All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:06
February 6, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh, man.
Okay, greetings, folks.
Welcome, welcome back.
Nice to have you with us.
It's the award-winning Thrill Pact, Ever Exciting, Increasingly Popular, Growing by Leaps and Bounds, Rush Limbaugh Program here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
I'm America's anchor man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, doing what I was born to do, ladies and gentlemen.
Serve humanity and host this show.
You are doing what you were born to do as well.
You are born to listen.
It's a great teamwork here, and it's a thrill and a delight to be with you.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program, email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
All right.
Even when I think I'm wrong, I'm right.
It turns out that Brian Cunningham did work in the Bush 43 administration along with the Clinton administration.
This is the man who's done yeoman's work, great work.
We're going to link in, if we haven't already, I told Coco, sent Coco the link, the webmaster, and I want to link to not Byron or Brian.
It's going back and forth.
I said both, but his name is Brian Byron, Brian Cunningham, and he's got a website with all the data that I used to summarize a couple monologues in the previous hour.
I want to go back to this Chris Matthews soundbite.
There was one thing in it that I failed to react to that I must.
He's talking here about the Republican strategy vis-a-vis these hearings.
Bush doesn't want to bring in the right witnesses to quell congressional anger.
He wants the liberal Democrats like Glahy to keep angry.
This is a win for them.
They're convinced of it.
And the only way you get a win in politics is if you get the other side to fight.
And the Democrats are playing their role.
They're playing to the liberals in this country, the civil libertarians, the ACLU.
They're concerned about the intellectuals of the country who really can imagine themselves being surveilled.
Most Americans cannot imagine themselves on the telephone with somebody from al-Qaeda over in one of the Emirates.
Okay, that's true.
Most Americans cannot.
But did he really intend to say that Democrat intellectuals can?
Did you heard him say this?
He said the Democrats are appealing to their base, the intellectuals who can imagine themselves being listened to.
These paranoia, who are these Democrat intellectuals?
I hope he's not talking about the blogosphere.
I think he's probably talking about, well, I don't want to mention any names, but you know, the scholars, the learned people, people, you know, the intellectuals, left-wing intellectuals who can, who can imagine themselves being surveilled?
I guess the roots of the, what are we going to go back to the McCarthy days?
Are the Democrats, as Matthew is saying here, the Democrats have not forgotten the Hollywood blacklist days?
What's he saying?
Yeah, we Democrats, we have a history.
Just like the blacks have a history of slavery.
We're never going to forget it.
We have a history of being spied on.
Maybe so, but by your own presidents.
Chris, you should be worried if a Democrat were in the White House.
Now, here is, here's the Pat Leahy bite that the caller, Tom from Denver, referred to.
My concern is when we see peaceful Quakers being spied upon, when we see babies and nuns who can't fly in airplanes because they're on a terrorist watch list put together by your government.
What in the world does this have to do with this program?
That has more to do with these mumbling people at the Transportation Security Authority or the TSA people, whatever it is, you know, waving wands while real potential targets are waved right through, waving these wands over nuns and babies.
Senator, this is absolutely pathetic.
And just to use these hearings to make more political points have nothing to do with the purpose of the hearings.
Pat Leahy, folks, has been in the Senate for some 30 years.
And for 30 years, Pat Leahy is always lamenting how somebody else hasn't done enough of this or that.
Today, he's trashing a president who's done more to fight terrorism than any president in history.
Pat Leahy, on the other hand, who's always complaining that somebody hadn't done enough of this or that, opposes the Patriot Act.
Pat Leahy opposes aggressive interrogation.
Pat Leahy opposes long detentions of terrorist suspects.
Pat Leahy opposes NSA intercepts of the enemy.
It's time to ask, what does Senator Leahy support other than his Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights?
He is wasting one of 100 seats in the U.S. Senate.
But he was elected, so he's there.
But, I mean, it's just, it's, to me, this is, this is just preposterous.
And what makes it even more so is how these guys just continue to not get it, make absolute fools of themselves in the process and make it appear as though they are on the side.
Let me phrase this carefully, because they make it appear they are on the side of the enemy.
I'm not saying that they are.
But when you come up with a position that demands sensitivity and understanding of these terrorists and an attempt to give these terrorists access, if you will, to the U.S. Constitution because of our laws, we must be fair and we must not deny them their constitutional rights for what will become of our own, blah, So you've got essentially a terrorist bill of rights, an al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, what these guys want to put together.
Now, it's not to say that they have chosen sides and they have linked up arms with al-Qaeda, but the practical result, if they were to get what they want, would be the same thing.
It reminds me of all the skirmishing that was going on back in the 80s over the Contras and the Sandinistas.
And back then, Danielle Ortega taking all kinds of money from the Soviet Union, and the Democrats were voting against any effort to send money to the Contras.
Didn't want a Soviet beachhead established in Nicaragua.
And so they had this Bolin amendment, which said that we couldn't send any money down there, and that led to the Iran-Contra scandal.
But before all that, there was an ongoing debate about whether we should fund the Contras, and the Democrats didn't want any part of it.
Sandinistas, just like the Hugo Chavez of his day, except he didn't have any oil.
And the Democrats linked up arms with the Sandinistas and Danielle Ortega.
They brought him to New York and he went walking down Madison Avenue in New York, escorted by Peter, Paul, and Mary buying sunglasses.
I kid you not.
Well, one of these times after the Congress voted no to send money to the Contras, Ortega celebrated, got on an airplane, very much fanfare, went off to the Soviet Union, and came back with something like $500 million.
This embarrassed the Democrats, and they dispatched George Miller, who's a congressman from Northern California, Bay Area.
They sent him down there to slap Ortega's hands.
You can't embarrass us this way.
You're going to do that.
Do it quietly or don't do it at all.
And people started saying, well, you guys may have as well.
You Democrats may as well have just, don't challenge my Americanism.
Don't challenge my patriotism.
I'm not choosing sides with the Sandinistas.
Well, you may not be choosing sides, but what's the practical difference when you vote against their enemy?
You may not be endorsing them, which of course they were.
This is the same thing.
These guys are coming up with all these obstacles to national security that would make you think that they actually think George Bush represents the bigger threat.
And I think some of them actually do.
I think a lot of Democrats don't even think we have an enemy.
I think they cringe when they hear Bush mention the word.
But it matters not what their motivation is.
What matters is the end result of their actions.
And when you've got somebody like Leahy who is not the slightest bit interested in the Patriot Act, aggressive interrogation, long detections, NSA intercepts, you have to suggest to yourself that if he were to prevail, he and his team were to prevail, our hands would be tied.
The terrorist hands would be not.
So that's why I say working on the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Quick timeout.
We'll get back and roll right on right after this.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
El Rushball on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
All right, the situation in Iran and nukes.
This, again, this on one hand is just laughable.
On the other hand, there's nothing funny about it at all.
Okay, so as I understand it, they were negotiating two tiers of TIER at two different levels of fake backbone.
They were going to make a referral to the United Nations about the Iranian nuclear program, or they were going to write a report.
Now, a referral would be the stronger of the two fake ways to show backbone.
Submitting a report would be the weaker way of showing fake backbone.
And the weak chose the weaker.
They chose to submit a report on the status of Iran's nuclear program.
And I think, you know, the United Nations has a new anthem, I ran from Iran.
A report is going to tell the Security Council of the United Nations what it already knows.
A referral would have at least drawn another line in the sand.
Referral might have led to some sort of a resolution.
But then when you stop and think about that, how many resolutions does it take for UN action?
How many resolutions did we get at the Security Council on Iraq?
16.
It was 14 or 16.
And they still didn't act.
So one resolution, were it to eventuate from a referral?
Nothing would happen if it took 16 or 17 of them before anything happened with Iraq.
Now, this is, you're going to think this is funny, but this is deadly serious.
If these people in Iran can't develop a nuclear bomb before the UN can come up with at least four resolutions, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
They have got, because the UN is going to bumble along and spend all their time.
If the Iranians can't come up with a nuclear weapons program by the time the UN will act, they don't deserve to be a nation anymore.
That ought to disqualify them.
If I'm sitting there looking at Iran, okay, you guys want to be considered serious, then come up with a nuclear program before the UN stops you.
If you can't do it, anybody could do that.
Mauritius could do that.
Bay Lee, the Caribbean superpower, could come up with a nuclear program before the UN would make them stop it.
If you guys in Iran don't pull this off, I'm going to lose respect for you.
So here we have the Nobel Peace Prize ends up with more dung on its face, a peace prize to Mohamed ElBaradai, the man who is enabling an Iranian nuclear program.
We got a peace prize to Jimmy Carter, the man who enabled the Iranian fanatics in the first place.
Yeah, every day I get up, I say, how would I like to be a liberal today?
And there hasn't been one day in my life when I wish I were a liberal, and I just wonder what it is like for you liberals out there to get up and ask, gee, I'm a liberal today.
And I never see you smiling.
I never see you happy.
We got Muslim Rage torching an embassy because of a cartoon that mocks Muslim rage.
Now we've got this absurdity, the UN and the European Union trying to diplomatically deal with this nut case that runs Iran right now.
In fact, Orno de Borgrov has a piece out there.
I'll get it in the stack here in just a second.
And he basically says this guy is an absolute nut, and he believes in a part of Islam that thinks the apocalypse will happen in his lifetime.
He actually believes it, that the 12th Imam, who has been dormant since the 9th century or the 5th century, whatever, is going to come back, pestilence, wars, global warming, who knows what kind of garbage is going to beseech us all and besiege us, and then there will be everlasting peace.
I mean, he thinks that this is all going to happen in his lifetime, and he's 50.
So I don't know what the average life expectancy is in Iran, but so you've got to figure the next 30 years, this guy thinks it's all going to end, and he's running the country.
And he's trying to get a nuclear program.
Here's Josh in Boise, Idaho.
Josh, I'm glad you waited.
You're up today.
Nice to have you on the program.
Megan Diddles-Rush from the Jim State.
Thank you, sir.
First of all, I want to say congrats for your Pittsburgh Steelers last night.
Thank you.
And I myself rooted for Seattle.
Super Bowl is what I wanted to talk about, actually.
I wanted to beat some of those whiners from the emails that you were going to read to the punch on this.
You still there, Rush?
Yeah, still here.
Oh, okay.
All right.
You know, I watched the game last night and I disagreed with a lot of calls, but there is no way that the referees in any way influence the outcome of the game.
And, you know, if I were Holmgren, I would be really insulted as a coach for the Seattle Seahawks that the fans would whine about the referee calling.
And the reason why is that would say that the Seahawks, you know, didn't have any power to come back to the game, which I thought they put up a really good fight.
And, you know, the bottom line, Rush, is that Pittsburgh deserved to win.
As a coach, I've always told my players and my parents to shut up to the referee, don't talk to the referee, and after the game, have never told them to come up with excuses leading to the idea that the referees had something to do with the outcome of the game.
Well, here's the thing, though.
I do think the NFL's got an officiating problem.
This was a pretty, I mean, this postseason did feature some pretty disastrous calls that the league admitted to a day or two after games were played.
But, you know, the old theory is they even out over the course of a season or over the course of two or three seasons, the human element and so forth.
But it's just, it's just, I have never seen it before.
The email today was just loaded with whining Seahawks fans about the officiating.
I mean, every fan of every team can cite a big game that you've lost and the officiating didn't go your way.
And it's the way of the world.
It's the way it is.
I don't want to get in an in-depth game analysis here, but I'll just say one thing.
I saw some of the worst clock management on behalf of a professional football team in my life in that game last night by the Seattle Seahawks.
I just, I was stunned.
They just seemed out of control.
And the game started.
It looked like the Seahawks were going to own that game in the first quarter.
I was, you know, I was really biting the nails.
Josh, I appreciate the phone call.
Who's up?
John in Forest Park, Illinois.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Good morning, Rush.
How are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Really, this NSA flap comes down to this.
It's a successful Republican president using tools to protect us with Democratic losers who had a chance to use them and protect us before and didn't.
And now they're whining more than the Seahawks did.
I think you've nailed it.
I think they're just whining because they keep losing.
That's right.
And they can't figure it out.
They don't know why they're losing.
And so they're just acting like spoiled brats and trying to turn the tables of fortune, but they haven't the slightest clue how to do it.
They don't want to.
They still want to.
They don't want to.
They don't want to win?
No, they don't want to take the steps necessary to protect us.
They had their chance and they blew it.
They muffed it.
And now because we have a president who wants to protect us, they can't stand them.
This is more against Bush than it is against anything else.
And if they say otherwise, they're lying.
They're the liars.
No, I think you're looking at this party MacGovernized itself, well, back with George McGovern, and they've never escaped it.
Because when the pedal hits the metal, when the rubber meets the road, the Democratic Party since the 1960s can be counted on to side against this country and its military and its objectives, particularly when there is a Republican president in office.
Now, it's interesting that when they had Bill Clinton in office and he was rattling the sabers about Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction, why those Democrats, why, they sounded like equally large sable rattlers.
They were just saber rattles.
But they, I think, knew in the bottom of their hearts Clinton was never going to do anything.
So they could be safe in flexing their verbal muscles, their oral muscles.
Nope, better say verbal.
Clinton flexed his.
No, it was Monica who.
Well, I got sidetracked here.
The thing is, Clinton fights his Kosovo war from 15,000 feet and you have to worry about casualties there.
They just, they are on the wrong side of history so often.
It is striking.
But when it comes down to something like this, I think you're right.
They don't want to take the steps necessary to protect us, largely because they don't really think we're that big and much in danger.
Quick timeout.
Stay with us.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, despair, torture, humiliation, stress, and even the good Times.
We're at 800-282-2882.
Well, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Melman, offered a broad attack on Senator Hillary Rodham Rodham, Mrs. Clinton of New York, on Sunday, describing her as a Democrat brimming with anger and a representative of the far-left wing of her party.
Mr. Melman, this is a New York Times story.
Mr. Melman disputed the suggestion that Mrs. Clinton, a former first lady, had moved to the center of her party.
And while he declined to say in response to a question if he thought Mrs. Clinton would be the Republicans' dream candidate or the Democrat you most dread, he left little doubt that Republicans had settled on new lines of attack on one of the leading Democratic contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination.
I don't think the American people, if you look at it historically, elect angry candidates, Melman said on the Stephanopoulos program on ABC, referring to Mrs. Clinton's assertion that Republicans were running Congress like a plantation.
He said, well, whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger.
There's a lot of talk about a new Hillary Clinton, but if you look at the record, it's a very left-wing record.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, dismissed the attacks.
He said, the RNC and the White House are attacking because she has effectively pointed out their failures and offered ways to address them, and they don't like that.
Every poll I've seen in New York suggests that New Yorkers approve of Mrs. Clinton's performance in office because they know she's a strong advocate.
Yeah, but tell the rest of the story.
Most New Yorkers don't think she can win.
Tell the rest of the story.
Melman's just trying to goad these people, just wanting them to get mad in their reaction.
You know, it's a toss-up.
Does Hillary get mad?
It's just that Hillary is a dryball.
Hillary Clinton is a very boring person.
If it weren't for her varicose veins, she would be totally colorless.
So she has to jazz it up out there.
She has to go out and act passionate.
When she tries to act passionate, is when the yelling and the screaming and the screeching starts, and you've got to cover your ears.
Now, that, to some people, might sound angry.
I just think it's Hillary trying to sound alive.
I mean, take a look.
Your random camera shot on Hillary Clinton.
I mean, is there anything charismatic about that?
No.
You feel like you're in an insane asylum and one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
You think you're looking at Nurse Ratchet.
During the State of the Union address, when the camera went to Hillary after Bush had made a joke about his new brother, Bill Clinton, the look on her face was, if my eyes were daggers, they would be in your heart right now, right at him.
And there was nothing friendly about it.
It just, for somebody who's the smartest woman in the world, someone so politically astute, you would think that at the State of the Union, you have to know if your name's Hillary Clinton, the camera's going to find you now and then.
So at least maybe you don't want to look like you're smiling or laughing at Bush, but look friendly.
I wonder if she stands in front of a mirror and practices that.
That's the problem.
I have no doubt she's.
Actually, I think Melman's.
I think she's constantly boiling with rage.
I think all liberals are.
Liberals are constantly, even liberal comedians, are brimming and boiling over with rage.
You just don't see them smiling out there.
You don't see him happy.
And if you were a liberal, would you be?
Try this.
This was in the New York Post's page six on Saturday.
You know, every State of the Union address, members, it's in the House chamber, but the Senate comes in there and the Cabinet and the Supreme Court and a number of us.
So they use up all the seats in there, plus some.
So what generally happens is, is that members of the House will go in there early in the afternoon and camp out to make sure they get an aisle seat.
Because as the president comes in, the camera's watching him come in, the camera's focused, and everybody makes this mad dash to shake his hand and pat him on the back.
And I've always looked at this.
How funny, all these Democrats running.
Nancy Pelosi looked like she was stalking the guy last week during the State of the Union.
Really looked like she was, you know, looked like Chuck Schumer just getting anybody out of the way, running right through him or trying to.
Well, the fight for aisle seats before the State of the Union address the other night was more exciting than the speech itself, according to the Post.
Representatives Jesse Jackson Jr. and Cynthia McKinney got to the floor early and staked out seats reserved for senators, Democrat senators.
Since none of these Democrats over there in the Senate filibustered Alito, why can't we have these seats, Jesse Jackson said?
We're going to take these Democrat seats because they're gutless.
They didn't have the gust of filibuster Alito.
That makes sense to me, he said.
Then Cynthia McKinney, who is never, never on the right side of Sane, according to roll call columnist Marianne Akers, McKinney said Jackson went back to his office, leaving McKinney to protect the seats until showtime.
Three hours after Jackson got back to his office, though, his cell phone rang.
It was a frantic Cynthia McKinney saying that the sergeant-at-arms staffers were kicking her out of the seats that she was saving for herself and Jesse Jackson Jr.
So Jesse left his office, ran back to the floor of the House and argued for a few tense moments.
But Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid prevailed, and McKinney and Jackson Jr. had to give up the seats that were assigned to Democrat senators.
Jesse Jackson Jr. told Roll Call that he needed his face on TV to, quote, show our constituents our proximity to the president.
They need to know that their members of Congress have access to the president, unquote.
Now, what's your first thought when you hear this?
What is your first?
My first thought is this.
If you want to anger your supporters in the Democratic Party, get close to the president, give him a hug, shake his hand, and they're going to put a hit contract on you.
These blogosphere Kooksville nuts, any Democrat who shows even the slightest bit of civility to President Bush ends up on the enemy's list, hated and despised, and is targeted for defeat.
So for Jesse Jackson Jr. and Cynthia McKinney to say, well, we got to show our constituents we have access to the president.
Why?
That's only going to hurt you with your supporters.
It's only going to hurt you with your fundraising.
These people are not going to be happy to see you powling around and sucking up to the president of the United States.
My second thought is this.
And I'm sorry, I've been taught this by you liberals.
Okay, you have Jesse Jackson Jr., who is African American.
You have Cynthia McKinney, who is African-American.
And they're as African Americans, as you know, they're minorities and victims.
And one of them is nuts.
I mean, you don't want to make her mad.
And all they want to do is watch the State of the Union speech close up, and all they want to do is sit in the aisle.
They want to be in the front row.
They're tired of sitting at the back of the House chamber.
They're tired of sitting at the back of the bus.
They want to be on the inside.
As Marion Berry, the former mayor of Washington, said in the 1984 San Francisco convention and making his speech, tonight, tonight, we're on the inside.
And David Brinkley said, That is Maya Mayor in one of the funniest sarcastic tones I can ever remember hearing.
Anyway, so here you have these two African Americans, both children of the South.
Roots to slavery, roots to discrimination.
We all know how bad it's been.
All they want is to sit in the front row so that their constituents, also with the same profile, same background, could see that they are in the front row, that they are on the inside, that they have access to the president.
And here came the plantation owner, Dingy Harry, a white guy from Las Vegas.
And he says to these two equivalents of the modern-day equivalents of Rosa Parks, no, you got to go back to your regular seats.
So my second thought was that Dingy Harry Reed is running a plantation in the U.S. Senate.
Okay, back we are.
I just was checking the ESPN website and I just found this.
And I wondered about this yesterday.
You know, at halftime, no, pregame, before the game.
You didn't see this, Snerdly, because you're watching episodes of 24.
But they introduced all of the MVPs.
Oh, you saw that from the previous Super.
Right before all the previous.
I thought this is 40th anniversary of Super Bowl XL.
I'll bring all these people out.
But there were two people, well, three, Jake Scott from the Dolphins there, but the two prominent names.
I kept waiting for them to be introduced, and they weren't.
Terry Bradshaw of the Steelers, who was MVP of two Super Bowls, in Montana, Joe Montana of the Fortiners, who was an MVP for he's the only three-time Super Bowl MVP.
So there's this story out today that these two guys didn't show up because they weren't paid enough money.
They're both denying it.
This is San Francisco Chronicle.
I think it's San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the players that showed up were given $1,000 in incremental money, expense money.
And that Bradshaw said, no, I got family in town.
I got to go get home for family.
Montana said, no, my son's playing a basketball game.
I've got to watch.
But the Chronicle sticking to its story that Montana wanted $100,000 and he didn't get $100,000.
He said, I'm splitting.
I'm not staying.
He was during the week, I think, for some stuff, as was Bradshaw.
But the Chronicle's sticking with its story that both guys actually didn't stay because they didn't get enough appearance money.
Now, this is not a football comment.
This is a marketing coming.
Here you have the largest televised event of the year.
You are going to be brought back to life as a former Super Bowl MVP, or as an MVP.
You, as a retired athlete, probably make most of your money doing appearances and marketing yourself and commercial endorsements and this sort of thing.
Here's a way to get you more FaceTime to not show up at this thing over money.
How much is it going to cost these guys down the road, perhaps, if this is true and if this builds up?
That of all these, I mean, you had, there was Bart Starr out there.
Joe Namath was even limping out there.
You know how many these guys were having trouble walking?
You know, but they were all there except for Montana and Bradshaw.
And if it's true that there wasn't enough money to pay them, they've just shot themselves in the foot in ways that they can't even imagine.
Pass up a marketing opportunity like that, given that's how they probably make most of their income.
Well, Bradshaw's on television.
I don't know.
Lynn in Columbus, Ohio.
Glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I am scared and I am angry over all this wiretapped so-called discussion because I'm looking at a job in New York City and I am afraid that these Democrats and their allies like Spectre are going to allow a terrorist attack to occur.
And my daughter's going to grow up without a mother because someone's civil rights were protected.
I mean, people who don't even deserve any civil rights.
They're playing politics with the lives of the American people and it's got to stop.
I don't know what it cannot be more clear that there are people out there who want to kill us.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
Well, it isn't difficult to understand.
That's the thing.
You're dead on accurate and right.
I think it's that frustration that's so obvious to you and everybody else.
But I think to understand this, and it's difficult, but to understand this, let me go through a series of things.
Number one, they're not going to succeed.
There will be the president has no, there's no danger they're going to succeed in this.
I don't think they even think they are going to succeed.
They're not trying to succeed.
They are campaigning.
It's 2006.
It's an election year.
And this is what they think enough people want to hear to elect Democrats to power.
I know it makes no sense, but there's no other reason for them to say it.
Well, it's disgusting.
And I trust our president.
I trust him to keep us safe, but I do not trust my Congress at all.
At all.
Well, and that's why Congress is not entrusted with constitutional power in this type of thing.
That's why, you know, go back and read the Federalist Papers on this, and you will find the phrase energy in the executive, particularly when it comes to commander-in-chief duty.
The Federalist Papers were the think pieces, the thought pieces that preceded the U.S. Constitution.
And they clearly understood that investing commander-in-chief powers by committee to whatever number of senators and members of the House there are combined would be a disaster.
They worried about the president becoming a king, so they put some limits on it by letting Congress determine how much money is spent on war, all of the minutiae, the assigning of medals and this sort of thing.
But in terms of conducting a war itself, that power is fully vested in the president.
Lynn, another thing, I know it enrages you, but understand this.
This is something that the president delights in seeing because the Democrats are making it plain as day to everybody, not just you, exactly what you think.
That's how they're coming across.
It can't possibly, it can't possibly help them.
The president has referred numerous times in speeches to those who are, he uses the word defeatism.
I use the word invested in defeatism.
The president is convinced that those who amplify and shout just how invested in defeat and defeatism they are can't possibly win.
And the Democrats are so predictable.
You know, when they first started demanding hearings on this, the president was the first to agree.
Really, can we start them tomorrow?
He said.
Let's have them tomorrow.
Let's put you on display.
So while it's enraging, and while it is scary, understand that from a political standpoint, it's very helpful.
I mean, when you've got Pat Leahy and these Democrats essentially trying to secure a Bill of Rights for terrorists, for al-Qaeda, it's magic within the political realm.
It's also very instructive.
I've been saying, Democrats, come out, tell us who you are.
And they're doing that.
And that's also helpful as well.
And it's their rage and anger that's largely making them fall prey to their own tricks.
We'll be back.
We'll continue.
Stay with us.
Time is flying here, and these are the fastest three hours in media, no question.
And it won't be long.
And the third hour will commence.
Can't wait.
▲
Export Selection