All Episodes
Previous Next
March 23, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:18
March 23, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, and welcome back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchorman, America's Truth Detector, and the Doctor of Democracy, general all-round good guy, a well-known radio racon tour, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
I want to go back to the lovely and delightful call that we had from our friendly liberal from Miami, Tom.
I guess it's about 15 minutes ago, 15 or 20 minutes ago.
Just going on and on about how the peace activists over there, the Christian peacemaker teams, they're right.
We're wrong.
We invaded a sovereign country.
We're imperialists.
We're whatever he said.
And I finally asked him, since I don't know what this feels like, could you tell me what it's like to be wrong all the time?
And that's when the conversation broke down.
I was sorry to see it go that way, but it did.
But I was thinking about this, and I little thought for all of you libs who are out there cheering Tom on while he's being wrong.
I know that you libs have substituted emotional satisfaction for victory or even being right.
As long as you have that rage and anger fueled, you feel cool and happy in some demented sort of way.
But just a little fact here.
Whenever you invade a country, as Tom accused us of doing, you are invading a sovereign country.
What does it have to do with anything?
If the government of the country is illegitimate and it's threatening us and it's threatening its neighbors, what does the fact that it's sovereign have to do with anything?
And I will tell you the answer is zip zero nada, as so much of the left is today.
It's irrelevant.
What you think is so wrong, it means zip zero nada.
But I've also come up with an idea.
One of the problems in Iraq, right, is the insurgency, the terrorists.
They're out there blowing up people and cars with these IEDs and so forth.
And as you know, we on this program, led by me, the host, we love to think outside the box here, particularly when it comes to solutions.
We're not just people here to complain and whine and moan.
We actually offer solutions to innumerable problems.
And in an illustration here of thinking outside the box, I think one of the ways that we could actually secure victory and pretty soon would be to send a whole mess of peace activists over there.
The Christian peacemaker teams and any other peace group, human shields, whatever, whatever they're going to call themselves.
Find a way to get them over there.
If we could get, if we could get five to ten, maybe 15,000, well, 5,000 would do, but if we could get 5,000 to 10,000 of these peace clowns taken hostage in Iraq, think of how many insurgents that would tie up guarding them.
The only problem with my theory is that it might not take any insurgents to guard them because they may not need to be guarded because after all, these are pacifists.
They think the insurgents are their friends.
But if my theory holds true, we could tie up a good percentage of the insurgency just guarding these people.
So I actually think we need more peace activists over there and not fewer.
Also went to this group's website, the Christian Peacemaker Teams.
And for any of you that had any doubts, we had Amy call in the last hour, enraged and upset what these people are saying.
And I said, Amy, let them speak.
Let more and more people find out who they are and what they think.
And I said to her, and you heard me because you were listening, you are riveted to this program each day.
It's EIB, airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact, the only healthful addiction known to exist in America, by the way.
And you heard me say that these people, when they go to vote, they're Democrats, they're liberals, they're socialists, they're anti-capitalists, probably from the hate America, blame America wing of their organizations, but you know they vote Democrat.
Well, on their website, and we'll give you a link to this at rushlimbaud.com.
At the top of the first page, urgent action.
And it says the Christian Peacemaker Teams has no call for urgent action at this time.
Please check back regularly.
Okay.
So read on down the page, and the most recent urgent action was in December of 2005.
It expired on December 18th of 2005, just a few short months ago.
But they say they're going to still list the expired urgent action for informational purposes.
They didn't take it down.
They leave it up there so you can see it, but it's no longer actually an urgent action.
And it's titled CPT: Iraq Urgent Action.
Provides support for democratic rebuttal on opposition to the war.
Background: President Bush will be making a rare address from the Oval Orifice this Sunday at 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time to address the nation about the U.S. war effort in Iraq.
It is likely the Democratic leadership will issue some sort of rebuttal.
Action, help provide the Democratic leadership with expert information from the Iraq team, meaning the Iraq team of peace activists.
Email and facts and follow up with a call.
The two congressional offices listed below.
Specifically, contact Representative John Murtha, Democrat Pennsylvania, a war veteran who has publicly called for a withdrawal from Iraq.
He has come under fire from Republicans.
It gives his contact information.
The next one, Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic leader.
She has joined with Representative Murtha in calling for a withdrawal.
And then they tell their followers here what they should communicate to Congressman Murtha and Congressperson Pelosi.
Now, look, I'm not telling you this to reveal some sort of shocking news because it is not shocking news to me.
I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked body, not just the back of my hand.
I wanted to pass it on to you if you had any doubts about who these peace people are, about who they're, the Christian peace teams or whoever.
They were rescued.
The media today is talking about how they were freed.
They were rescued by heroes wearing military uniforms.
They were rescued after one of their members had been tortured and shot to death.
Of course, they don't report that.
It's reported that he was just found dead.
And then the group put out a statement today with absolutely no gratitude whatsoever.
And in fact, in place of gratitude, they praised their Muslim brothers and blamed the United States of America.
So, who do they sound like?
They sound like President Bush.
They sound like the Republicans.
They sound like conservatives who are pro-war, pro-American, want to win this thing, know what the stakes and the odds are.
No.
Who do they sound like?
Who does Saddam Hussein sound like?
They sound like the Democratic Party.
Two soundbites here from Dingy Harry.
He was on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer last night.
Wolf Blitzer says, What about on this third anniversary of the war in Iraq?
What do you think about that, Senator?
The government's not functioning.
The economic standards in Iraq have gone downhill.
We're producing less oil, less electricity, less potable water.
I think that we, as Senator Levin has said so many times, we have to get the political structure of Iraq together.
We've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II.
And the American people aren't willing to pay $2 billion a week.
The president must have a plan to win the peace, and he hasn't had one yet.
All right.
Now, there's another bite.
We'll get into details here.
But the thing here, we've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II.
Well, now everybody knows that isn't true.
Now, will this be spread all over the Associated Press?
Dingy Harry mistakenly states we've been in Iraq longer than World War II.
When I mistakenly identified the race of Sherrod Brown, it was on the AP wire for a week.
And newspapers actually printed it.
And I understand that.
It's so rare for me to make a mistake.
It is news.
When I screw up, I deal with it.
People have to get their jollies somehow.
I think he's thinking of World War I here.
He may be, well, he's not right.
But if you were to say that we've been in Iraq a little longer than we were in World War I, then you might have a good point, too.
I mean, Dingy Harry's obviously been alive since both these world wars.
He ought to know which one he's talking about.
This is the next bite that I really want to comment on substantively.
Wolf Blitz says, I have to ask you a question about a memorandum that you circulated among Democrats suggesting that during the break they go out and go out and meet with soldiers and try to publicize their stance.
And in effect, what Republicans are accusing you of doing is wanting to use national security and American troops as props in a propaganda battle against the White House.
What we're doing during the recess is to focus attention on real security.
The American people are tired of what this president is doing.
They're tired of the fact that he has not told the truth in the United States.
Stop the tape a minute.
What is this?
This guy, he's trying to sound more energetic.
Every time we play a Dingy Harry bite, I get toothpicks to keep my eyelids open.
I mean, it's Snore City.
Dingy Harry sounds animated and in the process, doesn't he?
His voice is going up.
His voice is getting higher.
It sounds a little bit like Puff Dashal, speed it up.
So many different issues.
What we're doing here around the country is what we should be doing, is focusing attention on real security to this nation.
Our ports, our airplane cargo holes, our chemical plants, of course, our nuclear power facilities.
The ports.
And the Republicans simply have been unwilling to talk about real security.
This is just too good.
This is just too good.
Now, Dingy Harry is rerunning the John Kerry campaign.
Who won that election?
How can it be that George W. Bush is hated and despised and nobody wants to be in Iraq?
And we've known this for a long time, and yet Bush won re-election, and the Democratic Party espousing what Dingy Harry, they continue to run on a losing program and platform and proposition.
Insanity, one of the definitions of insanity, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
And I'm telling you, these people are lunatics.
They are engaged in their own form of political insanity here.
And this business of going out to National Guard armories and other places for photo ops with National Guardsmen and active duty and retired vets from Iraq.
It is A, against the Uniform Code of Military Justice, use active military personnel to get into any kind of partisan political appearance, as we shared with you yesterday, read the actual site from the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But it's also phony.
It's blatantly transparent.
Nobody is going to think that the Democrats actually care a whit about the troops.
It is pure exploitation.
And believe me, if they actually do this during their Easter recess, it will be noted as such and it will be seen as what it is and for what it is.
A quick timeout here, my good buddies, back with more in mere moments.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Spirit of compassion ruling and dominating this program each and every day.
Rushlin bought 800-282-2882.
We have a montage here of Chris Matthews from his show last night talking about, and he is my friend.
Chris Matthews, a friend of mine.
I mean, I know I've been on his show a couple times.
I haven't been invited lately, probably because he knows I don't do television much.
But he's, I don't know, I get worried sometimes about my friends.
Going over the deep end here, I've sense a lot of people in the media going over the deep end here ever since Bush's press conference.
On, what was it, Monday?
Boy, this week has just flown by.
It was Monday, Tuesday, whatever it was.
Bush basically said, hey, you guys, I'm not criticizing you, but yeah, you are helping the enemy with their own propaganda, with the stuff you're putting on the air.
And then today's show came out and they're still bugbiting.
In fact, Howard Feynman has a piece at MSNBC.com.
He's a Newsweek writer that compares Bush to Jack Bauer of 24.
Bush, Jack Bauer is in the White House.
And it's all about these guys, the media are circling the wagons.
And as I say, and we have a soundbite of this coming up, in Wheeling, West Virginia yesterday, a woman stands up and asks a question about the media and helping propaganda, and that crowd just erupts.
Now, of course, this little town meeting was pretty much ignored last night per se, but it did cause reactions reverberating throughout the media.
Here's this montage.
I'm playing this for a specific reason above and beyond to let you hear the specifics of what Chris is saying here.
Who is the enemy here?
Who are we to say that that minority group, the Sunnis, shouldn't rebel against such a system?
Suppose they don't want to be ruled by Shia.
Who are we to say they shouldn't try to rebel against the majority of the people?
What right have we got to go into another country and tell those other people what to do?
Isn't it possible the longer we stay there, the more Arabs we kill, the more hatred we're stirring around the world, we're actually losing ground in this battle against terrorism?
Stop confusing terms like terrorist and insurgent.
Say we're fighting insurgents.
Why does the president continue to put those words together, calling them them, calling them the terrorists?
The language has lost its value.
Words like them, the evil ones, the terrorists.
All right, see, now, you don't need me to analyze this for you.
That speaks for itself.
Now they're mad at the president for calling terrorists terrorists.
He just said, we're creating more terrorists.
We're stirring up people over there.
The more Arabs we kill.
Here's my question.
How come it is that the media gets to exempt themselves from any role in affecting attitudes or impacting opinion?
It seems only the president can do this with his policies.
But let's go back to the ports deal for a moment, shall we?
No new news on the ports deal.
I love ports deal stories, though.
I wish we had some, but we don't.
But who was it back during the era of the ports deal?
Who was, I mean, how can you be more insulting to Arabs than the Democrats and the media were during the Ports deal?
Of all people to see as an enemy, DuPai, Ports World, the United Arab Emirates.
And we had the entire Democratic Party and some off-the-wall Republicans in Congress making it clear, even though they didn't have the guts to come out and say so, making it clear that they were not going to allow DPW into our ports because they're Arabs.
Now, how come nobody ever says, you know, that might be inspiring a little hatred out there amongst the Arab and Muslim world for us.
The media, the Democratic, no, because these are the people that have automatically claimed the mantle of compassion and understanding and sensitivity when in fact they were just blatant bigots.
They were blatant xenophobes.
The only reason, the only reason DP World was not allowed to come in and conclude that deal was because they are Arabs.
But they were Arabs, the United Arab Emirates.
And the United Arab Emirates hasn't attacked us.
So, you know, this business that only Bush is creating enemies, only Bush is out there.
Well, in our military, they're doing it because we're killing, but it's only because Bush is ordering them to do the killing.
Bush sends out the killing orders.
He's turned Iraq into the modern-day killing fields of Laos and Cambodia and Vietnam.
And for this, Arabs around the world hate us.
And that's not even true.
But hypothetically, if it were, I just want somebody to tell me how it is that the same people who are out there leveling this accusation and charge against Bush can automatically exempt themselves from the same charge, even when they engage in blatant action that is undisguised distrust, suspicion, and perhaps in some quarters, hatred,
and certainly fear of anyone who might be Arab.
Stephen Houston, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Megadittos Rush.
This calling from Houston.
I've been a supporter for many years of you, and I find that these peace NICs and these rescue missions to save people that are over there for no good reason is just detracting from our mission where we have troops that are trying to root out the terrorists, trying to protect people back here, foster freedom.
Then we have to go protect these MANB CAMBI peace next, and it reminds me of pseudo-intellectuals I've known for years.
Yeah, but you know something, Tom?
A large force portion of the rescue team was British.
And the members of this particular Christian Peacemaker team are British.
So there was national loyalty there, U.S. troops involved as well, coalition forces.
But again, that tells everybody who we are.
Even though this silly little group, in an official statement, said, we will not be rescued by the means of violent force.
We just won't.
When violent force showed up to rescue them, they sure high-tailed it out, didn't they?
Quick timeout.
We are the passionate ones, is the point, folks.
We're the good guys.
Back in a moment.
And remember, folks, I have never been the one to say that I am the smartest guy out there.
You have thought that on your own.
800-282-2882 and email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
That's not a good day for the libs in the New York Times.
Have you heard about this?
For the second time in less than a week, the New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story.
On Saturday, the Times said that it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic hooded inmate photograph from the Abu Ghrab prison in Iraq.
Today, the New York Times discloses that a woman that it profiled on March 8th is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina.
She was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday, as it did in the Abu Grab mistake.
The Times ran an editor's note on page two of its front section, along with a lengthy news article, this time on the front page of section B. Again, mirroring the Abu Grab episode, the newspaper revealed a surprising and inexplicable lapse in fact-checking on the part of a reporter and are an editor.
Now, why do you think that would be?
Why do you think they wouldn't bother to fact-check this woman claiming to be a Katrina victim and instead just run with the story?
Why do you think that would be?
I'll tell you why.
It's because they have become a bunch of kook activists themselves at the New York Times when somebody comes along.
They are so enamored of their own view.
There is no other view than theirs.
When somebody comes along and confirms it, it's got to be true because everybody knows that's what happened.
So a woman came along, made it all up.
I mean, the whole paper is Jason Blair.
The sources are Jason Blair.
They think they got rid of Jason Blair.
They can't get rid of Jason Blair unless they get rid of their readership, unless they get rid of their editors.
What?
Stop.
The paper is Jason Blair.
The whole New York Times is Jason Blair.
How can we trust anything in this paper?
Two weeks, two stories, both featuring frauds, because both subjects in the stories confirmed what the editorial point of view of the New York Times and the political point of view of the people that worked there happens to be.
Katrina was a Bush disaster.
Bombs blew up.
Who knows what else?
I didn't even read this story because I don't read the paper, but I can imagine what this woman said.
I'm sure it was full of whiny, teary.
We were ignored.
We were sweaty.
We were watching murders.
They were watching all this sort of stuff.
FEMA was nowhere to be found.
The local officials were doing their best, but they didn't get any help from the federal government.
Blah, blah, blah.
Because Bush sucks, which is the overall theme of all this.
If you, I mean, I ought to try calling the New York Times.
You know, I agree with you.
Bush sucks.
And I want to give you my story.
And I'll bet I could get a reporter to talk to me.
And not as me, just, you know, call in as Enos Slobodnik or somebody.
That's why, folks, they report the news they want to be true.
So some ding bat criminal source comes along, validates what the New York Times already thinks, and it's off to the races.
So yes, Mr. Snirdly, the whole paper is Jason Blair.
The readership is a bunch of Jason Blairs.
The subscribers to that paper, a bunch of Jason Blairs.
The editors are a bunch of Jason Blair's.
Pinch Schulzberger's a Jason Blair.
Here's the editor's note.
This is what they said.
An article in the Metro section on March 8th profiled Donna Fenton, identifying her as a 37-year-old victim of Hurricane Katrina who had fled Biloxi, Mississippi, and who was frustrated in efforts to get federal aid.
What did I tell you?
As she and her children remained as emergency residents at a hotel in Queens.
Yesterday, the New York police arrested Ms. Fenton, charging her with several counts of welfare fraud and grand larceny.
Prosecutors in Brooklyn say she was not a Katrina victim, never lived in Biloxi, and had improperly received thousands of dollars in government aid.
Ms. Fenton has pleaded not guilty.
Well, how did so the New York police are the source?
They didn't fact check.
They didn't double check because they didn't think it was necessary.
That's the bottom line.
By the way, back to the Christian Peacemaker teams.
Coco up at the website sent me a link here reminding me of something else posted September 21st of 2005.
And we've mentioned this before, but I've forgotten it.
The Christian Peacemaker teams had an adopt a detainee program.
You remember that?
After a year and a half of coordinated advocacy for Iraqis detained by U.S. and other occupying forces, Christian Peacemaker Teams is ending its adopt a detainee letter writing campaign.
CPT's Iraq Project will, however, continue to monitor the situation of Iraqis captured by the multinational force in Iraq and by the new Iraqi forces.
Now, the adopt a detainee letter writing campaign beginning in March of 2004 matched individual detainees with congregations, mosques, synagogues, and peace groups in North America and around the world.
These groups wrote letters to U.S., Iraqi, and other relevant officials on the detainees' behalf.
Well, now, if the program is going so well, why did they stop it?
My guess is that the adopt a detainee campaign fizzled on these people and they announced its cancellation.
But anyway, that's who they are.
They're just Democrats, liberal Democrats.
Pure and simple.
All right, audio soundbite time.
We've been talking about this the whole program.
Bush and his president Bush, sorry, and his town meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia yesterday, Jean Taylor, who is the wife of a member of the military recently returned from Iraq, stood up and said this to the president.
This is my husband who has returned from a 13-month tour in Tikrit, and he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on.
And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart for a solution to this because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good.
They just want to focus.
Okay, hold on.
Stop the tape a minute.
West Virginia traditionally has been a Democrat state, just so you know.
That applause kept going.
Sorry, kept going.
They just want to focus on another car bomb.
They just want to focus on some more bloodshed, or they just want to focus on how they don't agree with you and what you're doing when they don't even probably know how you're doing what you're doing anyway.
But what can we do to get that footage on CNN, on Fox, to get it on headline news, to get it on the local news?
It portrays the good.
And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.
Yeah.
You hear that applause?
We didn't edit any of that.
I mean, that's the way it was.
Yeah, we'll play it again.
Re-cue that.
We don't have to recue it anymore.
We've put all this stuff on our computer hard drive system.
And so it doesn't have to be recued.
It just has to be researched.
So play this again and play it up until the applause.
Then we'll move on to the next one.
This is my husband who has returned from a 13-month tour in Tikrit.
And he has brought back several DVDs full of wonderful footage of reconstruction, of medical things going on.
And I ask you this from the bottom of my heart for a solution to this because it seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good.
They just want to focus.
All right, stop the tape.
We'll have the president's answer for you here in just a second.
This is evidence.
This is not a poll.
Now, it's one moment in time of one city, Wheeling, West Virginia, but it is a question about the media.
You heard the applause.
We're never going to get any polls on, do you believe what you hear or read in the drive-by media anymore?
Or how much of what you hear or read do you believe?
We won't get polls like that.
Not from them anyway.
They're under the illusion that they are in the process of converting everybody to their way of thinking, and they're using the polls to do it.
They are creating news out of bogus polls.
And then when they create this news, you would think if every polling that you go back to the polling before the election of 2004, John Kerry should have been president and we should have been out of Iraq by now.
If those polls are accurate, Bush should be gone and we should be out of Iraq by now, based on what the American people want.
And yet, despite the polls, Bush wins re-election with more votes than any president's ever had before.
We're still in Iraq.
A paltry few people show up on the third anniversary of the war to protest, demand that we get out of it.
I'll tell you, a giant illusion is being created by the mainstream press, and they, they've known it all along.
They just have failed to come to grips with the fact that they don't have the monopoly that they used to have.
And this little soundbite, that episode in Wheeling, West Virginia yesterday is evidence.
And so they are now circling the wagons yet again.
Here, by the way, is President Bush's answer to her question.
One of the things that we've got to value is the fact that we do have a media, a free media that's able to do what they want to do.
Just got to keep talking.
And word of mouth, there's blogs, there's internet, there's all kinds of ways to communicate, which is literally changing the way people are getting their information.
And so if you're concerned, I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops that have got internet sites and just keep the word moving.
And that's one way to deal with an issue without suppressing a free press.
We will never do that in America.
I know you're frustrated with what you're seeing, but there are ways in this new kind of age being able to communicate that you'll be able to spread the message that you want to spread.
And I want to remind you again, we didn't see this.
We didn't know about this till earlier in the week.
Some Pew survey, they do polling.
But they went out and they talked to tons of people in 2004.
And they concluded, based on their research, that this program has more people listening to it each day who consume hard news than anything, including the Sunday programs, the nightly newscasts.
More people who claim that they are consumers of hard news and thus are involved and engaged on a daily basis consult and listen to this program more than any other was cited.
And so the new media is alive and well, and there are countless places for, and it's happening.
And for all of these, for the truth, the other side of the story, given whatever story it is, to get out.
And it's happening, and it has been for 18 to 20 years.
And this is why newspapers are in deep doo-doo.
They're in trouble because of the Times as well, not the New York Times.
I mean, it's just, you know, too many newspaper people think they're in the paper business, and they're in the information business.
And their information is just, in many of these big papers, is just as one-sided and exclusionary as is, you know, major broadcast news.
Anyway, run along here.
Got to take a break.
We will be back.
Roll right on in just a second.
I spoke too soon a moment ago.
In fact, ladies and gentlemen, we do.
We do have news about ports.
In the stack of stuff, yes, yes, yes, yes.
I tell you what, we better keep sharp eyes to our south.
Mexico and major shipping interests are bolstering Pacific ports south of our border, hoping to catch future runoff as an increasing tide of Asian cargo sails toward already clogged ports in California.
Mexican officials in coming weeks plan to study the feasibility of turning Punta Colonet, a sparsely populated, windblown bay on the Baja Peninsula, 150 miles south of our border, into a superport on par with twin facilities at Los Angeles and Long Beach, the largest western port complex in North America.
So, Mexico just discovered a huge oil field in the Gulf.
We're not drilling there.
We're not drilling any new fields.
And now they're going to open up a superport 150 miles south of our border.
I just wonder.
They want to be a player in worldwide shipping.
I just wonder if they will have any problems with people from Dubai.
I wonder if the Mexicans will have any problem if the United Arab Emirates wants to establish terminal operations at Mexican-owned ports in the Baja Peninsula.
And I wonder if our Congress will let them.
Let's say that the Mexicans make a deal with DP World.
Will our Congress allow it?
And will there be a giant sucking sound of port jobs heading down to Mexico because our ports are too clogged and we're not expanding.
That's just something to keep a sharp eye on out there, folks.
Here is Art in Athens, Ohio.
Hi, Art.
Welcome to the program.
Because I'm part of Christian Peacemaker Teams.
I just got back from Iraq.
My wife is still in Baghdad with Christian Peacemaker Teams.
Okay.
Did you call today for a specific reason or did you just want to tell me that?
No, I thought you might want to talk to somebody who's been there and been part of the team.
Christian Peacemaker Teams comes out of the Quakers, Mennonites, and the Church of the Brethren, the peace churches.
And it's based on the idea that if we want peace and are opposed to war, then we ought to be willing to take the same risks that soldiers take and go into violent situations and be a nonviolent presence in the middle of the world.
Yeah, well, but you know, peacemakers have never won wars with peace.
They do it with guns and soldiers.
You win wars by killing people and breaking things, and then you institute the peace.
We believe that the only way to overcome evil is through nonviolent suffering love.
The problem is that you're misdefining evil.
You're in the midst of evil over there, and yet you see it here in the United States.
The evil is all around you.
The evil just captured a bunch of your members.
You see it everywhere.
Well, you don't see it then.
And you can sit there all day and tell me what you see.
You've been rescued by people.
After swearing off any use of force of violence to have these people rescued, they still took the rescue.
And there's not one bit of gratitude.
There's not one thank you.
There's nothing more than blaming the people that rescued you and calling them now on this program evil.
I, sir, am not interested.
I just snuck a peek at the Drudge Report.
Apparently, a blockbuster of some magnitude is just around the corner.
The screaming siren headline, ABC News Exec, quote, Bush makes me sick, email revealed.
Apparently, well, no, it's not, see, this is the snurdle he says, that's news.
No, it isn't news that the mainstream press has people in it that make Bush sick, or that Bush makes sick.
What's happened is, is that somebody, they're so confident saying it, they're putting it in their emails, somebody at ABC has leaked a bunch of the emails to Drudge, and he's going to publish them, or one of them, or something.
In this atmosphere, this week, when the press has been called on telling half the story from Iraq and blah, blah, blah, and they're circling the wagons in panic and so forth, if this is what I think it is, the timing of this does make this, you might call it like a TNT blast.
This is not nuclear, but we'll look for it, see what it is.
▲
Export Selection