All Episodes
Previous Next
March 14, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:19
March 14, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm getting overrun here in the emails from some of you people out there wondering how I can continue to defend Wolf Blitzer even after playing this montage.
Greetings, welcome back.
I try to explain this.
Rush Limbaugh, Cutting Edge, Societal Evolution, America's Ackerman, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
I really am.
I'm getting, I mean, even from a couple of friends.
How can you do this?
After listening to that, how can you, he wasn't attacking me.
I know he's a.
I don't know how I'm going to explain this.
I mean, Wolf is, I don't know Wolf that well.
All I can tell you is that anytime I have had dealings with him, he's been supremely fair.
And when I've gotten hold of him when he was wrong about things, he's corrected it on the spot.
Wolf is just part of that culture, folks.
It's group think.
We talked about this yesterday.
They all think alike.
They all report the same things.
It's why I've always said, if you miss NBC, watch CBS.
You miss that, watch ABC.
If you miss that, watch CNN.
If you miss that, watch MSNBC.
If you miss that, read the New York Times.
If you miss that, read the Washington Post.
If you miss that, read the LA Times.
Miss that, read USA Today.
It doesn't matter wherever you go.
I always say if you miss me, you've missed it.
But you don't miss it.
You can watch it.
It's all going to be the same thing.
There's a group thinking and mindset.
Some of them have agendas, and some of them are doing it for a purpose, and others are just tagging along because they genuinely think this is the news of the day.
The president's descending poll number is the lead-breaking story.
But I don't have any personal animus toward Wolf Blitzer.
And I just, you know, I'm not defending him.
I'm just pointing out that this was not an attack on him.
It was an illustration of how his industry works.
And he is a practicing member of it.
And I just wanted to illustrate it.
It's nothing more common or complicated than that.
Now, now I forgot what else I was going to say.
I had something else I wanted to say in this monologue.
Oh, I don't know that.
Let's go to the sound bites.
I do have this story I want to do.
Benish is back in class, that skinhead teacher out there in Aurora, Colorado, back in class.
You know what he said he's going to do?
He's going to have fewer discussions.
He's going to have fewer discussions, and he is now going to have more reading assignments and so forth.
I don't know.
I have no idea what his first reading assignment will be.
Communist Manifesto, My Life by Mao Tza Tung.
Who knows what it's going to be?
Some people might take this as his little attempt to take a swipe back at the student.
Student is responsible now for less discussion in class and more reading assignments and so forth.
Who knows?
Don't know if we'll hear any more about this, but we'll definitely report it to you if we learn of it.
All right, this is sort of funny.
This under the heading of Hillary for President, this is the Today Show today.
Katie Courick interviewing Senator Joe Biden.
And she said, finally, Senator, in closing, when you read about the 2008 presidential race and the Democrats and their likelihood of running, almost always it's about Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Do you believe that she's electable?
I think she is electable.
I think she can surprise a lot of people.
If so, then why are you running?
Because I'd be a better president.
I have much more experience.
The things that are facing this country right now are things I've spent my whole career dealing with.
And I believe that the American people are ready to take on some really tough challenges.
They are ready to deal with the energy crisis.
They want optimism.
Yeah, well, your party doesn't have any, and you don't have any.
What is he talking about?
Optimism?
The guy is nothing more than a doom and gloomer all day long, wherever he goes on television.
It's always what's wrong.
It's always how we're going to hell to handball.
We're losing Iraq.
He goes, we're losing.
We don't have a plan.
It's all going to hell in a handbasket.
Even if we get a shortage of handbaskets, it's still going to go to hell.
It doesn't matter.
He thinks he's optimist.
There isn't any optimism on the left.
In fact, anybody who comes out on the left is optimism is going to be silenced.
It doesn't play.
Optimism?
If you're optimistic, it means you're happy.
It means you've got a good, you're looking at the future.
The only way they can say they got optimism is we will win.
But they, he's silly.
But it gets even better.
It gets even better because last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews interviewed Punk, the former chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Terry McAuliffe.
And Matthews said, in a typically elongated, never-ending question, if the Republicans choose to fight on the cultural stuff, they're opposed to gay marriages or civil unions.
They're against abortion, except for the life of the mothers involved.
They're for lower taxes.
But immigration is another hot one.
How does a Democrat candidate for president respond to those issues?
I mean, you can't say you're for illegal immigration.
You can't say you're for gay marriage, can you?
I mean, can you say you're pro-choice, but isn't this a hard front to fight on for a Democrat?
Now, listen to the answer carefully.
In 2008, the framework we're going to be dealing with is a failed presidency, George Bush's presidency, from misleading us or whatever you want to call it to the war in Iraq, not sending enough troops, more terrorists in Iraq than we had before, making us less safe.
Now, the Democrats, for the first time since 9-11, lead on the issue of who will keep you safe.
Why?
Because George Bush has made so many mistakes, and our soldiers are paying the price today all over the world.
You've seen the American, our high esteem has now gone down because of George Bush.
Our soldiers are paying the price.
So first, national security, we win that.
All right.
He's not going to answer the question because they can't come out and say anything they're for, folks.
They simply cannot.
But did you hear what the punk said?
They're going to run against Bush in 08.
They're going to run against a failed presidency.
They're going to run against a guy who's not on the ballot.
They are obsessed.
They're unhinged.
They're delusional.
They are so, and this goes back to Florida 2000.
They just.
They just can't stand it.
They can't get over it.
They can't move forward.
And they got to take Bush out.
And they're going to say, we beat Bush in 08.
They're so absorbed and obsessed with beating Bush that even when he's not on the ballot and can't possibly win, they're going to claim they finally defeated him, all for their base.
But this question that was posed, you know, Democrats, Republicans are for lower taxes.
They're against abortion.
Can the Democrats come out?
This is one of the reasons they can't come out and say what they're for.
They simply can't.
And so they've got no choice but to run against somebody they think is incompetent and a bad president.
I'll tell you they're living under another illusion, and that is that our esteem, our so-called reputation around the world has been tarnished.
No more false statement could be made.
Our reputation is undamaged.
We have enemies that hate us.
You can send the media out to find liberals and leftists anywhere who are going to hate anybody with capitalism as their foundation system.
They hate freedom anywhere.
You can go find polls to prove that all over the place.
All you have to look, all you have to look at, study, just follow the money, folks.
Follow the money and follow humanity.
Find out where they're all trying to come.
If they get really sick, where do they come?
They come here to the best healthcare system in the world.
When they want to be really educated, where do they come?
They come here.
When they want to have economic prosperity and opportunity, where do they come?
They come here.
This is still the dream of the world.
And don't let these pessimist Democrats tell you otherwise.
They are the ones that think America's reputation is in the tank because they are no longer running the show.
They're just trying to manufacture things and make you feel bad.
The whole Democrat agenda is to make you feel as bad as you can, particularly about your country.
To what end, I can't possibly understand, but obviously it's how they want to feel.
And so they want to share their feelings.
They want you to be in pain.
They want you to be doomed and gloom all day long, and they want you to blame Bush for it.
They don't want you to be enjoying your life.
If you're enjoying your life, you've won life's lottery.
You're a cheater.
You've snookered somebody.
One more sound bite.
Matthew says, look, it's interesting.
Let me ask you about the issues that you think.
Do you think the campaign we're getting into is going to be about commander-in-chief and security?
National Security, first and foremost, we take the lead on that again.
Then all the other issues where voters support us, Chris, on the economy, healthcare, education.
Here you go.
Healthcare, education.
They never have been talking about health care and education.
They don't do anything about it.
It gets worse when they're in charge of it.
We take the lead on that again as though that's just perfunctory.
Oh, yeah, we take the lead on that again.
And then all the other issues where voter supporters fall into line.
Well, there's a major problem.
Nobody is going to believe that you can be trusted with national security, Mr. McAuliffe.
There is no evidence to suggest it.
Particularly at you, you guys have been so loud and so verbose in the past four years that people are not going to forget where you came from, what you were saying.
They're not going to forget people like Feingold.
They're not going to forget people like Dingy Harry and all of these attempts to destroy the Patriot Act and so forth.
You guys, it's the best thing happening that they have no clue how they're heard or seen.
A quick timeout.
The Rush Limbaugh program rolls on after this.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh emitting vocal vibrations coast to coast here on the EIB network.
Hey, okay, here, folks.
Mexico has discovered a huge new oil reserve that will increase its production capacity by nearly 50%.
This, according to President Vicente Fox, who made the announcement last night, he said he intends to discuss how he'll use his new oil bonanza when he meets with President Bush in two weeks.
We have excellent news we'll be announcing in a couple of weeks from now.
He said on TV last night, he described the find as a huge new reserve of oil and natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico that belongs to Mexicans.
I noted that in his upcoming meeting with Bush, energy is a key for our discussions.
Fox said his country's largest oil reserve is Cantarell, which is rapidly depleting.
This new reserve that we just have found will totally replace Cantarell with even more quantity than what we originally had with Cantarell.
The White House announced over the weekend that Bush and Fox and the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper will hold an economic and security summit in Cancun on March 30th and 31st.
All right.
So Vicente Fox out there exploring for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
Who knew who allowed this?
Mexico can go do this.
Mexico can go out and plunder the environment for the evil black gold and then proudly announce that he's got this big fine and stipulate, hey, and this is Mexico's.
This belongs to Mexicans.
This is a Mexican oil field.
And where are the wackos today out there asking how this happened and trying to stop any further action to bring the oil that Vicente Fox somehow found?
How do you think he found it?
What are they doing out there in the Gulf of Mexico?
Hell's bells.
This is this whole country, the Democratic Party, some Republicans, environmentalist wackos are stopping us from doing anything of the sort.
No, nobody is stopping Vicente Fox.
And I guess the reason, well, you know, Russ, Mexico is a poor country, and they need to have an opportunity to level the playing field.
Some such type of lingo from the new castrati.
The new castrati, or if you're just, if you've not heard that term, if it's a new term to you, the root word should give you a clue.
Castrat.
The new castrati are simply men who have been neutered by our feminist society here, and they just don't want to offend anybody when they talk and want to be sensitive and understood and so forth.
And they will probably defend Vicente Fox.
I'm serious.
How can this guy go out there and start trolling around for oil?
Nobody knows he's doing it, announces this big find, and there's no outcry.
No outcry whatsoever.
Well, I know we need oil from somewhere, but I've.
It's the Gulf of Mexico.
I mean, hell, it's our Gulf of Mexico.
It's where the Mexico borders.
It's not as though we found oil in some shakedom.
It's Mexico.
It's right down there.
It's just, it's south of us.
It's close.
An oil spill could destroy us.
It's going to kill us.
Environmental destruction.
You know, all kinds of pollution could result from wind currents coming up to the Gulf.
I'm not making this up.
I'm not even trying to be funny.
I think this is, I think, is quite illustrative of things.
New York Times.
The New York Times has published a phony Abu Grab story, ladies and gentlemen.
They have been caught publishing a phony front-page story about Abu Grab, an interview with a man who said he was the infamous hood prisoner.
This picture that's sort of become iconic of what happened at Abu Grab, and his guy looked like the scarecrow standing there on a wood platform with a hood and a robe on.
And apparently this guy out there is claiming to be the guy.
The New York Times is investigating questions raised about the identity of a man who said in a page one profile that he is the Abu Grab prisoner whose hooded image became an icon of abuse by American captors.
The online magazine Salon.com challenged the man's identity based on an examination of 280 Abu Grab pictures it has been studying for weeks and on an interview with an official of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command.
Do you believe, yes, I do, that there are actually news people who are studying Abu Grab photos for weeks.
Can you imagine what it must be like in the morning at their homes?
They roll out of bed, they head to the bathroom to get ready, and their wife says, what's up today?
I'm looking at more Abu Grab pictures.
I won't be home for dinner.
I won't be home here till 10 o'clock.
I got to study Abu Grab pictures.
At any rate, the official says that the man the Times profiled Saturday is Ali Shalal Qaisi, and he is not the detainee in the photograph.
In an email to the Times, Chris Gray, the chief spokesman for the Army Investigations Unit, wrote, We have had several detainees claim that they were the person depicted in that photograph in question.
Our investigation indicates that the person that you have is not the detainee who was depicted in the photograph released in connection with the Abu Grab investigation.
We take questions about our reporting very seriously.
We will carefully investigate Salon's findings, said Susan Chira, the Times foreign editor in today's editions.
We attempted to verify the claims of Mr. Qaisi thoroughly.
We spoke with representatives of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, who had interviewed Mr. Qaisi and believed him to be the man in the photographs.
Well, why don't you go talk to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and add them to your sources?
Human Rights Watch, hardly nonpartisan.
They don't call anybody in the U.S. government, do they?
They don't call anybody in the Army.
No, you can't trust them, Rush.
You don't know that.
No, you've got to call these left-wing wackos at Human Rights Watch and amnesty.
No, you've got to call anti-American groups.
That's who you got to call to find out.
Now, I know some of you are saying, what does it matter who is in the picture?
What does it matter if they're interviewing the guy?
Well, it matters because the guy claiming to be, if he's falsely claiming, he's going to make up everything else too.
And he's going to provide fodder for the New York Times to write a story about all the abuse that was supposedly going on over there and just continue to pile on.
This is, look, Abu Grab is another one of these stories.
They will not let go.
Front page New York Times today, over and over again, and they are peddling a phony story.
And that's the point.
Here's Mike in Bloomington, Illinois.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Welcome from the land of Lincoln.
Thank you, sir.
Question for you.
Given all the huffing and puffing that's been going on the past couple weeks about the port deal and the comparative risk involved, why has Congress and the media lost track of actual border security that appears to be the obvious low-hanging fruit in terms of the risk value to our country or the open borders?
The same reason they voted this down: personal self-interest.
The Democrats look at illegal immigrants as potential new voters.
Republicans, certain Republicans look at illegal immigrants, and some Democrats too in this regard, look at illegal immigrants as cheap labor.
And these members of Congress all receive contributions from every venue here, including average citizens who send in their little chunks of change who oppose the whole concept of illegal immigration.
It's a great question.
Here you have the port deal, and it was a three-week hysteria on security.
Right.
And we got illegal immigration, which provides just as big a threat.
And we have hundreds every day that cross our borders, both north and south, that any one of them can carry across.
We have people smuggling people, so they can certainly smuggle across land borders any piece of equipment that can endanger us just as easy as they can bring it in through a port.
I know.
It's very frustrating to me.
It is frustrating because the word illegal is there.
This ought not be that hard.
We're not talking about wiping out all immigration.
We're talking about illegal immigration.
It ought not be that hard.
But it's scary for these people to tackle it.
They're going to be charged with racism and bigotry and all that sort of stuff.
You can only be charged with that against Arabs and get away with it.
Okay, I promised, I promised that today I would tell you what I thought of the Sopranos, since I knew there were people who are going to wait and watch the encore performance or whatever.
If you haven't seen the first episode of Sopranos, just turn the radio down for about a minute if you don't want to be destroyed.
Like I said yesterday, I think what's happened to Sopranos, they get too much time between seasons.
And there's no continuity here.
They pretend a whole bunch of stuff has happened in these two years, like Janice getting pregnant and her husband having a fetish now with model trains, complete with wearing an engineer's hat.
Shows always had comedy relief, and I thought that was cool.
And it did seem to be a greater focus on the, I mean, you tuned to this show to watch mob violence.
So we had some mob violence.
It's about time.
Recent years, they've feminized this show, made it all about the female concerns.
Everybody knows the women don't run the mafia.
What are we talking about here?
So The last segment where Uncle Jr., who wants to watch crazed Alzheimer's victims in a mob show.
If Tony's going to get shot, get shot by another mobster or something.
An Alzheimer patient that's his uncle gone, but I understand the deep-rooted connections that Uncle Jr. had once put out a hit on Tony because Tony's mom asked Jr. to wipe Tony out his relationship with his mother.
I understand all that.
And the irony now of Tony trying to be a nice guy, feeling guilty about not putting his mom or about putting his mom in a nursing home and decides all first episode not to do that to Uncle Jr.
And bam, he gets shot by Uncle Jr. at the end of the show as payback for Uncle Jr. because Uncle Jr. doesn't know what he is.
You know, Tony's over there trying to make him eat dinner and so forth.
He's got the television on.
Uncle Jr. is told to go upstairs, get ready for dinner.
Shouts after getting, who's down there?
He's forgotten everything that just happened.
He thinks he's got an intruder in the house.
Tony shouts up as just me and Artie Shaw.
I guess they're playing some Artie Shaw music somewhere in the house.
And so Uncle Jr. just sneaks down the steps, sees Tony and fires, thinks he's shooting an intruder.
I don't know who it is.
And the last scene we got was Tony Soprano losing consciousness after trying to call 911.
Now, that's, I don't know much about the mob.
I've never been in it, but do mobsters call 911?
Do mobsters call the law?
Well, you got it.
Well, whatever.
Tony lost consciousness by the time 911 answered.
And so the 911 operator is going, hello, I think it answered your problem or whatever.
And the cut to Tony looks like he's going into a nice sleep, smiling on the floor and it fade to black.
And so now everybody's wondering, whoa, what's this?
First episode, first episode of the season, and the star of the show takes it in the gut.
And so people are saying, is this it?
Is that it for him?
And then we're going to spend the rest of the season exploring expanded characters of the mob guy.
I think this was too easy a shock to shoot Tony in the first episode is just too easy because common sense and logic tells me that he's the star of the show and he's not going to die.
Now, I don't know where they're going to take it, and I'm going to stick with it.
Don't misunderstand, but I think you have to be honest with yourself, folks, when you watch stuff or anything, any aspect of life.
You have to be honest with yourself.
And when you really want to like something, sometimes you'll talk yourself into liking it when you really don't.
And I think that's what the TV critics do in a lot of cases.
They want this show to be so good because they thought it was at one time that they'll say that it's good even when it may not be, just to try to perpetuate it.
And, of course, suck up to the producers and to the actors and all that.
I'm going to keep watching it.
But I just.
After two years, when you've got two years to write the opening episode and the whole series, when you got 21 months to do it, I don't know.
I would think if I had 21 months between this show and the next show, that the next show would be barnstorming gangbusters good.
And that's the expectation I have.
And I just didn't, I just didn't think.
What did you think, Snerdley?
I mean, did you certainly thought it was so lame?
Well, that's, I guess, a synopsis of my thoughts.
Now back to the phones.
John and Schenectady, New York.
Welcome to the program, sir.
This is why your show is fantastic, even for us liberals.
You set up your call so well.
As you said, you know, I think people get so invested in wanting to light things, wanting to think things are going great, that even though every day they wake up and they find out another 50 people were found shot dead, execution style in Iraq, they complain about none of the good news getting out.
You know, nobody's talking about how the schools got panted today.
Man, that's amazing, isn't it?
I think you're all just not willing to face reality.
Iraq is a lost cause.
Iran has won Iraq.
They've got control of the Shia all across the South.
And things are not going to go well for the Americans.
Right.
Well, see, this is why people on the left, in my mind, can't be trusted to run national security.
You're quitters.
You give up.
You're looking for defeat.
You hope to find it.
And by God, you found it.
You're listening to one source of your information.
I've tried to point out countless, just last week, there were four or five different articles of people who have been over there.
David Fromm writes another one today.
Been over there.
Come back.
Victor Davis Hansen has come back and said, you know, we're winning over there.
We're losing at home.
We're going to lose.
If we lose this war, we're going to lose this war at home.
Rush, each one of those people.
And unfortunately, you're giving credence to that theory.
Rush, each one of those people you mentioned have something in common.
They're Bush cultists.
They worship at the altar of Georgia.
No, no, they don't.
See, you probably don't even know who they are.
How much of Victor Davis Hansen or Ralph Peters, for example, have you read?
Hansen, as far as I know, he's a Democrat, but a very big Bush supporter.
David Fromm, I know, is a speechwriter for Bush, or has been a speechwriter for Bush.
Both of these guys have had their fair share of criticism, as have I. There is no blanket Bush supporter who never wavers other than Karl Rove and the people in the White House staff.
There are people all over the Republican Party, the conservative movement, who you guys are living in an illusion.
You think everybody just gets in a tank for Bush and supports things because Bush is for them or we want to defeat you or whatever.
That's not what's going on.
There's a legitimate policy reason for the war at Iraq.
It's a good one.
There's a great objective.
And these kinds of things, look at what we're involved in.
We're involved in overthrowing a tyrant and replacing it with a representative democracy that they're going to set up.
If you go look at world history, how long did it take us after we decided to overthrow King George?
How long did it take us to set ourselves up?
How long does it take any society?
Sometimes it can take a generation.
Sometimes it can take less than that, but sometimes 5, 10, 15 years.
Everybody wants this to be done inside of 60 minutes or 30 minutes, like television shows end up.
This is the real world.
And there are great objectives taking place.
And there's tremendous progress.
And people have been over there documenting it.
I've seen it when I went to Afghanistan.
And I've talked about it on the radio from there.
And when I got back.
But I think, you know, you're invested here with the notion of defeat.
And you have a bad perspective.
And you're too eager to define it without understanding the reality of history and the circumstances involved here.
Rush, it sounds to me like you think we're winning, which I think is going to make any reasonable person question your sanity.
No, it also makes it sound like you want another 15-year Vietnam.
You don't want to admit when there's no comparison to this in Vietnam.
And I haven't yet said we're winning, but what's wrong with us winning?
What's wrong with us trying?
Admitting defeat is what you're looking for us to do.
That's the Vietnam analogy for you.
I'm sorry, I can't join it.
I don't invest in my own country's defeat.
The worst thing that could happen is if we, okay, well, we can't win this.
We, the United States of America, can't beat a bunch of ragtag insurgent terrorists from Iran and Syria.
Let's admit that and let's go home.
And you think we're going to be safer and you think things are going to be hunky-doring back to the way they are or were.
You're just sadly mistaken.
You know, nobody's out there saying we are winning.
Well, some people are.
We're making far more progress than you would like to believe.
But everybody's being inundated day in and day out and has been for five years about how unjust this is, about how horrible it is.
Look at all the battlefield casualties and deaths.
Why this is unsupportable?
This is nothing compared to World War II, for example.
This is nothing compared to World War I.
It's nothing compared to the Civil War.
I'm not trying to diminish these deaths, but to get panicky over this indicates that we've got a different culture and society in this country, and some people in it cannot be counted on to lead us because they don't have any knowledge of history.
They don't have any perspective on this, and they have no idea of the objective that's at stake here or the consequences if we admit defeat.
We don't admit defeat.
But let's say, let me throw you a bone.
Let's say we're losing.
And I know that makes you happy to hear.
Okay, we're losing.
It's not the end of the game.
We can win.
What's wrong with us winning?
Why can't both things be true?
They both can be true.
In your world, when we're losing, we've lost.
If you were a coach of a football team, you'd give up after the other team scored three touchdowns against you, even if you had three quarters to play.
The United States military and this current leadership's not going to do that.
But if you want to stay invested in defeat, I urge you to.
It is not something that's going to attract people who already aren't part of your cause or movement.
Because contrary to what you may think, the vast majority of this country, not made up of defeatists, not made up of quitters, and I don't want to become one.
And I don't want to join you in it.
You're going to continue to marginalize yourself.
While, I don't know what you're doing.
You're trying to make yourself feel good.
You're trying to make yourself feel, look at, we're killing people and we're getting people killed.
And this is bad.
And we've got to get out of there.
We've got to stop the violence.
We have to stop the violence.
And in so doing, you think you're being magnanimous and bigger than everybody else and larger and more comprehensive.
You're doing just the opposite.
You'd be causing more problems.
You're helping to demoralize people who are actually on the front lines trying to secure this victory.
It's worthwhile.
The fact that you don't think that it is is surprised me, but I will admit it disappoints me.
I appreciate the call.
We'll be back and continue here in just a second.
And we are back, El Rushbo, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am your host for life, not retiring until every American agrees with me.
Here's Rich in Oakland, New Jersey.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Well, dittos from New Jersey, Rush.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me on.
You bet.
I have a question for everyone who knows so much about how we should do things over in Iraq.
It's a big country.
There's a lot to be done.
It started in the 15th century, and we're trying to bring it back up to where we are today.
Meanwhile, down in Lower Manhattan, which is a very modern city and run by the liberals who know so much, the World Trade Center is still not yet built.
And things aren't back to normal.
They haven't even created a memorial yet.
They can't even agree on that.
So why is it that it's so easy to rebuild an entire country and yet we can't put up a couple buildings and a memorial?
Excellent point.
Excellent point.
You know what they're arguing about at the World Trends?
It's how much of it will be devoted to commercial retail space.
And guess who's got a commentary in the New York Post today opposing all that?
Chuck Schumer.
There you go.
There you go.
And so we've got this big argument.
We had an argument over what the memorial ought to be, and a bunch of left-wing radicals try to take it over and make it an anti-American memorial to talk about, oh, yeah, well, the terrorists might have done this to us on 9-11.
Look what we did to the Indians.
And look what we did to whoever they wanted to mention it.
We've oppressed.
And that slowed things.
And that was making some progress, by the way, which I'm sure doesn't surprise you being a New Jersey resident.
But that's an excellent point.
And they can't even agree on a design yet.
Right.
Can't even agree on a design.
The last thing I saw was they rejected somebody had a plan to have, well, how do I describe this?
I can't remember what the terms. term of this thing is, but essentially they were going to be like life rafts that would be lowered outside a burning building that people would go in and they'd be on elevator pulleys and this guy and they and they rejected this.
Yeah, so they're having trouble putting the whole World Trade Center complex back to.
Excellent point, sir.
I have to grant that to you.
I'm glad you called.
This is Rick in Atlanta, and you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hello, Rush.
Pleasure to talk with you.
Longtime listener.
Appreciate the long answers you give to give us the understanding like you gave the caller before this one.
Thank you.
My question is about the IEDs that the president brought up again and why we couldn't use that as a war on terror to go ahead and take the nukes out and the IEDs that are killing our troops.
Why we couldn't.
Against Iran.
Well, I think the president's mentioning of the fact that these IEDs have components that illustrate and document they're being made in Iran was sort of a first shot.
And we reported this last week.
These huge cash of these things were found, intercepted in transit into Iraq.
We've known for a long time that Iran's behind this.
The last thing Iran wants is for us to succeed in Iraq.
And if I were a liberal Democrat, by the way, that would worry me that I'm on the same side as Iraq is, or Iran, that I'm on the same side as old Mahmoud.
Ahmadinejad.
I'm on his side.
And they'll be worried that I'm on the same side as Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein, as he conducts his trial in his own defense.
Well, he's got his lawyers, but Ramsey Clark.
But they're basically using Democrat talking points about Bush.
You would think these people would wake up.
But no, They're on the side of people who want to see Iraq go south.
Now, they don't put it that way.
No, no.
They want to save our soldiers.
They want to protect our soldiers.
They want to enhance the safety of the soldiers.
There's no cause worth this.
This is not worth it.
Not worth our lost treasure.
Not worth our lost pride.
Not worth our lost reputation.
Blah, blah, blah.
The fact that they're on the same side in this as Iran is is something that escapes them.
I'll tell you what's going on.
The Washington Times has a story today that Iran's clerical and business establishments, deeply concerned by what they see as reckless spending and needlessly aggressive foreign policies, are increasingly turning against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Within this context, many see the president's long-running confrontation with the U.S. and Europe over the nuclear program as an attempt to demonize the West and distract the Iranian public from pressing domestic problems.
A relatively small group of extremists at the top of the government around the president are seeking to benefit from a crisis with the West because that way they'll be able to once again blame the West for all their problems.
It's not just Mahmoud.
Mahmoud is, in many people's opinion, sort of a mini stooge for the mullahs.
And that's probably a lot of truth to that.
But the fact is that there has been unrest, social unrest in Iran for a long time.
They are running an oppressive regime against people.
And if the Tehran elites are turning on Mahmoud, the Tehran elites will soon be dead.
It's the way things happen there.
But the fact that the president told the world that, yep, the IEDs are being made in Iran is, I think, first step.
The Israelis, by the way, they're all saying, you know, the U.S. is taking too much time here.
Oh, we're going to get, so there's, tensions are heightening here.
And the problem with military action is that there's so many of these nuclear sites and they're so well hidden that one of the things I've seen people say is a military strike or series of them could not get them all.
Anyway, out of time.
We'll continue right after this.
Okay, second hours in the can, the fastest three hours in media.
We have another hour to go.
We'll get to it in an El Gifo.
Little Spanish lingo there.
Sit tight, folks, and we'll be right back.
▲
Export Selection