Rush Limbaugh Program - February 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:46

February 21, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	Before we get going here, I need to ask, does anybody in there know what an iron is?
	I have no clue what an iron is.
	High school senior discovers ironing deactivates anthrax.
	Protecting yourself from biological weapons might be as simple as using an iron.
	What's an iron?
	Oh, that, that, that, that.
	Okay, I know what that is.
	All right.
	I just haven't used, I haven't used one in about 40 years.
	Okay, greetings, folks, and welcome.
	The Rush Limbaugh program raring and ready to go.
	Here we are, top of the mountain, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the telephone number.
	If you want to be on the program today, it's 800-282-2882.
	The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
	We're going to start out here with this port snort.
	I nailed it.
	I nailed it on Friday, and I double-nailed it yesterday, but now the story has swerved.
	And I'll tell you what, there's a little bit of me that is concerned about what is happening in all this.
	Because no longer is the story about the ports and the United Arab Emirates.
	I mean, it still is about that, but it's swerved and gone in a different direction.
	What we have now is an illustration of how tsunamis get started and how we can't stop them.
	It doesn't help.
	Hang on a minute, folks.
	I got to adjust the pinpoint volume control on my 48-bar graphic equalizer here.
	I swear, Brian, I move this thing a tenth of an inch and it'll change the volume 100%.
	Oops.
	And I'm convinced that this cleaning crew comes in here dusting this stuff at night and doesn't it does it does a big well, I'm not moving it.
	Why would I move it when it's perfect?
	It takes too long to get it set.
	Testing one two, three test test test.
	Testing, all right, this is getting frustrated.
	Test one, two test test test, I did.
	Did it really be easier if I had Parkinson's disease?
	You know I could, I could, I could adjust it that way.
	It's so sensitive.
	I've never seen it volume control so sensitive.
	Okay, you're gonna work on it.
	Yes, I've heard this, been mentioning this problem for months now.
	At any rate, what we we have here is a tsunami.
	We've got a tsunami of of of uh, of of coverage on this port deal.
	That, that is, is disabling any reasonable debate about this.
	Uh, and I know it doesn't help, this idiot Jimmy Carter has just I mean, if Bush really wanted this, Jimmy Carter's just screwed it.
	Jimmy Carter just blown this deal sky high by coming out and endorsing it.
	This, this guy is the big.
	We have some Carter soundbites from CNN yesterday.
	He just he, just.
	I'm going to tell you what happened to Jimmy Carter.
	Everybody wanted, everybody wants to know what happened to Jimmy Carter and it's real simple, it's the Nixon funeral folks.
	I will never forget this.
	Speaker after speaker we got all the living presidents in the audience and speaker after speaker is eulogizing, Eulogizing Richard Nixon, and they are saying the greatest things about Nixon that have ever been said in Nixon's, that were ever said in Nixon's life.
	Had Henry Kissinger up there, you had Billy Graham up there, even Clinton went up there, and they were all praising Nixon, and they really focused on his foreign policy achievements.
	And I'm sure that what was Jimmy Carter doing that?
	He was pounding nails at the Habitat for Humanity.
	And I just know that he had to be sitting there livid, listening.
	And Roselyn was probably even more livid than Jimmy was.
	And I can just imagine, all during these eulogies, Rosalind Carter starts jabbing Jimmy in the ribs and says, see, see, what are you doing?
	You're out there pounding nails.
	What are they going to say about you when you die?
	You better get yourself in gear here.
	And ever since then, Jimmy Carter, I'm not kidding you, folks.
	He's been a different guy.
	He's been out doing nothing but traveling the world, monitoring elections, opposing his own country, winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
	Now he comes out in favor of the United Arab Emirates operating these six ports, and that's going to seal the deal as much as anything else out there will.
	And I know the deal is, I know this is not going to happen.
	But I do want to discuss a couple things with you about this because the tsunami that's taken place here, based on the politics of this, quite understandable, but you can't stop a tsunami.
	Once a tsunami, you can't stop it.
	All you can do is run away from it.
	Well, that's all you can do.
	Or maybe you can hang around and hope that you survive it, but you can't stop it.
	And we are in a full-fledged tsunami right now.
	We have an enemy.
	And the enemy is Islamo-fascism.
	Some might call it militant Islam.
	And the United Arab Emirates are said to be one of the breeding grounds.
	However, recently, the United Arab Emirates have become a partner of ours, quote unquote.
	Just hear me out on this in the war on terror.
	Now, I have read the book The Art of War by Sun Tzu.
	Have you read that book, Brian?
	I didn't think so.
	You know what the theory in reading Sun Tzu in defeating this enemy was that you can't defeat them totally with military means alone.
	And one of Sun Tzu's theories is the best way to beat your enemy is to make your enemy your friend.
	Now, we have spent, I don't know how many years and gazillions of dollars trying to export capitalism to China, export capitalism to Russia.
	The Cold War, the Cold War took 70 years to win, folks.
	So we're expecting overnight success in this thing.
	And we have pretty much the same scenario and circumstances that we have with the war on terror as we had with the Cold War.
	You've got, in fact, a Yale historian, John Lewis Gaddis, has a book about this that pretty much, in fact, he's upset a lot of his colleagues because he's credited Reagan in this book for solving the Cold War.
	It wasn't FDR.
	It wasn't the Democrats.
	It was Reagan.
	And he said Reagan and a couple other people were the only people in the world who believe an SDI would work, but the Russians were one of the other people who thought it would because they were in awe of our technological capability and our rapid advancement.
	And they knew they couldn't keep up.
	Once Reagan started spending on it, it was over.
	And that's what Lady Thatcher has said.
	Lady Thatcher's told me that personally, and I've heard her say that in speeches and in lectures.
	Now, it took 70 years because we practiced appeasement.
	We took 70 years because we practiced mutual assured destruction and so forth.
	When we confronted them and when we pitted ourselves against them, there was no contest.
	Freedom will always win when posed against tyranny.
	And it will be the case in this circumstance, too.
	But all during the Cold War, one of the things that we did was successfully export elements of capitalism.
	Blue jeans were a huge thing to Moscovites and to Russian citizens.
	The TV show Dallas, once our perverted prime-time soap operas found their way behind the iron curtain, there was no way for those people to continue to believe the lie that they were living the best lives in the world.
	Now, the Islamo fascists want to do everything they can to keep our culture out of where they are, A, because they don't like it, B, they'd like to live in the 12th or 13th century.
	The other thing is it's a threat.
	Like it always is, it will show the oppressed how much better life can be.
	And this takes time, but you plant those seeds and they grow.
	Okay, so if you look at the art of war and Sun Tzu, and the best way to beat your enemy is to make him your friend.
	All right, so we bring the United Arab Emirates here and they invest into our country and into our economic system.
	The theory behind Sun Tzu is that this will moderate them and so forth.
	Now, I'm not suggesting this would happen.
	I'm just suggesting it's not even possible.
	See, I did this as an experiment.
	Schnerdley is already shaking his head.
	No way, not possible, because the tsunami has swept him.
	It's simply impossible to debate the issue.
	There are legitimate, really good economic reasons to do this deal, as I said yesterday.
	But they are going to be overshadowed by the politics.
	Now you've got Pataki and Ehrlich, two Republican governors, out there saying, we're going to stop this.
	I don't care how.
	And so it's, you know, it's moot.
	I just think that it's an opportunity to debate things in a pure economic sense.
	And also, let me just ask you, Mr. Sterling, do you think that we're actually going to defeat the Islamofascists militarily alone?
	Do you think that?
	Do you think, well, I don't.
	I don't think it's possible to do that because when are you going to define victory?
	There are always going to be some of these renegades popping up trying to get a bomb or shooting somebody or whatever.
	I mean, I can see considerable progress militarily, and I'm saying you can't do it without military action as we're engaging in.
	But at some point, there's going to be something else required of that.
	Not saying the UAE port deal is it.
	Please don't misunderstand me here.
	You know, it's just this simple.
	I've heard some people say one of the smartest things we could do is get them involved with us economically and make them dependent on us economically more and more.
	And that will lessen their support for the governments that we're dealing with here, lessen their support for these renegade mosques and imams and terrorists.
	Now, there's one argument, a glaring argument against that.
	We have gotten them so involved in our economy with their own oil, and it has not stopped them from funding these organizations.
	However, have you noticed the panic that has the mild panic that set in when Bush has started talking about our addiction to oil and how he says we got to get rid of this dependence on foreign oil?
	He's out in Colorado today at the Renewable Energy Laboratory.
	He's now big into hybrids.
	It's so hard to say that, my own president big into hybrids.
	I could say, Mr. President, when you stop flying on Air Force One and start traveling in one, then I'll take you seriously.
	But I will refrain from saying that.
	But nevertheless, the OPEC crowd, when Bush did that, they raised their hands, say, wait a minute, you are not going to succeed at this.
	There's no question they need us.
	But because we're in this sense of dependence and need on their oil for their oil, we don't talk as tough with these people as we did, say, with the Soviets and this sort of thing.
	Anyway, I just wanted to throw this out there as something to think about.
	I'm not trying to persuade you at all.
	I'm just a little think piece.
	It's irrelevant anyway because the tsunami has overtaken this and the UAE will not be part of the port deal.
	I suggested yesterday that the compromise here would be Halliburton.
	And lo and behold, a limbo echo syndrome erupted.
	John Gibson on Fox asked that very question to Chuck Schumer.
	I'll let you hear the audio answer.
	We come back right after this.
	Ah, yes, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
	I love provoking thought out there, and I love provoking knee-jerk reactions, too.
	And I'm sure that many of you are having knee-jerk reactions.
	And many of you are wondering if I've lost my mind because you have not really listened to what I've said.
	You are hearing that I am not just ripping this deal like everybody else is.
	You're wondering if, oh, wait a minute, there's a rush.
	Sort of like the backlash I got when NAFTA was going on out there.
	But it is a free trade issue economically, and that's why economically it makes all the sense in the world.
	But I'm not going to belabor that.
	I do want to give you the details here.
	I mentioned the book on this distinguished historian from Yale, John Lewis Gaddis.
	He's got a new book on the Cold War.
	And it's got to exasperate the left because he doesn't credit all the presidents for the collapse of the USSR, and he doesn't credit Gorbachev all that much.
	He credits Reagan, as I say, for this a Yale historian, for confronting and spending beyond the Soviets' ability to keep up.
	And he also says, as I said to you, every scientist in the world knew that SDI wouldn't work.
	The only people who believed it would work were Reagan and the Soviets.
	And that's his theory.
	When asked, well, didn't the Soviet scientists warn their leaders that, hey, it's just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and talk, it won't work?
	He said, yeah, but the scientists in the Soviet Union were ignored because their leaders were so in awe of U.S. technological capabilities.
	In other words, they thought we could do it.
	They had seen us do too much.
	You put a free society up against a tyrannical dictatorship any day of the week.
	I don't care if it's one superpower versus the next.
	And eventually the free society is going to run rings around them.
	And then he was asked, Mr. Gaddis was, if the war on terrorism was at all similar to the Cold War.
	And he said, there's no question about it.
	The similarities are profound.
	He said, I might disagree with the plan of the execution of the war on terror, but the overriding idealism to spread freedom around the world and to rescue people from tyranny is exactly what the Cold War was about, because that's how you protect yourself, is you disarm people who want to imprison others.
	And that's the same thing that we're doing here.
	Now, P. est, the Cold War took 70 years because about 65 of those years or 60 of those years were fought under the apologies of appeasement and the mistaken notion that we couldn't do anything about the Soviets, that all we had to do was find a way to live peacefully with them, peacefully coexist.
	That governed our belief system for 60 years until Ronaldus Magnus assumed office in 1981.
	And then it was a few short years after that, and Sayonara, the Soviet Union.
	So I can't wait till Bill Schneider at CNN reads this book or hears an interview because Schneider, I can imagine the poll question he'll put together.
	Would you rather be in a Cold War or not?
	Is the Cold War the right direction for the country?
	As though it's our choice.
	He'd have a field day with that.
	Speaking of Jimmy Carter, do you see what his son Jack said?
	Jack Carter, 58 years old, the eldest son of former U.S. President Jimma Carter, has announced that he's going to seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate to represent Nevada.
	At his launch, launch party, whatever, Carter spoke with reporters revealing his schizophrenic stand on abortion.
	He was speaking with Kathleen Hennessy of the Associated Press, and he described his views on abortion, saying, I'm a personal freedoms person.
	I don't want the government to come in and tell my child or whoever it is that they can't have an abortion.
	I'm pro-choice as far as a woman choosing, but I'm against abortion.
	I am pro-choice as far as a woman choosing, but I am against abortion.
	Well, there is a totally worthless view.
	This is just his version of, I support the troops, but I don't support the war.
	Or I'm against slavery, but I oppose freeing the slaves.
	I'm for jobs, but I'm not for Walmart.
	I'm for open government, except when a Democrat's in office and I want to have the power to do what I want to do without anybody seeing me.
	I mean, these people are just, they are so, just total wimps.
	Come on, Jack, tell us what you really believe and stand for something and come out and lead on that basis.
	Jack, this is no, I want to make sure I don't offend the women.
	Here you go.
	Classic example of the castrati, the new castrati.
	Jack Carter has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up.
	He's three years older than I am.
	He was subject to the same pressures I was, plus probably even more.
	What with his dad being in there in the White House and so forth.
	Here's this soundbite with Chuck Schumer was on Fox News, the big show with John Gibson yesterday.
	And Gibson says, okay, okay, we can't have, and this huge, see, I told you so here, folks.
	Okay, we can't have the United Arab Emirates.
	Suppose it's Bechtel or Halliburton that says, well, we can operate that thing.
	Are you going to object to that, Senator Schumer?
	If they can do the best job and they get the contract on the merits?
	Absolutely not.
	So if it's going to be the UAE, you'd take Halliburton.
	If that's the case.
	And look, the bottom line is this.
	When the objections to Halliburton have been that there were no bid contracts and then they found that they made large amounts of profit.
	It wasn't Halliburton per se.
	It was why they get a no-bid contract.
	But I'd take Halliburton over UAE at this point.
	Yeah, if I had to take a choice, right?
	There'd be no complaint about Cheney.
	There would be no inside feeling about Cheney, former executives.
	It's the choice of those two.
	I pat him on the back.
	Oh, I don't believe that for a second.
	That promise, that pledge would last for about 30 seconds, and then they'd be wondering how Halliburton got the contract.
	And then they'd be saying this whole thing was a setup in the first place to give it to Halliburton because Bush and Rove have to know that the country's not going to approve of a bunch of Arabs coming in opening ports and running our port operations.
	See, it's never going to happen.
	And so it's got to go to one of Bush's big donor cronies.
	And who better than Halliburton?
	Another trick.
	This is what they would be saying.
	That's what they will say.
	And they would get on Cheney.
	They never were concerned about the no-bid contracts because Halliburton's the only company that does what they do.
	It was all about connections and Cheney, and it was just another avenue and vehicle to rip this administration and so forth.
	And it would happen again all over.
	I know.
	Thank you, and welcome back.
	Here we are, Rush Limbaugh, America's anchorman, America's Truth Detector, and the Doctor of Democracy, all combined.
	There's one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
	And let's go to the phones.
	We'll start in Jacksonville, Florida.
	This is Rob.
	You're up, sir.
	Your turn.
	Kudos, Rush.
	Hey, I listened to your monologue about trying to equate the USSR and the Al-Qaeda problem as having the same solution.
	just have to disagree with that so one of the things i wanted to i want to applaud you i actually I want to applaud you before you get into it, because what you're doing takes guts.
	Thank you.
	What you're disagreeing with me takes guts.
	You've seen many people try this and bomb out, fail miserably, and yet here you are going to try.
	And I applaud you.
	Go for it.
	Thank you.
	The USSR is a government, and that is basically a system on how the people will conduct themselves.
	No, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	The USSR was a system where the people had no choice in how to conduct themselves.
	Exactly.
	That is correct.
	Still, that was a formalized government.
	Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization with a belief system based on the system.
	It's an ideology masking as a religion.
	True.
	That is correct.
	That's right.
	Where we have educated several people in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe in general, and these people have lived in our culture.
	They go back to the Middle East.
	They reject our culture.
	They become still involved with al-Qaeda.
	The simple point, we had 19 hijackers that came over here, educated themselves on how to fly our planes into our buildings.
	They were amongst us.
	We did not know these people.
	They were kind of like sleeper cells.
	We knew who the Russians were.
	When the Russians sent their athletes over here after wearing our blue shoes.
	Wait, wait, wait, hold it a second.
	You're missing my point here.
	We did know who they are.
	I don't want to go.
	We're rehashing history.
	We did know who they were.
	It's called Able Danger.
	It's called the CIA.
	We knew who these were.
	We knew who these people were the afternoon of 9-11.
	We had their pictures up on television.
	We knew who they were.
	If not then the next day.
	We knew who they were.
	And we knew what they were doing.
	We didn't connect the dots.
	But that's old news.
	That's history.
	I understand the differences.
	The Soviet Union is a state and Al-Qaeda isn't.
	And to prove that, Al-Qaeda doesn't have a team in the Olympics.
	And that's what the Olympics is missing, by the way.
	If Al-Qaeda had a team, I would be watching.
	See, when the USSR and the Soviet Union had a team, it was blood sports.
	It was us good guys versus evil, white hats versus black hats.
	Where's Al-Qaeda?
	The fact that Al-Qaeda doesn't have a team proves they're not a state.
	They are an ideology.
	They are a fascist movement masquerading and hiding under a religious movement.
	And that gets them all kinds of freedom and judgments that are favorable to them and so forth.
	I understand all that.
	Just the point I'm making here is that I'm not talking about the port deal as having an eventual effect on al-Qaeda individuals.
	But al-Qaeda does get support from governments.
	And the more those governments could be made our friends and become interdependent with us or interlinked economically, the less likely, theoretically, would be their desire to do anything to upset the success of their trading partner, the United States, and so forth.
	This is a theoretical discussion.
	I am fully aware of the differences between the Soviet Union and Al-Qaeda, but we're not talking about al-Qaeda buying the ports unless that's what you think is going to happen.
	If you think this is actually al-Qaeda buying and running the ports, then I agree.
	There's no way.
	There's no way anyway, folks.
	I told Mr. Snerdley during the break, I ought to come out for the deal.
	I ought to come out for it, just like I came out for NAFTA, just like I opposed Perot.
	I'm going to tell you, there's part of me that if you throw all this, this tsunami at it, there's part of this that fascinates me.
	There's a real part of this that fascinates me.
	And the idea that we have tried this technique in defanging enemies down there.
	I understand the cultural differences.
	I understand that a lot of these people are growing and being raised on hatred, and they return to these cultures and so forth.
	I'm not talking about affecting those people.
	I'm talking about affecting the governments that sponsor them and pay for them, even though they're not tied to a single state.
	Al-Qaeda is not a state.
	If it weren't for money from the Saudis, some of these wackos around there that fund them through these phony bogus charities and so forth, you know, but even if that stops, they're going to steal the money somewhere.
	They'll find a way.
	They're thugs.
	They're criminals.
	Fascists.
	I appreciate the call.
	John in Boston, your next sir.
	Nice to have you on the program with us.
	Good afternoon, Rush.
	Maybe I'm reading too much into the whole port security issue, but for me, this is as dangerous as when Bill Clinton let his friends sell the missile technology to China.
	I mean, the difference here being that we didn't find out about what Clinton did until it was too late.
	But now we actually have a chance to stop this.
	And the reason I think it's so dangerous is that the UAE has links to terrorism, has links to some of the 9-11 terrorists they were apparently laundering money for Al-Qaeda through there.
	And I'm sorry.
	I heard all that.
	Well, okay, I understand that, but I just, I don't, to me, it doesn't make any sense.
	It makes as little sense as letting the Saudis run airport security.
	Wait a second.
	A, they're not the Saudis.
	And, you know, I'll tell you, there's a part of this, like I said yesterday, really fascinates me about the Democrats.
	This, in one sense, you know, the White House has to know this deal is going to fly, so they set it up anyway.
	And look what's happening.
	All of a sudden, the Democrats are acknowledging we have an enemy.
	The Democrats.
	I mean, I would expect that the Democrats have been flushed on this like I haven't seen.
	I haven't seen them get flushed on anything.
	They're going to support this.
	If they're trying to put Bush and Cheney in jail, essentially, if they're trying to impeach them for domestic spying and for torture for all these horrible things we're doing in conducting the war on terror, if we don't have really a war on terror, we're the ones manufacturing the terrorists.
	I mean, that's what the Democrat Party line has been.
	We are creating the terrorists by going to Iraq and fighting the war on terror.
	They're the ones that wrote books and had seminars two weeks after 9-11.
	Why do they hate us?
	Why do they hate us?
	And the Democrats have concluded they hate us because of Bush.
	Bush is a terrorist.
	Bush is a torturer.
	Rumsfeld stinks.
	Rice stinks.
	All these people have got to go.
	We got rid of Ashcroft.
	We got to get rid of Gonzalez and so forth.
	And now all of a sudden, here comes the UAE port deal.
	Bam, Democrats are on board with the whole idea that those people are our enemies and represent a security threat.
	This is the first time in four years that I can recall a Democrat seriously being concerned about this group of people.
	And this is racism.
	This is racism.
	We are concluding that all Arabs are terrorists.
	We are concluding that every damn one of them, be they a sheik, an emir, an imam, they're all terrorists.
	They all have ties to terrorists, and they all seek our utter total destruction.
	And we can't risk an exception to that.
	They're all that way.
	And welcome to racism, Democrats, because the Democrats are leading the show on this just as well as a lot of conservatives are.
	So Democrats are illustrating their racism, their xenophobia, and they're also demonstrating that they fully exist, fully acknowledge we have an enemy.
	Well, this is a tenuous position for them to take because their Kook base doesn't believe any of this.
	So, there's just a whole lot going on here.
	Now, as to the SHICOMs, I'm sorry, the North Korea.
	Well, be the one, Clinton and North Korea and Clinton and the SHICOMs.
	In the case of the SHICOMs, here's what the caller was talking about: this little Clinton administration history for you.
	There's a company called Laural Space out there, and it's headed up, I forget his name, but a huge, big-time Clinton donor.
	The kind of guy that would get a puff piece as a donor in the Washington Post, as a bunch of Hillary donors got yesterday.
	All right, so this guy is involved in space technology.
	His company, Laura, is.
	Now, before the questionable deal came along, the State Department dealt with the process of granting waivers to U.S. companies to help companies or foreign governments that were not totally friendly with us.
	The Clinton people came in and took that away from the State Department.
	Why?
	Well, I know why, but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
	They controlled that too.
	They gave it to commerce.
	They switched that to the Commerce Department, where good old Ron Brown was installed as the secretary.
	And Bamo, the Chinese, the CHICOMs, could not put a missile in orbit.
	They could launch it, but they couldn't figure out how to get it to orbit.
	It go up there and come down.
	Well, guess who fixed it?
	Laurel Space.
	Laurel Space sent some people over there after one of these crashes of a rocket that failed to secure orbit, examined the wreckage, and taught them about gyros and whatever is necessary.
	And now it is said that the Chikoms can actually put an intercontinental ballistic missile of some significant range that might hit close to the U.S. left coast if they launched at us.
	And we have the North Koreans, and there we have our old buddy Jimmy Carter involved with Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton again.
	We thought we're helping them feed their population by giving them the means to build nuclear power plants.
	And lo and behold, they're a nuclear weapons manufacturer now.
	Leave the North Koreans out for a moment.
	The difference between the United Arab Emirates owning or operating six of our container port areas versus the CHICOMs getting their technology to get missiles to go where they want them to go from an American company is that the United Arab Emirates already own almost all of the ports where the containers that are shipped to this country are loaded.
	They own, I think, Hong Kong.
	There's a whole bunch of other places that they already operate.
	What's that?
	Yeah, China.
	They're in China and then they're in Hong Kong.
	But I don't, ownership is maybe too strong, but they certainly, well, they own it, but operate it.
	It still happens locally.
	So it's not as though we're allowing them into an area of commerce where they aren't yet already involved.
	They're already involved.
	And the company that currently owns this, or have sold it actually, was British.
	We didn't own the port operations.
	Now, Britain, a greater ally than any Arab company.
	But I mean, you can make these analogies, and I understand that.
	You can say, oh, this is as bad as a deal as helping the SHICOMs keep their missiles in the air, and it's as bad a deal as North Korea and so forth.
	I totally understand.
	I totally understand all that.
	And I'm not arguing with you.
	I'm just saying there's some other aspects to this that are not even being discussed because the tsunami has swept this whole thing along to the point that there's only one aspect to it that anybody wants to talk about except me.
	And I'm just because I'm just fascinated by the other elements of this and where it could lead.
	I'm fascinated by the politics of it too.
	I say the Democrats having to come out and admit that we have an enemy here.
	It's just, I mean, they may not recover from this.
	Their whole foreign policy is based on the fact that none of what we're doing here is necessary.
	If the Democrats were consistent, this is a great example of how they are not telling us who they really are.
	If they were being consistent with everything they have said about the war in Iraq and the war on terror, Abu Ghrab, Club Guitmo, all the torture, the secret prisons, the Democrats ought to be cheerleading this deal.
	We don't have an enemy.
	We don't have this big war.
	We have created all these terrorists.
	We need to welcome them into our society and culture and show them we mean no harm.
	If they were consistent, they would be leading this charge for this deal to be done.
	The fact that they're not means that the last four years, everything they've said about the war on terror and Bush's Hitler and so forth, we now, if we've always known it, we have evidence.
	An abject lie and nothing more than a strategical political position in order to secure funding from these wacko lunatics in Cooksville that run these Democrat websites.
	Got it?
	Back in just a second.
	Well, Senator Frist has joined the Cascade, has joined the tsunami, calling for an end to this deal.
	Let me show you.
	I'm thinking on all levels about this, folks.
	Let me pose some other questions to you that I also have that I know you are asking yourself.
	One of the biggest questions I have is: why is this port management and Operation Transfer not viewed as a political and national security hot potato in the Bush administration?
	You know, people are saying that this is just another Harriet Myers moment.
	I also am curious and have been for a long time why all the evidence of weapons of mass destruction being transferred out of Iraq is not of more interest to the Bush administration either.
	That puzzles me.
	We've got these tapes out there.
	We know that the weapons were there.
	This administration seems not interested at all in finding them and dealing with that on a political level as well.
	They know that they've set themselves up as a political football when there were no weapons to be found when we invaded Iraq.
	And yet common sense has to say that they understand they were there, these intelligence agencies around the world, for all of them to have been as wrong as they were is simply hard to believe.
	And another, why are security issues related to immigration, border security, why doesn't this administration view those issues seriously or seem to?
	So I can ask three questions about it.
	Why are they tone-deaf on this port deal?
	Who was where thinking that this was not going to be the reaction to it?
	Now, I would, I'm sure, I mean, I've had emails from people.
	What's wrong with President Bush, right?
	I don't understand this.
	And I know you've been asking yourself the same series of questions about immigration and about weapons of mass destruction.
	And now this.
	So those are equally as puzzling to me as some other aspects of this are.
	Here's Rob in Clarkston, Michigan.
	Rob, welcome to the program.
	Great to have you with us.
	Well, thanks, Rush.
	Good to talk with you.
	Listen, you're right on this.
	We need friends over there.
	Right now, most people consider Israel to be our only friend in the Middle East, but we could certainly use more strategic allies, and that's what they'd be.
	What a great place for a base, for a shipping base, Dubai and the United Air River.
	It's right in the middle of the whole shooting match.
	It's like just a great opportunity for us.
	We need to make friends with moderates and people that are interested in commerce.
	I think in one sense, the answer to my first question, why is this port deal not raising red flags to the Bush administration, I think, obviously, they've studied this.
	There's an independent commission that these kinds of deals, anytime a foreign nation is going to buy part of America, it has to be reviewed by some independent group.
	The independent group looked at it and passed it and said, on balance, this is a good deal.
	And they were talking about economically.
	And they're missing the politics of this.
	But you still have to wonder why it is that that aspect of this was missed.
	I think the Bush administration, in answer to your question, might actually think that UAE is now an ally.
	They are being reported as an ally in the war on terror.
	That's what we're being told, that this sheikh Mokhtar Muktaki, whatever his name is, has done a 180 and the economic link that we now have with this country, they're our buddies.
	They're our allies.
	That's what they're telling us.
	That's how Bush would answer the question.
	We're making inroads in the war on terror, and this is one of them, he would say.
	Here's another question for you.
	Do you think George W. Bush is stupid?
	Do you think George W. Bush really looked at this deal and would really make a deal to turn over six container ports essentially to terrorist leaders?
	Oh, the White House put out that he didn't know anything.
	All right, fine.
	I got to take a break.
	It's a good thing that I have a hard break here, too.
	We'll be back in just a second.
	You're a guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, and even the good times.
	We've got Supreme Court news, and not just the fact that they're going to hear the case on late-term abortion, but other exciting news brought to us by the antique legacy media.

▲