All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
March 22, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Look at those characters up there on CNN.
I mean, it looked like three guys out of V for Vendetta.
The Basque Basque, whatever, separatist.
Well, it's a red letter day here at the EIB Network Southern Command, ladies and gentlemen.
Dawn, for the first time in six or seven years, showed up today wearing a skirt after she heard us making fun of her for wearing slacks all the time.
And did somebody say that it was manly to do that?
She thinks that we said that.
We didn't.
She's in there modeling.
I refuse to be distracted by this.
Greetings.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Great to have you with us.
This is the place for more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
The Excellence in Broadcasting Network, fastest, three hours in media.
We're already here at Wednesday, the middle of the week.
And the phone number, if you'd like to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the media.
The media.
Bush got to them yesterday.
They spent the whole night last night and half the morning today defending their coverage of the Iraq war.
We have some amazing sound bites.
But first, ladies and gentlemen, I have made a list, a list I'm very proud to have made.
I'm ecstatic.
I heard about this list this morning.
It's a list of the meanest cars for 2006, and I am on the list.
High-performance sports cars, well, my car is.
High-performance sports cars, ultra-luxury sedans, and powerful trucks all rely on high-powered engines to deliver performance and towing capacity.
But that performance comes at a price landing these vehicles at the bottom of the list in the annual Green Book from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Each year, the ACEEE rates vehicles on their overall impact on the environment with vehicles earning the best scores dubbed the greenest, those with the worst scores labeled the meanest.
And I am proud and I am honored that my car is among the meanest cars made and sold today.
This is in terms of its effect on the environment and global warming.
At the top of the meanest list for 2006 is the Dodge Ram SRT-10.
And it's, well, let's just go to the list.
The Dodge Ram SRT-10 is the meanest.
The Lamborghini Murcialago is the next meanest.
The Bentley Arnage, the Dodge Durango, the Dodge Ram 1500, and the Maybach 57S are all tied in next.
The next position here is the third meanest.
The Hummer H2 and the Ferrari F99 GTB Fiorano and the Ford F-250 Super Duty 5.4 V8 four-wheel drive, the GMC UConn, the Volkswagen Tuareg, or Toure, whatever it is, and the Chevy Suburban all come in tied at the next spot.
Now, the vehicle I drive, I'm not going to identify it, but is somewhere on that list.
And I love being honored this way.
Just having one of the meanest cars in terms of its environmental impact, knowing full well how that irritates the socialist environmentalist wackos.
I just love it.
Ladies and gentlemen, I don't mean to do this.
Well, I actually do mean to do this to you.
There's more news fallout, if you will, from the ports deal.
It's from the Financial Times.
The headline pretty much says it all.
Fears grow over new Dubai revolt.
Arab and U.S. officials are growing nervous at the prospect of a second congressional uprising against the acquisition of American assets by a Middle Eastern controlled company in the wake of the Dubai ports debacle.
A person familiar with the thinking of both the U.S. and United Arab Emirates said that officials are concerned that the pending investigation of Dubai International Capital's purchase of Doncaster's, Doncaster's a privately held British aerospace manufacturer, works on sensitive U.S. weapons programs, including the Joint Strike Fighter, could provoke a similar backlash and further damage a relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
Although the proposed transaction has not yet drawn much attention in Congress, well, it will now, the first signs of unease emerged yesterday when John Barrow, a Democratic lawmaker, released a letter demanding a tour of Doncaster's Georgia facility.
He sent a letter to him.
He says, it's reported that your facility produces turbine engine parts critical to tanks and military aircraft.
One must assume it plays a necessary and substantial role in the nation's ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And so now a Dubai company company wants to buy another British company that makes parts for several military machines, weapons, and so forth.
And there's also another story that there's a there's another related story to this, and I thought I had it at the top of the stack, but I didn't.
But it's basically that some experts have weighed in that the ports deal, as it happened, and the ensuing outcry in Congress to get rid of all foreign-owned infrastructure is going to make us riskier, is going to place us at more risk, security-wise, in our ports.
Here we go.
This is, and I know this story irritates some of you people, but I just love it.
For some reason, I'm drawn to the Ports Deal story.
I knew it wasn't going to end.
I knew it was going to have legs.
The debacle over a Dubai company's thwarted attempt to take over some U.S. port operations may end up undermining U.S. security because of its impact on counterterrorism cooperation with Arab states, according to maritime experts yesterday.
The experts said that the furor that led to a state-owned Dubai Ports World promising to sell its interest in six U.S. ports it would require by buying the global assets of Britain's P ⁇ O had been driven by politics, had been driven by ignorance, had been driven by bigotry and not by honest security concerns.
Well, I don't know.
Politics, yes, ignorance, perhaps.
Bigotry, who knows?
But I can tell you, security was the last thing on the minds of the Democrats on this deal.
I don't want to relive it.
You know where I come down on it.
Bernard Carrick, the former New York Police Department commissioner who oversaw rescue efforts after the 9-11 attacks, said for four years we've been trying to tell the Arabs that we are not anti-Arab.
Carrick, who was nominated for Homeland Security Secretary in 2004 but withdrew amid questions about the immigration status of his housekeeper and nanny, said that Arab countries were as much a target of al-Qaeda as was the United States and should be embraced as allies, not turned into foes.
Now, the other half of this is, you know, Duncan Hunter from California has promised to push ahead with legislation that would require all infrastructure deemed critical to homeland security to be owned by Americans.
But Philip Murray, the chairman of the Maritime Security Council, an industry advocacy group, said that legislation like that would be devastating for the shipping industry.
And in fact, he's calling it an avalanche.
We don't know where it's going to end up.
Kim Peterson, executive director of the council and chief executive port security consultant, Secure, said, you know, this is just, how are we going to win the minds and hearts of the Islamic world if at every turn we elect to treat Muslims as our enemies?
Then they go on to talk about how the port deal, as it fell out, is actually going to place our security at greater risk if Duncan Hunter succeeds by forcing all foreign investment in necessary infrastructure to be sold.
So I had to bring those stories to your attention, ladies and gentlemen, because I simply, well, I just like it.
China has introduced a chopsticks tax.
You know, I've always said that if we want to bring down our enemies, export liberalism.
Yes, they have.
China, Chinese government introducing a 5% tax on disposable wooden chopsticks in a bid to preserve its forests.
It produces about 45 billion pairs of chopsticks a year, consuming millions of birch, poplar, and bamboo trees.
The move came as China said it would raise some consumption taxes next month in a bid to help the environment and narrow the gap between the rich and poor.
This is a communist country.
Narrow the gap between rich and poor.
They have taxes on yachts in China.
This is a BBC story.
Taxes on yachts, luxury watches, golf clubs, gas guzzling cars, and wooden floor panels are rising by 5 to 20 percent.
Now, I've always said that the great thing about trees is what you do with them after you cut them down.
They become pianos, they become houses, become baseball bats.
In China, they become chopsticks.
And I mean, Chinese need those to eat.
So it looks like the forests, just as here, we're X, you know, the spotted owl is going to be given more credit and more attention than American workers in this country.
Well, same thing happening in China.
We're exporting liberalism, and trees are going to be given greater concern and weight than the average Chinese citizen who will, I mean, if this happens, they can't pay the tax, they just have to eat with their fingers.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We will continue.
Welcome to those of you watching on the Ditto Cam.
It'll be up and running for the whole program.
You're next after this.
Listen to this next line.
I just want to share with you one more line from the China Introduces a Chopsticks Tax story.
The disposable splints of wood, usually between 8 and 10 inches long, have long been a target for Chinese environmentalists.
Now, look at what's happening here.
They got their own environmentalist wackos.
I don't know yet if there is a feminist movement over there, but if there isn't, it'll be soon because we are succeeding in exporting liberalism.
Exporting liberalism is the fastest way to destroy competitors in the global market.
I mean, they got yachts, taxes on yachts, gas-guzzling cars, and now chopsticks taxes.
By the way, the Secret Service is given the all-clear.
There was some clown threw a package over the fence at the White House.
He's in custody.
My question is: the empty bottles in there, are they what Ted Kennedy drinks?
Dawn was just hopping around in there, and I never see her hop.
It looked like a jack in the box.
I said, What?
What?
What are you doing in there?
This is during the commercial break.
You people never see these things.
I said, What are you doing in there?
He said, My skirt's too short.
I said, No, it's not.
No, it's not Christy in half-baked Moon Bay, California.
Welcome to the program.
Thanks, Rosh.
I just wanted to let you know you could help the environment, that mean car you have, if you just switched out all your light bulbs to the environmental, you know, wacko kind, then you would have a net zero impact on the environment.
Yeah, well, I remember that story.
This is the CFL, CLF, C, whatever the chlorofluorocula, whatever the light bulb is.
I'm not putting down the light bulbs.
I got an email from a guy who sells them, thought I was putting them down, harming his.
Nope, nope, nope.
It is something you could do.
In fact, that was my own suggestion.
You people out there driving Yugos and these little lawnmowers with four seats on them, thinking you're helping in saving the environment.
Go switch out all your light bulbs of these new super duper light bulbs because it was Lori David that said that if every house was just using one or two of these light bulbs, it had the equivalent of taking 8 million cars off the road every day.
I figure enough people will do this that I won't have to sacrifice on either side.
So I'm not going to go change my light bulbs and I'm not going to get rid of my mean car because I know other socially conscious people who want to make themselves feel better about themselves will go do it and more than accommodate for my mean car and my natural Lori David?
She has no claim to fame.
She's a Hollywood liberal that organized a bunch of rallies against Bush.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. turned her into an environmentalist wacko, and she's that's her claim to fame.
Her husband's Larry David, Seinfeld's partner and creator of that show.
I mean, that's it.
I mean, what's Sharon Stone's claim to fence?
Sharon Stone's out there making all kinds of political.
She went over to Israel.
She said, we're just a breath away from peace.
I can feel it.
Well, she ought to know about breaths.
But I mean, what the hell are we talking about here?
Why is it news that Sharon Stone thinks that we are a breath away from peace in the Middle East just because she touched down there?
And then she says, whatever else, they're celebrities, and so what they say is given weight.
It's screwy.
I want to go to the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
As I told you, the drive-by media nailed it across yesterday, and they are fighting back.
They feel they've been criticized.
They're coverage in Iraq under assault.
Last night on the NBC in nightly news, here is correspondent Andrea Mitchell, a story on the attack on the media.
Are the images Americans are seeing from Iraq due to the level of violence, or is it just the messenger?
And as the president suggested today, are the media also being used by the insurgents?
They're capable of blowing up innocent lives, so it ends up on your TV show.
As opposition to the war rises, it's a theme amplified by the vice president and conservative talk show host, a supposedly passive, even lazy media focusing too much on random violence.
And they go out and find video of a burning, smoldering vehicle that was blown up by an IED, and that's the news of the day.
Only yesterday, an IED exploded outside the NBC compound.
But Richard Engel also reported on the birth of a baby, the everyday lives of Iraqis.
Yeah, but only after being called on for not doing those guys.
I mean, this hit a home run.
You know, what happened was Laura Ingram was on the Today Show yesterday with The Rage and Cajun.
And some of you people are asking, what's the big deal?
I said he's got a told he just bought a vacation home, a winter home at Area 51.
And people, what's newsworthy about that?
Don't you people know what Area 51 is?
That's where all the UFOs and the aliens that we have captured are being hidden, and we are being lied to about the fact that they're there.
They are there, but the government won't admit.
Area 51, everybody knows this.
And Carville Serpent Head looks like he was born on a UFO.
I think it makes total sense that he'd have a summer, winter home, whatever, out there.
So that's, I guess, good comedy isn't funny when you have to explain it.
But at any rate, what happened was yesterday, Laura Ingram was on the Today Show with Matt Lauer and Carville and just said, you know, you guys continue to send your reporters on a hotel balcony in a green zone and you film what's going on and it's nothing more than the latest IED and smoldering car going off.
And this has spawned last night and today, NBC particularly running around defending itself as best it can.
We have some audio soundbites of this, but I want to go back to President Bush yesterday at his press conference.
He was a participant in this too, but he made it clear that he wasn't being critical.
He asked the media, don't take this as criticism.
Please don't take that as criticism, but it also is a realistic assessment of the enemy's capability to affect the debate.
And they know that.
They're capable of blowing up innocent lives, so it ends up on your TV show.
You know what?
I can't believe about this.
It's hard for me to believe that this is the first time they have become aware of this.
That on a daily basis, they are not cognizant of the fact that this is what people think of.
I've often said that they have no clue how they appear, how they look, how they sound.
But I thought at least at some point, they've got to be able to figure out that their coverage is in fact usable as propaganda.
And I've always been under the impression that they were so aware of that that that was their purpose.
They're trying to drum up anti-war support in this country.
They're trying to gin up as much investment in defeat as possible.
And I think what's happened now is they've been called on it.
They've been called on it on their own air.
And for some reason, you know, it's like when you people have always asked me, Rush, how come you don't respond to the criticism?
There's countless criticism on this.
The reason I don't respond to it is because in my experience, I have found it validates the criticism.
If you're going to go out there, respond to every little bit of criticism, people who hear the response, whoa, it must have gotten to old Rush.
Why must be upset about feel the need to refute this.
That's how people look at it, and that's how we're looking at this today.
NBC is out there and other media trying to defend themselves.
And so we realize, aha, bullseye.
So they sort of confirm that this reaction to the criticism that they're getting confirms their own knowledge and their own assessment that the criticism, if not done, if it's not dealt with, will have an even greater impact.
But they've missed the boat because it means that the impact has already occurred.
They're fighting a losing battle trying to defend this.
As you'll hear in upcoming soundbites, quick timeout.
800-282-2882 is the number.
Don't go away.
This is even better.
We have additional evidence of the successful effort being waged here to export liberalism to our global economic and ideological enemies.
In this case, the SHICOMs.
Homosexuality, of course, remains a taboo subject in China.
But now a sociologist and member of the advisory body to the parliament has submitted a proposal on same-sex marriage.
Hell, it doesn't get any better than that.
Another example of the exportation of liberalism to communist China.
China correspondent Betta Plebuni says he told Nick Perpich the proposal is unlikely to be accepted, but it does highlight the discrimination faced by gays in China.
Hey, is this just the first step?
Of course it's going to be turned down and that will ratchet up the protests even more.
And pretty soon somebody will get married defying the law in China as happened here and it'll roil the whole place and the Chinese government come wipe them out with whatever method.
But still, it's just going to shake up society.
So keep a sharp eye on that and just be patient because it works every time it's tried.
You export liberalism to some country.
Now some of you might be saying, well, how do you export liberalism to a communist country?
Well, it's very easy.
A communist country suppresses everything.
They suppress every bit of freedom they can.
But the problem is we've introduced capitalism to their market.
And so it's like what happened to the Soviet Union.
Once that door is unlocked and opened, then, I mean, the floodgates are open and you can export anything in there.
And so you can export liberal ideas to a communist government, screw them all up, because it is a shock to their system of denial of freedom.
Just watch this.
Mark my words, it may not be for a couple of years that we'll be able to come back to you and say for sure that we have successfully run this export problem, export program, but it will happen at some point.
Now back to the media.
Back to the media being all twisted up and in knots here over the fact that they have been accused of not reporting the truth from Iraq, not trying to find good news, and in effect, acting as propaganda agents for the insurgents and our enemy.
We have a montage.
This is from, well, let me give you the names because it's important.
Chris Matthews, David Gergen, David Roddam Gergen, Jeff Greenfield, Larry King, John Roberts, ex-CBS, now a CNN, Andrea Mitchell, Ron Corning, and Jake Tapper, Diane Sawyer, Jessica Yellen, all from ABC.
The press has decided not to attack the Democrats, but to attack the media.
I don't think that there's anything to be gained by attacking the press.
It's been the liberal media that's been the target.
Blame the media for the coverage of the war, that we only show the bad things.
The familiar tactic, blaming the media.
Why is the administration now seeming to blame the media?
Trying to blame the media.
The president is taking a shot at the media.
In his press conference yesterday, he was pushing back at the media.
The Bush administration thinks the media coverage is too negative.
Blaming the media.
It's not the first time the White House has gone after the media when the chips were down.
Now, I'll tell you what, it resonates with the American people.
The American people, that's what McCain's problem is going to be.
You know, McCain wants the drive-by media to be his base, and the Republican base despises the media as much as they do the Democratic Party.
They're interchangeable.
They view the media as aligned with the Democratic Party and oriented with them.
And I mean, how can it be that so many members of the media end up saying the same?
Listen to this next montage.
If there's not coordination here, one of the things I've always told you, it doesn't matter which of these drive-by networks or newspapers you read, it's all the same.
And we've had countless different montages that we've assembled to provide the evidence.
And we've got another one.
Here we have from MSNBC David Schuster, Margaret Carlson from Bloomberg, James Carville, and Chris Matthews.
The president does excel at fraternity-style teasing, like when he tells Snap the reporter.
His attitude during the press conference was oddly upbeat, I thought.
And, you know, the towel snapping.
He was in his jocular frat boy towel snapping mood.
Did his PR people warn the president when you go out and towel snap.
Towel snap.
Now, you know, I know what that is.
That's frat boy lingo, but we're back now to this.
He's a frat boy.
One day, Bush is deceitful.
He and Cheney and Rumsfeld are so smart.
They're fooling everybody, using the media to get their lying, stinking message out.
The next day, Bush is an absolute idiot who doesn't understand the English language, can't understand words with more than 10 letters in them, if he can do that.
Now he's back to the frat boy business.
What about his towel snapping business?
I mean, somebody has to coordinate this.
It's like the Democrats are coordinating their new use of the word incompetent to describe the administration.
The media has jumped right on that.
And did you hear, who was it?
Margaret Carlson, his attitude during the press conference, oddly upbeat, I thought.
And you know, the towns, they think the guy ought to be so low he looks up and sees the gutter.
They think they've done such a gang, a bang-up good job.
Caught myself there, Dawn, of beating this guy up that they think he's cowering in fear in the corner in the White House every night.
They think that he is totally absorbed in their world, totally absorbed in a media world, and how can he come out and be happy?
How can he come out and be upbeat?
How can he come out and start towel snapping reporters?
I'll guarantee you, the two things that happened yesterday that devastated these people, that's why they're on this attempt here to get their credibility back, is the charge that they're doing an insufficient job in Iraq, that they are acting as propaganda agents, willingly or not, for the enemy.
And then the president came out, did a great performance, had a great press conference, had a great time, and wasn't down in the dumps and wasn't ready to commit suicide.
And so the view of the world that these people have crafted for themselves, their little alternative reality, was shattered yesterday.
Let's move on to audio soundbite number six from this morning at the Today Show.
David Gregory and Richard Engel discuss Bush's attack on the media.
Here's the question from Gregory.
The president said yesterday, speaking of the insurgents, quote, they're capable of blowing up innocent life, so it ends up on your TV shows.
Based on your reporting, Bob, do you think insurgents in Iraq are sophisticated enough?
They tune into news coverage here?
Absolutely.
They are certainly watching the news coverage.
They have active propaganda divisions within the insurgent groups, and certain attacks are clearly designed to grab attention, to grab headlines, and to be put in the headlines.
However, most of the attacks here happen very far away from the cameras, particularly in this period of sectarian violence.
Most of these assassinations happen at night and are not done for the media's benefit, but because there is a violent insurgency underway here.
Nobody doubts that.
Nobody doubts that there's a violent insurgency underway.
But even if you don't catch all of them, you find enough of them.
But I like the whole tone of the answer here.
Is the enemy using the media?
Yes, but which is the, and when you hear a but, yes, they're using the media.
Of course they're using the media.
But, but most of the attacks here happen very far away from the cameras.
Well, your cameras seem to find enough of them to give the American people the impression that they're happening 24-7.
The American people thinking it's all there is no car safe in Iraq.
Every car is going to get blown up by an IED, and it's going to end up on NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, wherever, as routinely as it happens.
So while you may not be catching them all, Mr. Engel, you are sure finding enough.
So Gregory says, well, what's your gut check on all this, Bob?
Do we miss the overall story about what's going on in Iraq, or does security remain the overall story?
The security problem is the overall story.
And most Iraqis I speak to say, actually, most reporters get it wrong.
The situation on the ground is actually worse than the images we project on television.
Isn't that clever?
So now, yeah, yeah, we get used for propaganda.
Yeah.
Yeah, but you know, it's actually, but David, it's worse than what we're actually showing.
We're actually not putting it as poorly as it really is.
Now, there's a way to contradict this, and that's talk to people who have been there and read what they have written from Christopher Hitchens to Victor Davis Hansen to Ralph Peters.
And I've mentioned all these names, and we have linked to their pieces.
The prevailing opinion among people who go over there is that it is not nearly as bad as the daily presentation on the nightly newscasts and throughout cable news in this country.
And yet now these people trying to turn things, well, but you know, it's really worse than what we're doing.
Gregory is really much worse over me.
Iraqis tell us that.
Iraqis tell us it's much worse than what we're reporting.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, let's go back.
Grantly, we're going to move on to soundbite nine.
Let's go back.
One of the things that came up on the Today Show yesterday was, you know, you guys ought to go to Iraq and do some reporting from someplace other than your hotel balcony in the green zone.
And Gregory said, we've been to Ruck.
Matt Wauer went over to her.
We've been to Iraq.
I know he was because we have two sound bites.
And we aired them originally.
And it's time to turn back the hands of time and go back to our archives.
This is August 17th, 2005.
Matt Wauer live from Iraq.
I'm sorry, Matt Wauer live from Iraq.
And he interviewed Army Captain Sherman Powell.
And Matt Wauer said, I mean, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth.
He's talking to four American soldiers here.
I mean, I think you guys are probably telling me the truth.
But there might be a lot of people at home wondering how that could be possible with the conditions you're facing and with the insurgent attacks you're facing.
So what would you say to those people who are doubtful that morale can be as high as you say it is?
Sir, I'd tell you, if I got my news from the newspapers also, I'd be pretty depressed as well.
What don't you think is being correctly portrayed?
Sir, I know it's hard to get out and get on the ground and report the news.
And I understand that.
And I appreciate that fact.
But for those of us who actually have had a chance to get out and go on patrols and meet the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police and go on patrols with them, we are very satisfied with the way things are going here.
And we are confident that if we're allowed to finish the job we started, we'll be very proud of it.
And our country will be proud of us for doing it.
The next bite, September, or I'm sorry, August 17th of 2005, Matt Wauer says, well, there's been reports in the media lately, and I'm going to get your feathers ruffled here in a second, that expectations now are starting to be lowered for what would be success here in Iraq.
Now, stop and think of this.
Here is Matt Lauer talking to, there are actually four soldiers in the group.
He's talking to one of them here.
And the soldier's giving him bird's eye view.
Well, here's what's going on.
I'm here.
I'm out on patrol.
You guys aren't.
He didn't say it this way, so you guys are essentially here in the green zone.
And somebody will send you some video from Al Jazeera of another IED explosion.
You'll put that on the air, but you're not out there.
And I'm out there, and I'm seeing all this stuff that's happening.
And it's not as bad as you.
The morale here is very high.
And Matt Lauer says, well, well, well, there have been reports in the media.
The media says morale isn't that.
And the media says that the standards for success have been lowered over here.
The media says it's here.
A guy from the media telling a soldier, well, I don't know if I believe you because the media back home is saying XYZ.
So, the question here: how would you feel about U.S. forces being drawn or withdrawn or drawn down before I see you're shaking your head, the insurgency is defeated?
Well, sir, I would just tell you, and for the people who are listening back at home, that we appreciate the support we've gotten from them so far.
And soldiers will do anything when they know they have good leadership and they have the support from the people back at home.
As long as we continue to have confidence that we are supported and people have our back, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.
And this is the salient point because the real upshot of all of this consistent, identical reporting, regardless of the network, regardless of the newspaper, is designed to undermine everybody who sees it.
The American people, the soldiers, their families back here, if these reports happen to be seen in Iraq, they're designed to demoralize people.
That's the purpose of it.
There's no other reason.
Why specifically exclude good news?
Why make it a point to leave that out?
Why focus only on the negative?
Why, when there is great news about battlefield fatalities being lower than ever, why is that bad news?
Why is that not heralded and triumphed?
Why do we not get one story celebrating the valor of the American military?
Instead, we get how they're a bunch of dumb hicks who can't get work and a faltering economy and they got no hope but them to go over there and they're so stupid and dumb and they probably all voted for Bush that they're just idiots and they're being lied to by their commanders, being lied to by their everybody involved.
That's the tenor of the story we get, and that's what the left thinks.
The left routinely impugns the military.
And if you doubt me, who is it that had to come?
No, we support troops.
We just don't support the mission.
That's BS.
You can't have one without the other.
But why do we not get one story?
We will get great stories when we go get injured soldiers on television to show how just mean and unfair Bush's war is.
But we never get stories about the valor.
We never get stories about the heroism.
We never get stories about all we get: Abu Grab, Club Gitmo.
If these people in the media don't understand that the jig is up, everybody understands what they're doing.
Their friends like it.
But those of us who have a vested interest in supporting the country and victory of the U.S. military in this conflict know full well what the game is, and they know that we know it now, and they're fully on defensive.
Quick time out, we'll be back.
Stay with us.
I have a question.
This last segment, because I was on one of my patented inimitable roles, ladies and gentlemen, I didn't want to stop, so I went long.
So this segment is going to be short, and that's not wise.
And I apologize for it in advance.
But I do have another question for all these media types, all these people that we've had in our montages today, and all of their supporters.
If you aren't reporting in unison, and we know that you are, I mean, all the way down to the montage we had, well, you know, the president just doesn't have gravitas.
Cheney gives gravitas.
Now, this montage of Bush's frat boy towel snapping a reporter in the media yesterday in the press conference.
Towel snapping used by four different reporters yesterday.
If you are not reporting in unison, then why does every reporter defend the entire media's reporting?
In other words, it's one thing to defend your own individual reporting.
If you are a reporter and you're under assault by the likes of me, well, I can understand you defending yourself, but then you go out on the limb and you start defending everybody else in the media.
You defend all reporting by all media outlets.
Does this not demonstrate how, in fact, the media do act as one voice, which is exactly what we're accusing them of?
And they get caught up in this notion that they are the liberal media and they're miscast and mischaracterized as the liberal media.
Well, that's not even arguable.
They are liberals.
That's fine.
Everybody's got to be something.
But the fact that it is in unison and appears to be organized.
Now, nobody suggests you guys have clandestine meetings every morning to plan how you're going to report on the day.
You don't have to.
You are all from the same cookie cutter mold.
It is incredible.
The culture.
I don't know where it starts, probably journalism, school.
But the culture is just identical and it is striking.
And they know they have to circle the wagons because they know they don't have their monopoly.
They know there's a new media.
They know their time is almost up.
Lots more sound bites to come.
Lots of great stuff, serious, funny stuff with the stacks of stuff.
And of course, your phone calls.
Couldn't do the program without them.
And no, we couldn't, Sternley.
▲
Export Selection