All Episodes
Previous Next
March 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
March 16, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it looks like we're trying to kick some butt over there in the uh in the Sunni Triangle U.S. forces joined by Iraqi troops launched the largest airborne assault since the invasion.
And of course, if you're like me, you're wondering where has this been all this time.
But it's never too late.
And of course, what's funny is to watch the media all day to talk about this as simply a distraction.
This and the president's statement yesterday on Iran and reaffirming preemptive war is that he's just trying to put himself back up on the approval numbers.
He's uh he's just trying to change the subject, blah, blah, blah.
And they're citing polls left and polls right.
And of course, they just can't conceive that somebody might actually be trying to do something that's right and good.
And uh fulfill the tenets and promises of policy.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you with us as we uh ready to launch here, three hours of broadcast excellence on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, which is the only place excellence in broadcasting happens.
Our telephone number, if you'd like to uh join us, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
The military says that this operation, Operation Swarmer, I love that name.
Operation Swarmer was aimed at clearing a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samara, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was expected to continue over several days.
More than 1,500 Iraqi and coalition troops, over 200 tactical vehicles, more than 50 aircraft participated in the operation, the military statement said of the attack designed to clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samar.
That's 60 miles north of Baghdad, the province, major part of the so-called Sunni Triangle, where insurgents have been active since shortly after the U.S.-led invasion three years ago.
Saddam Hussein was captured there, by the way, not far from its capital and his hometown, Tikrit.
So we uh watch uh with eager eyes, as does uh everyone else.
Imagine the thumb in the eye this is to the American left today and the Democratic Party.
Here we have today we have this invasion or this largest air operation following the president's uh uh uh warnings on Iran and the uh uh reaffirmation of the concept of preemptive war.
You know, and I I uh I just I love the media reaction.
I love the Democratic Party's reaction.
Democrats haven't said much yet, but you know they're thinking they've got Bush over a barrel, and they're thinking probably two things that Bush is doing this trying to change the well, the media is saying that Bush is doing this trying to change the subject.
He knows he's down in our polls, and he's got to do something.
He's trying to change the subject, and he's trying to make himself a wartime president again and show himself as brave and courageous.
The Democrats are out there thinking that you know they've got they've got the country revved up hating Bush and uh anti-war.
They they've got their polls that show a majority of the Americans think Iraq's a mistake, we ought to get out of there or whatever it says.
And here Bush goes and does this.
Uh and I guarantee you they are livid.
They are livid about it because he just won't listen.
He just won't listen to us, and he won't listen to the American people.
And he he's dangerous.
He's got to be impeached.
This is only going to create more terrorists.
You wait and see how this shakes out.
Um Iran wants to talk to us uh about Iraq.
We apparently are um are going to do it.
Uh well.
There's uh I I don't expect anything to come of it, but uh uh if if they make the overture and we and we turn them down without even giving them a chance to hear what they have to say, that could not be wise.
That wouldn't be wise.
So let's let's let's talk to him.
You know, I don't misunderstand.
I I'm I'm not falling prey to an old trick.
I mean, back during the Cold War days, any time there was a summit, like between Brezhnev or Andropov or whoever.
Uh uh the the American elites and intelligentsia, oh right.
We might we might be able to solve this.
We're going to talk again.
Of course, and I always thought that was B.S. And I thought it was his meaningless prattle.
And in fact, Reagan, A lot of people won't remember this, but Reagan refused to have a summit for four or five years because he said the leaders over there kept dying off on him.
What would be the point in having a summit with these guys either get shot later or die under suspicious circumstances?
So I don't think he had a summit with those guys until uh the savior.
Uh Mikhail Segeevich uh Gorbachev came along with the left was was livid about that.
But I I I think it indicates uh that there is some unrest in Iran.
Iran is a mess internally.
Economically, they're a mess.
Um they're they're they're they're they're not this unified bunch of people.
Everybody always assumes our enemies are totally unified, never make any mistakes.
Just like the insurgents.
I mean, the the Democrats and the media in this country think the insurgents in Iraq are just flawlessly unified uh on a roll, we can't compete, we don't stand a chance.
They probably think the same thing about Iran, uh, and and there's probably a reason Iran wants to talk.
Uh who knows what it is.
But, you know, the old Reagan adage, trust but verify.
Go ahead, listen to them, uh, see what they have to say.
Depending and and uh you know what we would say in such a meeting is should not be uh discounted and ignored.
I don't think we're just gonna go there and uh and listen.
But it hasn't been scheduled yet.
We have just uh we have just expressed a little interest.
All right, folks.
Time for a uh a little a little lesson here.
The New York Times has a story today, uh call for censure is rallying cry to Bush's base.
It's uh it's authored by a man named David D. Kirkpatrick.
Now let me tell you about David D. Kirkpatrick.
He is the guy who regularly writes on the conservative beat for the New York Times.
And he is an example, and this story is an example of how the New York Times views conservatives, some kind of alien entity that needs to be understood and needs to be explained.
That's his job, I think.
I think Kirkpatrick's assignment, his beat at the New York Times is to explain conservatives to the readers of the New York Times.
It's like having a science writer who exists for the sole purpose of explaining some odd esoteric life form uh to the readers of the New York Times.
This is a classic example of it.
And he either is an idiot and really doesn't get it, or else he is purposely misleading the readers of the New York Times with a selective out of context quote of your host, me.
L Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all concerned Maharashi.
I'll get to that here in just a moment.
But let's let's touch on the substance of the story.
Call for censure, rally and cry to Bush's base.
It's really a it's a it's like a cut-and-paste job, like a Jim Wright book.
It's it's it's not organized.
It's it's it wanders all over the place.
But I'll do my best with this.
Republicans, worried that their conservative base lacks motivation to turn on for the fall elections, have found a new rallying cry in the dreams of liberals about censuring or impeaching President Bush.
The proposal by Senator Feingold, Democrat of Whiscome, by the way, he's got a couple of uh people partnered up with him here.
Excuse me, Barbara Boxer and uh Tom Dung Heap Harkin have uh signed on to this.
And Link Chafee, have you heard about this?
Link Chafe, Republican from Rhode Island, is thinking about partnering up.
I'm not kidding you.
I've got it here in the stack.
I'll share it with you when we get to it.
I'm not kidding you.
Link should he's thinking about it.
He's thinking about it because he agrees with Feingold that the Fourth Amendment's been violated here in this spy program and so forth.
He's clearly, I I know he's he's a he's a genuine mental midget among mental retards up there in the um in the in the United States Senate.
So anyway, the proposal by Feingold, Democrat Wisconsin to censure Mr. Bush over his domestic eavesdropping program, cheered the left.
But it also dovetailed with conservatives' plans to harness such attacks to their own ends.
We're not gonna get to harness anything, Mr. Kirkpatrick.
You don't understand the majority of the people in this country are conservative.
We're not gonna harness anything.
The Democrats are doing it for us.
That's why the George this guy, he doesn't get it.
It really doesn't get it.
I'm convinced that David D. Kirkpatrick hasn't the slightest understanding of who's out there in this country and what conservatives are and what conservatism is.
Because we're not going to have to harness anything.
Democrats are speaking for themselves.
They're unmasking themselves, as I've been saying.
They're taking the camouflage off.
They're showing us who they really are.
They're showing us what they really believe.
They they've been hiding behind all kinds of trees and masks all these number of years because they don't dare go public, but they're showing themselves to be what they what's in their DNA.
They can't help it.
They simply are untrustworthy and incapable of leading this country in the area of national security.
Anything else, too, but they clearly here have have made it plain as day for anybody.
We don't have to harness anything.
Paul Weyrick, a veteran conservative organizer, said last month in an email newsletter, impeachment coming your way if there are changes in who controls the house eight months.
And yep, I love Paul Weyrich.
He's a great man.
I told you this in 2000.
And I told you this in 2004, that if the if the Democrats lost the election, look out, impeachment's coming next.
And they are they're running, they're running on this uh in in the uh six elections here.
The whole point of winning the House is to impeach Bush, and this is what they finally made plain.
We have to harness this at all.
The threat of impeachment, Mr. Weyrich suggested, was one of the only factors that could inspire the Republican Party's demoralized base to go to the polls.
With impeachment on the horizon, he wrote, Maybe just maybe conservatives would not stay home after all.
Then here comes the first quote of your host.
Uh and this is they got this one right.
This is such a gift.
The conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh told listeners on his radio program on Monday, saying the Democrats were fulfilling his predictions.
Quote, they have to go back to this impeachment thing, unquote, he said.
Then they mention other conservatives, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Brian Jones, Republican spokesman.
And then this.
Still conservatives said they welcomed the debate over censure or impeachment.
Some said that uh they were especially pleased with the timing of Mr. Feingold's proposal because it came just after the Democrats had upstaged the Republicans on national security during the outcry over the port deal.
Then they quote me.
They finally found the issue where they could convince the American people that they too see an enemy, Mr. Limbaugh said on his program.
In less than two days, they're back to the NSA scandal, as though we don't have a national security problem, he said, referring to the domestic eavesdropping program run by the National Security Agency.
So this guy thinks he either thinks or he's trying to make the New York Times readers think that I conceded the ports issue to the Democrats, that I conceded national security to Democrats.
You people who listen to this program every day know full well that I've done just the opposite.
I've been making fun of these Democrats for thinking that they finally found an enemy and that it's the United Arab Emirates of all people.
I have been making fun of the fact that they're going, look at me, look at me, I care about national security too.
I care about it, and they think they got on the right side of the president.
Here is what I said just this past Monday about this.
The last three weeks the Democrats were excited because they'd gotten to the right of George W. Bush on what?
National security.
They finally found the issue where they can convince the American people that they too see an enemy.
And that enemy was the United Arab Emirates.
And so the port deal went down to a stinging, humiliating end.
The Democrats, in less than two days, are now back to the NSA scandal as though we don't have a national security problem.
They've taken care of it by icing the sheikhs from Dubai.
So now we're no we no longer have an enemy.
We got rid of the enemy.
I told you this was gonna be the case.
I said just if these guys are this serious about national security, then let's let's let's make them answer.
And fine gold has.
This such a gift.
This is such a gift.
Now, I don't know if he read this on my website or if somebody told him about this, or if he actually heard, you know, you can go to the website, listen to this stuff too.
But how this guy cannot know That I was lampooning the Democrats and have been doing so for three weeks on this silly port deal.
And why throw the port deal in this story anyway?
That's what I mean about it being disorganized and disoriented.
Throw the port deal in this story about fine golden censure.
So anyway, here's the here's the beat writer for the Times assigned to explain the pod people, conservatives, to the readers of the New York Times, and he's doing a horrible job, unless his purpose is to get it wrong with the Times, you never know.
I a slicing and dicing, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh, your host.
For life, the excellence in Broadcasting Network, and welcome to uh all of you watching on the Ditto Cam today.
The Ditto Cambi up and running for the uh uh entire program.
Uh by the on the on the podcast business, I um you know what's happening out there with a with it with our new iTunes edition.
You know what's happening out there, Brian.
We're sending people that have never used a computer before.
Out there, they're buying computers, buying iPods.
They don't, since they don't know how we've been marveling at the questions we've been getting.
Questions that are, you know, rudimentary and simple to us because we've been using computers for years.
We thought we pretty comprehensively dealt with everything uh in our frequently asked questions link at rushlimbaugh.com.
But I we keep getting questions that indicate people are going out and buying computers to do this.
So, as usual, this program is causing several industries to blossom at once with just one little software upgrade.
It is typical of this program.
People have never used computers before.
Your life is gonna change out there, folks.
Uh but uh so we were adding to the frequently asked questions is the point.
If you're having problems uh downloading our podcasts uh audio and video each day, and uh whether you do it with our software or do it uh with uh with the iTunes, uh it believe me, don't be intimidated.
It's very, very simple.
Uh so I got a question just a minute.
Do I have to put it on an iPod to listen to it, or can I I just got a computer?
Can I can I can I can I can I listen to it on a computer?
You know, I of course you can listen to it on a computer.
Uh you want to carry a computer around with you wherever you go, you can do that too.
But if you want to get an iPod, put only it's simple to do.
I'm not trying to sell iPods.
I mean, it's not the not the point.
Uh Apple hasn't purchased any time here.
They've how much I wonder how many millions of dollars in free time they've gotten though in the last 18 years.
At any rate, two other New York Times stories here, folks, and I I just uh I just love this.
Updated strategy backs Iraq strike and cites Iran peril.
Damn it.
We added that to the headline.
This is by David Sanger.
He does not write about conservatives.
Uh, an updated version of the Bush administration's national security strategy, the first in more than three years, gives no ground on the decision to order a preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003, and now identifies Iran as the country likely to present the single greatest future challenge of the United States.
The strategy document declares that American-led diplomacy to hold Iran's program to enrich nuclear fuel must succeed if confrontations to be avoided.
This is from a near final draft of the of the document.
So Bush is out there, he won't say he's sorry, he won't admit a mistake, and in front, he's just thumbing our eye.
He just putting his thumb in our eye.
We've been trying to get him out of Iraq.
We've been telling him he's no more problems out there.
The problem, bring the troops home, bring the save lives, blah, blah.
And Bush is gonna ramp it up even more.
They can't believe it.
Here's something that just I know just had to make them nuts from the document.
The world is better off if tyrants know that they pursue weapons of mass destruction at their own peril.
So he thumbed weapons of mass destruction back in their eyes, because they're all convinced there never were any, and there and there aren't any.
And yet Bush continues to talk about weapons of mass destruction, preemption, Iraq justification, and setting the stage for taking action against Iran.
This is this is this is uh it's gonna energize them, but it's gonna flummox them too, because they thought they had Bush on the run.
This is the last thing.
And it comes this news, his new is his uh speech yesterday announcing this and the release of the near final drafted document coupled with this new uh initiative in uh in Samara.
Hey, these people's heads are gonna be spinning.
Next thing you know, Rumsfeld's gonna say we're gonna increase our troop levels in our Well, wait a minute, Rumsfeld did.
We're gonna have a temporary increase in troop.
We're doing the exact opposite of what the media and what the Democratic Party has been angling for and demanding for the last two years.
And we're doing it in an election year.
And I guarantee you they're scratching.
How could he do this?
Doesn't he know he's in the polls?
In a tank?
Doesn't he know his party's running away from him?
Doesn't he doesn't he care?
Doesn't he know that this is going to do him as part?
You think they would be happy if they really believe that.
The bottom line is this frightens them.
I'm talking about the left and the media.
The bottom line is this puts them on edge.
This shows that they can't manipulate Bush.
They can't change his policies.
Now they're trying to get him to change his White House staff, saying they're all too tired in there.
There's some Republicans jumping on that bandwagon, too.
Sit tight, folks.
We'll have some uh audio sound bites of the media doing what I was just discussing.
Okay, let's take a look at the Washington Post's reaction to the president's restatement of his terrorist strategy.
This is uh by Peter Baker.
President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today, reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.
The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time.
Where?
Where did the preemption doctrine encounter this debate?
Certainly not with Bush.
He never doubted it for a minute.
Bush didn't debate himself, and he made the call.
Bunch of blowhards in Congress may have debated it.
Bush didn't debate it, made a decision and stuck with it.
In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it remains the same.
And defending it is necessary for a country in the early years of a long struggle akin to the Cold War.
So even Peter Baker, just like uh David Sanger in the New York Times, upset that Bush will not say he's sorry.
Upset that Bush will not admit that he has made mistakes, flabbergasted, stunned and amazed that Bush is actually reaffirming this policy, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.
A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be foolish.
This is uh Harlan Ullman, senior advisors, Center for Strategic and International Studies, otherwise known as CSIS.
Uh liberal security specialists criticize the continued commitment to preemption.
Preemption is and always will be a potential useful tool, but it's not something you want to trot out and throw in everybody's face.
Said Harlan Ullman.
To have a strategy on preemption and make it central is a huge error.
A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be foolish.
I think most states are deterrable.
Well, he's a liberal.
That's what we're dealing with.
Most states are deterrable.
You think Iran is any less deterrable than Saddam was.
Again, folks, this is why these people cannot be trusted with our national security.
Here we go to the audio sound by.
Oh, by the way, for those of you watching in the Ditto Cam, I got a complaint here.
I was reading the email there during the break, and a guy wrote very, very mean, very caustic.
I understand these people that are members of my website and yet are very, very mean.
I can take it, but I don't understand.
He said that lousy shirt you're wearing today.
It makes it look like you're wearing a hospital gown.
And it's causing blue streaks all over your face.
Now I have a monitor here, and it doesn't look like a hospital gown.
This is a classy.
Adidas climaccool uh mock turtleneck.
And it is uh not causing streaking of any kind.
I just wanted to acknowledge that email people write about some of the strangest things at times.
Here is the new liberal spin on Iran via audio soundbite to start with hardball, Chris Matthews last night, talking to Dana Milbank and the Washington Post.
We wake up tomorrow morning, it's nine o'clock, and we learn that the United States has attacked Iran, has attacked its uh its uh nuclear installations, it's its laboratories, it's basing its uh silos, whatever, to to to uh preempt them from building a nuclear weapon.
Would the American people accept that and all the consequences that came with it?
Well, I I I don't know about accepting it, but it certainly would cause a rallying effects, you know.
So I mean, everything in this poll says lame duck presidency, but you have to remember terrorist strike, uh, national crisis.
Well, he's still probably not going to get tax reform through, but suddenly uh he's a strong national leader again.
So you certainly can't uh uh rule out that possibility.
See, see, the only reason Bush should be doing this is to get his poll numbers up.
That'd be the only reason he'd be doing it.
He wouldn't be doing this because there's a real threat in Iran.
He wouldn't be doing this because there's a real war going on in Iraq that we do want to win.
Wouldn't be no, no, no.
There wouldn't be anything substantive to this.
This would be about rallying things because of what's in the polls, which I remind you again, I don't really think Bush pays much attention to it.
On American Morning CNN today, this the host Soladette O'Brien uh asked the reporter Suzanne Malvo, is this something the president's supposed to file every year?
This this strategy document?
The cynical take here is that it's uh a good time to change the topic.
Uh, the other side, of course, I spoke with the NSC uh spokesman about this report.
They put it together.
He said, look, it was not a priority.
We're a nation at war.
They were eventually going to get around to doing this.
That's what they did.
They started in uh July, he said, and that uh late last night they were still putting the finishing touches on it.
Oh, and by the way, it's a good time to change the topic.
Yeah, yeah.
So it's all about changing the topic, changing the subject.
There can't be any substance behind this at all.
Bush couldn't possibly be doing his job.
Dennis Kucinich, one of his wacko lunatic fringe lefties.
He was in the Democratic presidential primary race in 2004.
You remember him, Don?
Yeah, they wanted to establish a Department of Peace, get rid of the Department of Defense, establish a Department of Peace, which is what the Department of Defense is.
And anyway, he was running around, it's so bad out there in democratic circles.
He was winning most eligible bachelor contests uh in the Democratic Party.
Here's what he said during one-minute uh speeches on the floor of the House today.
Iraq did not have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, that Iraq was not in a position to attack us.
The administration now identifies Iran as the top threat, and states again that we have the right to preemptively attack any country.
Are we here on the threshold of permanent warfare?
Where the administration could keep naming enemies and the American taxpayers with their sons and daughters' blood have to keep paying for wars that we shouldn't get into.
We should start to call into question the administration's entire international policy.
They're setting America against the world.
This I love this.
I I uh one of the reasons I chose this to air for you today is because right out of Feingold's uh uh book.
I mean, let them show who they are.
It's the best thing, and we don't have to harness it, and we don't have to package it.
We just have to broadcast it.
Just let people hear who these people are, what they think.
Um they're trying to make people think that there is no sufficient legitimate threat out there.
We don't even do need to be doing any of this.
You know, these are the these are the same people.
And don't forget this.
These are the same people.
I remember throughout the 18-plus year history of this program, and even beyond that.
During the Cold War, any time the Soviets added nuclear weapons to their arsenal, we did too, the nuclear arms race.
They were scared to death of nuclear weapons.
I can remember watching Phil Donahue's show one day, and Laura Durin, the actress came out, actually started crying.
People just don't know.
They don't know what it's like to be a young person and grow up with fear of nuclear detonation every day.
The audience cheered and went crazy.
All we heard about was how rotten nukes are and how dangerous nukes are.
We gotta get rid of them.
They're bad everywhere.
And nobody on that side of the aisle seems to be worried about Iran in that regard at all.
And they weren't worried about Iraq either.
So there is literally no consistency here in their stated beliefs.
How in the world you can take, I mean, even their their most precious and respected United Nations.
Even Mohammed Al Baradai, who runs the international atomic agency, atomic energy agency.
They're ramping up.
They're doing, they're going nuke.
They don't seem to care.
Bush is the threat.
Bush is the danger.
Bush is Bush is causing them to do it, don't you know?
Bush hates them.
And Bush hates us.
And so, and they hate Bush.
And everybody hates Bush.
And Bush is causing all this.
Bush is making the world dangerous.
Bush is pushing people to the brink of all.
Bush is the one making them think they have to have nukes to protect themselves because Bush just wants to destroy the world.
Bush sucks.
Rumfeld sucks.
And so does Rice.
We've got to get him.
That's been the core of their speech and of their policy for the past five years.
So I guess they would sit around and really think Bush is the problem while all these nations around the world, North Korea, ramp up with their with their nuclear arsenals or attempt to do so.
So, just so you know, the whole the whole the whole Iran situation is now being framed in terms of polls.
In the minds of the media, Bush shouldn't be able to act on Iran because some people in the poll are not satisfied with what's happening in Iraq.
And this is this is classic.
They really think Bush ought to be hamstrung here by whatever they produce in their opinion polls.
If the people don't like Iraq, then Bush ought not be able to go into Iraq.
He ought not be able to even rattle savers.
He ought not even be able to talk about this.
Here's an example from the Today Show today, Matt O'Hour, talking with Tim Russert and Mount Oauer, said the president, White House, going to release the national security strategy today.
Basically, it's a reaffirmation of what some people like to call a Bush doctrine.
Where you strike a threatening country, you strike a threatening group before that group or country can strike you.
Given the intelligence failures going into Iraq, and given the problems we now see in Iraq, how is this policy going to be received, Tim?
Many people are looking for an admission by the president of misjudgments.
And many may interpret this as just full speed ahead.
I was right, I'm convinced I'm right, and I'm not changing policy.
That can present real difficulties for the president as he tries to navigate Iraq.
Matt, in our poll, we have 61% of the American people saying we should reduce the number of troops in Iraq.
That's a huge number for this president to deal with.
You can't just send an army to war.
You have to bring a country to war.
And so Bush, uh how can he do this?
Why, how can he do this when when he knows where he stands in the polls?
So we should govern by polls.
Is this not astounding?
This this is this is this is my buddy Tim Russard.
It is.
It's an echo of the of the Kerry campaign, which they lost.
Anyway, got to take a break here.
Much more straight ahead after this.
Time for another see I told you so moment.
Let's go back to me.
And let's go back to this program January 4th of this year.
The media, these these fools, they demand this independent prosecutor to put reporters in jail, and now that's out of the box, and that's in the works now.
And now you've got all these reporters running around acting like advocates and trading in secrets with leakers and so forth.
And we've got this DOJ investigation of what happened to the NSA piece.
I still think once the Libby trial begins, the media is going to be on trial as much as anybody else in that case, including Libby.
But uh, you know, this is uh could be a case to be careful what you ask for.
So right there you hear it, my friend.
You hear me predicting back on January 4th that uh the media will be put on trial in the Libby trial every bit as much as Libby is, and lo and behold, lawyers for Lewis Libby served subpoenas yesterday or Tuesday, actually, on the New York Times Company, and a former reporter for the Times, Dame Judith Miller.
The subpoenas seek documents concerning the disclosure of the identity of an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Wilson.
Mr. Libby's been charged with lying to a grand jury about how he learned about Ms. Wilson's identity.
I gotta tell you something, I love Libby's lawyers.
I love these guys.
They are aggressive, and they're defending this man, and they're doing everything they can for him.
I think it's just it's just I'm sure they're charging through the roof for it at the same time.
Um but they're uh they're working.
This is good.
You see, Sharon Stone.
Sharon Stone's out there, I guess basic instinct too is uh is just around the corner.
And Sharon Stone's out there promoting it.
She's 48 years old.
And she's uh, you know, they're doing all this to, oh, she looks like she's 28.
Oh, she's just the vixen.
Oh, Sheridan Stone, blah, blah, blah, blah.
She said this film, Basic Instinct 2, promises even more nudity and kinky stuff than the 1992 original, and it proves that women over 40 can be sexy.
In America, we tend to erase women after 40, and it's a period when women become their most interesting.
There are sexually sexual in different alluring ways.
Sharon, you know, sh let me correct you.
I know she's over Great Britain or somewhere right and you can't hear me, but uh America doesn't erase women after 40.
Hollywood does.
Hollywood erases women after 40, but America doesn't.
See, they think they are America.
Here's David in Los Angeles as we start on the phones today.
Great that you uh waited.
I appreciate that.
Welcome, sir.
Uh hi, Rush.
Yeah, my my question is, or my statement comment is this that the only polls that matter are what the Iraqi people think of what we're doing over there.
Every poll I've read, in fact I'm looking at a Times USA poll or a USH Day poll that says 97% of the Kurds are happy about our invading.
We did more good than harm.
And that's 25% of the Iraqi population.
I've read polls that up north of 50%, 54%, 55% of the Iraqis are still happy that we invaded their country and have done more good than harm.
And eighty or ninety percent are very optimistic about their future.
Those are the polls that matter to me.
Well, I it's a it's a great point.
Uh but do you think that'll carry much weight with the American people?
For example, just to play devil's advocate with you.
Let's say that they took a poll of the people of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, and the people of Dubai is 80% of them want the ports and terminals here operated by DP World.
Well, I guess I guess my point is the the the reason Americans don't seem to support the the Iraq war is that we're hurting the Iraqi people.
They hate us over there, they're trying to kill us, we've done the wrong thing.
They're all the all these arguments that you hear.
Yeah, but you know why you know the here's the here's the reason I discount it, because the the the the fact get get cut seven.
Because this this'll this will show you, David.
This is this is Tim Russert.
These people are excited, the media's excited.
They think that their drive-by coverage of this war is what's turned, and I th tell you this have been trying to do this since the outbreak of the war.
They've been trying to turn this country into an anti-war majority, and they think they've done it with their coverage.
So, in a way, you you sort of throw the poll out, at least I do, because it's shown not the true story.
And that's why Bush isn't listening to it.
Here, let the here's let me I want you to hear this.
This is again from the Today Show, Matt Wauer, says a lot of people think the approval ratings of the president directly related to Iraq.
When people were asked, do you feel as if there's going to be a positive outcome in Iraq?
Are you less confident?
32% said we're more confident now, the outcome will be positive, 57% less confident.
Is this uh all the talk about civil war?
It's growing pessimism, Matt, and that is a decline in seven points in optimism from just December.
The daily news of what's going on in Iraq, the administration keep trying to point out there's good news, there's good news or good news.
Right now, the American people are seeing and believing the bad news.
And exactly.
Exact Tim, old buddy thinks.
Because they're happy.
American people are not believing President Bush.
They're seeing and believing the bad news.
And that's why the polls show what they are, and that's why the media is ecstatic, because they think they got their monopoly days back.
They're able to turn public opinion.
It's taking them five years to do it, whereas they could have done it in a week uh twenty years ago.
I I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I think if the I agree with you that that's what's happening, but I think that the bottom line is that um Rush.
Yeah, I'm here.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Well, I think the bottom line is that uh what's happening is that all this negative news is being reported.
I think if the American people were more aware of what the Iraqis actually thought of our troops and thought of the things we've done over there, they'd be they'd be proud.
They'd puff up their chest and they'd support it.
I don't disagree with that at all.
In fact, that's an excellent point, and I do have to run here because of the constraints of the programming format regarding time.
But you're exactly right.
A counter to all these polls is the are the polls in Iraq that uh that indicate the Iraqis are more than happy with our presence and actually don't want us to leave anytime.
And I might add it's the same in Afghanistan.
Back after this.
Folks, you know, at least part of the reason that the left and the media want Bush to be driven by polls and do things uh their way?
It's very simple.
The left, members of the media, are not manly.
And they are uncomfortable with Bush's manliness because manly men lead.
They are confident in their own beliefs.
They take risks to assert those beliefs, like I did, sticking with my position on a port deal.
Unmanly men wait for the safety of consensus, which is what a poll supposedly produces, gives you cover in case you screw up.
Unmanly men are afraid of screwing up.
▲
Export Selection