You have this soldier bedridden, his arms and legs amputated.
He's being tended to by a Dr. Rumsfeld.
And the cartoon, Rumsfeld, writing on the amputee chart, tells him, I'm listing your condition as battle-hardened.
And then Dr. Rumsfeld says, I'm prescribing that you be stretched thin.
But we don't call that torture.
So all the joint chiefs wrote their, this very unusual move.
They wrote their letter to the editor, and they said that the Post has the right to print it.
But they called the cartoon reprehensible and beyond tasteless.
They called it a callous depiction of those who have volunteered to defend this nation and, as a result, have suffered traumatic and life-altering wounds.
And while you at the Post or some of your readers may not agree with the war or its conduct, we believe that you owe the men and women and their families who so selfishly serve our country the decency to not make light of their tremendous physical sacrifices.
So what you had here was a Washington Post caricature exploiting disabled American soldiers, making fun of them.
And it is symptomatic.
It is symptomatic of the left's sick, pathetic worldview.
The liberals love to run around and say that we are the mainstream.
We define mainstream values in America.
And that is absolute poppycock.
It is impossible to define the values of the left as mainstream today.
For that matter, it's impossible to define what the left has as values.
They're just sick.
And how about all this talk about these cartoons in Denmark that are caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed?
I mean, every single day in newspapers and classrooms across the Arab world, Jews are portrayed in anti-Semitic ways.
You know, there is more outrage.
There's more outrage going on right now over these cartoons in the Arab world than there is over the use of Arab children by Hamas and others to blow themselves up along with Jewish kids.
It's stunning.
Everybody's more upset about this cartoon than they are about the suicide, homicide bombers that they make of their little kids.
And of course, back in the days, I remember when this program wasn't very old, 88, 89, 90, whatever, back in those days, remember Andre Serrano?
Does the name ring a bell, ladies and gentlemen?
Andre Serrano produced a work of art.
And it was a jar of urine.
In the urine was a crucifix upside down.
It was called Piss Christ, and it was all over museums.
And we were told that we had to appreciate this.
And we were told that we had to get deep inside ourselves and understand the message that this brilliant artiste, Mr. Serranos, was attempting to convey to us.
And then, of course, at the Brooklyn Museum, we had elephant dung on the Virgin Mary.
And we were once again told, oh, this is freedom of speech.
This is art.
Why, we must learn to appreciate what these brilliant people are attempting to say to us via their art.
But now you have these cartoon caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, whose turban is holding a bomb, and, you know, little captions saying, well, we're running out of virgins up there for suicide bombers, but don't tell them or something along the way.
And all hell has broken loose.
So, you know, it's just interesting to chronicle the left here.
Our memories are long, ladies and gentlemen.
We don't forget these things because they are always going to be hypocritical.
They are always going to contradict themselves.
And hey, talk about liberalism and its ideology and its ideas.
What organization, I need to ask a question, and I'm serious about this.
What organization today is more irrational and filled with hate?
The NAACP or the Ku Klux Klan?
I actually, I posed this question for you to ponder.
It's probably inappropriate.
I can imagine the reaction people are having to it.
I'm a white conservative, and of course, I'm a predetermined genetic racist, according to the Washington Post style section last Sunday.
You might have missed this one, Wendy, but they had a little story.
Some psychiatrist, two psychiatrists who have now been found to be big contributors to the Democratic Party, went out and actually studied people, and he found that Republicans and conservatives are genetic racists far more than liberals are.
So I can say this, folks, because I can ask that question.
What organization today is more irrational and filled with hate, the NAACP or the KKK?
Because I'm just, according to Washington Post, a genetic racist.
I can't help myself.
Sugar pie honey bunch for TOPS 1965.
Well, the reason I ask the question is this headline: NAACP Chairman compares GOP to Nazis.
Julian Bond delivers a blistering partisan speech in North Carolina, civil rights activist, he's called.
And NAACP Chairman Julian Bond delivered a blistering partisan speech at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina a couple nights ago, equating the Republican Party with the Nazi Party and characterizing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her predecessor Colin Powell as tokens.
The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side, Julian Bond charged.
Calling President Bush a liar, Bond told the audience at the historically black institution that this White House's lies are more serious than Clinton's lies because Clinton's lies didn't kill people.
We now they didn't Clinton's lies didn't kill people.
I keep thinking of the Waco invasion.
Nevertheless, we now find ourselves refighting old battles we thought we had already won.
We have a fight discrimination wherever it raises its ugly head.
He referred to former Attorney General John Ashcroft as J. Edgar Ashcroft.
He compared Bush's judicial nominees to the Taliban.
The talk so infuriated at least one black family in attendance among the 900 in the auditorium, they got up and walked out.
He went on and on name-calling.
I walked out in the middle of his speech with my wife and kids, said Lee Wilson.
So I'm just wondering here that that sounds more hate-ridden and hate-filled than the KKK these days.
Well, it does.
It simply does.
And what were we talking about just yesterday?
The left is worried now with the death of Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks that they have no future icons.
And what did I tell you?
Oh, they got plenty of them.
Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice.
Nope, nope.
No, he just savaged them.
They're just tokens.
Don't let all this stuff sandbag you folks, and we still have to go out to win elections and present our ideas, even though these people are imploding left and right.
It doesn't take the pressure off.
This is just entertaining stuff.
A quick timeout.
By the way, a quick reminder: The Hutch will be here to start the next hour.
Ken Hutcherson, my old buddy, is the pastor of the Antioch Church in Seattle.
He does chapel for the Seabirds when they're at home sometimes before their home game.
He calls them the Seabirds.
I have no disrespect.
In fact, I'm a little concerned about this game for one reason only.
And I got a caller that wants to bring it up here, so we'll take that in just a second.
But Hutch played for Seattle.
He played for the Dallas Cowboys as linebacker, and they played a two-tall Jones era, and he played for the San Diego Chargers.
And he and I routinely, on Friday before the Super Bowl, share our thoughts in a very friendly and humorous way with one another.
So Hutch will be here.
Start the next hour.
Quick, timeout.
The EIB network will roll on in a moment.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, to the phones we go on Open Line Friday.
Dave and Williamsport, Pennsylvania, sir, you are up.
Welcome.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
In the past, you've commented on how conventional wisdom is often wrong, and especially in sports, it seems to bear out more often in sports.
Does it worry you that everyone seems to be picking the Steelers in this?
It does.
It does.
This is a tough thing to explain.
In fact, I had a little email exchange with my buddy Jim Nance a couple nights ago, and he brought this up to me.
He said, He said, Rush, he knows the Steelers are my team.
And he said, I'm pulling for your Steelers, but it's like the Seahawks aren't even here.
And I know it's media conventional wisdom that I, they're never right.
Media conventional wisdom, you can always go the other way.
I'm watching these guys on NFL Network and ESPN all say, yeah, the Seahawks, no one's picking the Seahawks, and I hate that, but I'm still picking the Steelers anyway, which I don't know what you make of that either.
What you mean, those guys are saying that?
Yeah, they're kind of saying the same thing you do.
You know, it's kind of scary that no one's giving the Seahawks a chance, and they're this and that, and they're this good, and they can do this, but I'm still picking the Steelers anyway.
Well, look, there are reasons for that.
I don't want to get too much into this now because I got the Hutch coming up, but let's stick with the conventional wisdom here for just one thing.
What worries me is simply the karma, if you will, of conventional wisdom.
Not that conventional wisdom has anything to do with it.
The media don't know 10% what they think they know.
And so when they all line up on something, oh, gee, and if it's on my side of things, oh, gee.
So then, okay, well, I'm just not going to reject this because this is my team, too.
So I'm looking, okay, what could bring this conventional wisdom about?
And I think a couple things.
One of the things I look at is that let's be honest here, folks.
Who did the Seahawks beat?
They play in the NFC.
They play in the NFC.
When they were in the AFC, they didn't win Zilch.
Now, all of a sudden, they move to the NFC and Bamo, they're in the Super Bowl.
And they've got, I think some of the analysis I've heard is that, hey, they've got a lot of rookies here in key positions and first Super Bowl and so forth.
You can go back and forth on this stuff left and right.
But I give you the best counter argument to the conventional wisdom, Dave, that'll build your confidence back up, and that is, despite the conventional wisdom, Joe Theisman has picked the Seahawks.
Joe Theisman has been wrong.
Every playoff game so far this season where the Steelers are, he's picked, against the Steelers, he picked.
He picked Cincinnati, then he picked Indianapolis, then he picked Denver and in every instance he said the Steelers weren't good enough to get what they had to get done done, and so he, since he's, since he's picked the Seahawks.
It's a it's a pretty safe bet that he's going to be wrong again.
But we'll get into into into more of the detail of this with our pro football jock, a former actual player, The Hutch, when he joins us at the beginning of the next.
Well, we're going to get into that.
Snurdley asked me who's been right more In these things recently.
Well, we have the audio evidence to answer the question.
We went back.
Look at, I'm not calling the hutch out.
He gets his backup when he thinks you're calling him out.
I'm not calling him out.
I'm just waiting for him to get here, and we'll talk about this.
Because the one thing I don't want anybody to think that I'm not dissing the Seattle Seahawks.
They're not, even when I say they're an NFC team and who have they played, I mean that.
The NFC is the far weaker conference.
I think the Steelers could arguably already be said to have played their best competition because it's in the AFC.
Indianapolis?
Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and Denver?
So we'll, well, I mean, I think the Steelers, I don't think they lost anybody at the NFC this year.
Nobody, no.
What, the Baltimore, New York Jets World Series, Super Bowl?
What, what?
Oh, no.
No, they, no, no, they didn't.
Nobody was picking the Giants against the defense of the Baltimore Ravens.
No.
Oh, come on, Snerdly.
I can't believe you think he's telling me that this game reminds him of Super Bowl III, the Jets and the Colts, where Namath went out there and predicted a victory and a big, bad NFL was defeated by the AFL.
And you see the same thing here.
Only this time, the Namath contingent is the Seahawks.
The underdogs.
Okay, well, we'll find out Sunday night about 9:30 or 10.
Lee in Houston, you're next on the EIB network.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome.
Good afternoon, Rush.
How you doing?
Good, sir.
Thank you.
I wanted to express to you just exactly how sick I feel when I followed the progress of the Saddam Hussein trial in Iraq and how that is going.
I lost my brother on December 7, 2003, which is just one week before they captured Saddam.
And I was lucky enough to talk to my brother the day before he was killed.
And we asked him, I asked him what he thought about Saddam.
Are you guys going to catch him or what?
And one of the last things he said was, absolutely, we're going to get him.
It's just a matter of time.
And a week later, they found him.
And now we're, you know, I check on CNN and on Fox News, and I see every day they have the progress of the trial.
And, you know, this week he's thrown a fit in court.
And now he's walked out of the building.
And now he's fired his lawyers.
And, you know, I mean, what I understand the legitimacy of having the Iraqi court be the one to try him because, you know, you clean up your own mess in your own house, and that's a good thing.
But, I mean, I don't recall any of the Nazi generals firing their lawyers at Nuremberg or walking out of court there.
Well, that's because back then, those guys did not have the media capability we have today, and they weren't able to learn from American liberal lawyers how to disrupt and American liberals how to disrupt any kind of a proceeding.
I have no question that Saddam has gotten some.
He's got his lawyers, Ramsey Clark, for crying out loud.
I guarantee this trial is being looked at by the Saddam defense team, not as a trial, but as a TV show.
Saddam owned that camera, dominate that courtroom.
That's what he's being told to do.
It probably is his instinct to do it anyway.
And so it's being covered as a TV show and not a trial.
That's why you have.
But he's going to fry.
You can rest assured.
All right.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
It's Open Line Friday on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Ladies and gentlemen, Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate, has sent a letter to Dr. Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
I am holding a copy of that letter in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
Dear Dr. Dean, I was recently apprised of your assessment of the president's terrorist surveillance program, an early warning capability to intercept the international communications of al-Qaeda terrorists to and from persons within the United States.
With respect to this important program, you stated, quote, President Bush's secret program to spy on the American people reminds Americans of the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew, unquote.
As chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Dr. Dean, I find your statements to be irrational and irresponsible.
Any suggestion that a program designed to track the movement, locations, plans, or intentions of our enemy, particularly those that have infiltrated our borders, is equivalent to abusive domestic surveillance.
The past is ludicrous.
When Presidents Kennedy and Johnson approved the electronic surveillance of Martin Luther King, those presidents were targeting American citizens based on activities protected by the First Amendment.
When President Nixon used warrantless wiretaps, they were not directed at enemies that had attacked the United States and killed thousands of Americans.
I am so glad he put this in here in this letter because we mentioned this the other day.
The media was remarking on the passing of Coretta Scott King, and the one thing they left out of the story was that it was a Democrat administration, a Kennedy administration, that had wiretapped Dr. King for the express purpose of establishing that he had mistresses so as to present that news to his wife so as to bust up his marriage.
So Pat Roberts has pointed out that's domestic spying, Dr. Dean, the way the Democrats did it, Bobby Kennedy and John Kennedy, back during the 60s.
He goes on to say this.
I believe Americans understand that the careful and targeted program authorized by President Bush has no relation to the abuses of the past.
Indeed, its closest antecedent is the direction of President Roosevelt to Attorney General Robert Jackson on the eve of World War II.
With war looming and reports of lurking enemy saboteurs, President Roosevelt ordered the use of domestic electronic surveillance to target persons suspected of subversive activities.
As President Roosevelt noted, it is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations, and fifth column activities are completed.
Significantly, President Roosevelt's direction was issued despite a statute and Supreme Court precedent that prohibited such wiretapping.
FDR did it, Dr. Dean.
Another Democrat.
But Roberts doesn't disagree with it here.
It was in the eve of war.
When President Bush exercised his constitutional authority and responsibility as commander-in-chief to target international communications between potential terrorists within this country and al-Qaeda members overseas, he recognized, just like President Roosevelt, that after a terrorist attack occurs, it is too late.
Our nation had been attacked on September 11th, Dr. Dean, by foreign enemies.
We were and are still at war with an enemy that Congress identified in an authorization for use of military force on September 18, 2001.
Much of the war against al-Qaeda is being fought overseas, Dr. Dean.
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq.
But the war against terrorism is not confined to foreign lands.
The war against terrorism is being fought every day in our own backyard.
America is a battlefield now, Dr. Dean.
In peacetime, and especially when our nation is at war, our leaders, including the chairman of our political parties, should be more careful and better informed before they criticize the intelligence programs that protect our nation, Dr. Dean.
Vibrant debate is important in our free society, but that debate should be serious and rational, especially where national security is concerned, Dr. Dean.
Too many are looking at national security issues through partisan lenses.
I've seen it on the Intelligence Committee for the past three years, Senator Rockefeller.
Our nation and the men and women of the military, law enforcement, and the intelligence community deserve better.
Sincerely, Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Now, I added the Dr. Deans and Senator Rockfield.
He did not put those in the letter, but I wanted to add those, my own commentator license for added emphasis.
George in Northampton, Massachusetts, great to have you with us on Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Hey, Rush.
Well, I'm with Porter Goss.
He is looking forward to the investigation on this leak because he said this is sensitive information and he wants to know who leaked it because it's secret.
So I can't wait for it, just like Porter Goss.
Well, I'll tell you who else can't wait for it.
President Bush.
I'll tell you who else can't wait for it.
I can't wait for it.
I'll tell you who else can't wait for it.
Most of the Republicans can't wait for it because the Democrats, in demanding these hearings, have set themselves up to fall into yet another trap.
Absolutely.
And I'll tell you, there's a, and I, look, folks, this is way too long.
I'm not even going to start reading excerpts of this because it's just too long.
But there is a piece slated to run in the March issue of Commentary Magazine.
Commentary Magazine is the publication of Norman Pedoritz.
And it is a pretty highbrow publication, but I've read this piece, and it is dynamite.
They've released it.
And it's basically a piece that calls for, makes a very powerful argument for the criminal prosecution of the irresponsible parties at the New York Times who published the details of this program way back on December 16th.
Gabriel Schoenfeld wrote the piece, and it is a comprehensive article on treason.
And it suggests and makes the case, and it's been so widely circulated today, and it's made such an impact on tremendous numbers of people that I'm about to have five or six people send this to me this morning, some of them lawyers, some of them former prosecutors in the Justice Department saying, this is right on the money.
I guarantee you there are former prosecutors who would come out of retirement if they could be named the prosecutor on this case, because this is a call for a serious investigation of who is committing treason, who leaked to the New York Times.
And did the New York Times commit a crime or crimes itself by publishing the knowledge that they were given.
Now, we're going to link to this, the commentary piece.
They've put it on their website.
We'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com at some point this afternoon.
You can try to find it yourself.
It's www.commentarymagazine.com.
Gabriel Schoenfeld is the author of the piece.
And look, there are countless people excited as they can be about these hearings.
If this is like equivalent of the Republicans saying, do you Democrats really, with cameras blaring and broadcasting nationwide, do you really want to show yourselves as invested on the side of defeat of your own country?
Come on in.
We'll turn the cameras on for you, and we will do whatever we can. to help you get that message.
That's what's going to happen during these hearings.
Same thing is going to happen during the Libby.
Did you hear the judge set the date for the Libby trial?
I read this.
This has to be a misprint.
The Libby trial has been set for early next year.
The Libby trial will start like January something, January 4th, 7th, something in 2007.
Now, in addition to that, what makes that even more unreal, or this whole trial unreal is that the big media said that Valerie Playm was an outed CIA agent or operative, that somebody disclosed classified information when her name was revealed.
And now the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, having said in his press conference that outing a CIA official endangers national security, says he didn't even look into that.
I thought that should have been his first step should have been to determine if she was classified undercover.
And now he says he has no documents that disclose it, and he never accessed or assessed such documents.
No, this is you're right.
If you're saying, well, what the hell's going on here?
I'm saying what the hell's going on?
The media reports for months how the leak of her name threatens national security.
The blogs run nuts with this.
Even some Republicans cave because they're afraid of where this may go.
So they got to distance themselves from supporting anybody who may have outed a CIA agent's identity.
But here's what Patrick Fitzgerald said.
We have neither sought, much less obtained, all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee or any aspect of that status was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14th, 2003.
That's the date range where her name was identified.
She said, we don't know.
So that was the whole purpose of the investigation.
So now Libby has been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice, and that trial doesn't start until January.
The trial doesn't start until Jan.
Fitzgerald said that witness, a jury selection probably takes six or seven days, and it only take two weeks to present his case.
You are not missing anything.
You are not missing.
If you're asking, well, then what's this about?
If they didn't even look into whether she was classified, if it didn't even investigate whether leaking her name was a crime, what the hell was the investigation About what the hell was it about if they didn't even look at that?
So now we've got a process crime, which is Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice during the investigation is something they weren't investigating.
Yeah, if you're asking what the hell, so I don't, I don't understand it.
I guess I'm not enough of a lawyer to understand it.
But even beyond that, the trial not being for 11 months.
But what I was going to say originally is, just like the Republicans are excited about these hearings into these NSA and CIA leaks, so are a lot of people excited about the Libby trial because it's going to put a lot of journalists on the stand, going to request and subpoena a lot of their documents, if you will.
So that's going to be a good year coming up.
Going to be exciting out there, folks.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
No, it's not that I like this bump.
I've got a frog in the throat today.
A little pulse nasal drip or something.
You know, just so I got to clear my throat more than usual.
Anyway, back to the phones.
Open line Friday, Thomas and Wichita, Kansas.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush, thanks a lot for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
Nice to have you with us today.
Yeah, it's a pleasure talking to you again.
I'd like to ask you about this thing about Iran getting a nuclear bomb.
Yeah.
What is the big deal?
I mean, for crying out loud, I mean, you know, if they get a nuclear bomb and they use the thing for some reason, I mean, you know, I mean, nobody's used a nuclear bomb since we did.
But however, if they just happened to give one to Al-Qaeda, and I don't know.
It's not a big deal.
In fact, you know, I'll tell you the way I look at this, Thomas, just so you'll know.
Who are we to tell other people they can't have nuclear weapons?
Nuclear.
Who are we?
What gives us, the United States, the audacious right to think that we should tell the Iranians whether or not they can have nuclear weapons?
Who do we think we are?
The world's bully?
Why do we think we should stop these al-Qaeda guys from getting nuclear bombs that they might be able to fit in the suit?
Who do we think we are?
We have them.
If we have them, why can't everybody have them?
That's the way I see it.
I know you're being a little facetious there, but however, the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons for I don't know how long the Cold War went on, but a long time.
They didn't use them.
You know why?
Tell me why they didn't use them.
Well, because they knew if they did, we would kill them.
Why would we kill them?
Why would we still kill them?
Why?
Why would we be able to kill them?
Well, because we've got more than they do.
Yeah, despite years and years of people trying to get us to get rid of ours to show the Soviets we didn't mean them any harm, the American left in this country, a bunch of chicken pacifists, were after arms control, arms control, arms control.
The purpose of being in a powerful nuclear position is that deters anybody else from using them.
Exactly.
And that's why the Soviets didn't use them.
So you think that if the Iranians get a nuclear bomb, you use the singular in this, that they still won't use it because we can wipe them out in a retaliation.
Absolutely.
If they kill them.
We can still kill them.
I mean, what's the, I don't understand the big deal on that.
It's mad.
Mutually assured destruction.
Well, you know, you can't be serious with this.
You really can't be serious.
Well, now.
We know that the terror masters of the world for the longest time have been the Iranians.
We have this wacko president who says Israel shouldn't be in the Middle East.
It ought to be back in Europe.
There was no Holocaust.
These people have been funding international terrorism for longer than there's been Osama bin Laden.
They have been funding the Palestinian suicide bombers.
They don't have to attack us with their nuclear bomb.
They could attack Israel.
They could attack anybody they want with it.
And just because we are going to be able to respond and wipe them out doesn't mean, okay, well, if they want to have the bomb and use it first, fine, we'll teach them a lesson.
That's the whole point of a peaceful world is to keep weapons out of the hands of people like this who would use them first, who would not be quote-unquote responsible members of the nuclear club.
Same thing with that little pot-bellied little dictator in North Korea.
And the concept of, you said, so if they gave Al-Qaeda a nuclear weapon, that's really, yeah, that's what we want.
We want somebody to use a nuke against us.
Is that the foreign policy?
Give Iran the nuke, let them use it against somebody.
We have the ability to blow them off the face of the earth.
The fact is nobody wants to use one in a peaceful world, in a democracy, in a land of freedom like ours.
Nobody wants to use these things.
They are pure deterrents.
But we're dealing with madmen.
We're dealing with wackos.
We're dealing with criminals.
We're dealing with thugs.
And you can't deal with them in the common, ordinary way that we did with the Soviet Union back during the Cold War, where a mutual assured destruction was the order of the day.
These people get this weapon, and they won't hesitate to start blackmailing, threatening, and perhaps using it just because that's who they are.
Your argument is to say, why try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
If they use the gun, we'll just mow them down with machine guns.
Why stop people from trying to rob banks?
If they do, why we'll just put them in jail and not let them have any more money anymore?
It is a big deal, and I don't know where it's headed, but it's going to have to be dealt with at some point.
Mark, and it will be.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
One other question.
If Al-Qaeda hits us with a nuclear bomb, what country do we then go wipe out, gang?
▲
Export Selection