All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
June 14, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
My gosh, all eyes are on me on the other side of the glass like something momentous is about to be said or happen.
Every time I open my mouth, it's momentous, so I don't know why the additional, what are you wondering what I'm going to lead off with today?
It is one of those days.
Hey, folks, nice to have you with us.
Broadcast excellence, all yours, show prep for the rest of the media.
Rush Limbaugh speaking truth to kooks from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
All right, then I want to start today with something that may not be on your radar screen yet.
If not, it soon will be.
Mr. Snerdley had the prescience and had the sense to put it near the top of his stack.
This is a very interesting and important story.
And only I, ladies and gentlemen, will be able to explain and analyze this for you.
And it's important to bring it to you in this context because everybody's now sort of riding the wave of optimism after the Zarkawi death, the new Iraqi government, the president's visit to Iraq still has a media steam, by the way, Drive-By Media still.
And they still livid about Karl Rove.
How about the headline, Rove avoids indictment.
There's a big piece today in the New York Observer where they talk to Rove's lawyer and they try to analyze just where did the mainstream media go wrong in reporting this story?
How can it be that they reported that Rove was going to be indicted when he wasn't?
And the drive-by media ends up blaming pressure from the blogosphere.
Remember, there was this guy, Jason Leopold at Truthout.org, who wrote, Rove's been indicted.
Fitzpatrick secretly served him the sealed indictment.
It's a done deal.
And this caused, and this is the key to this, this caused editors at the drive-by media to tell their reporters, call Rove's lawyer.
So the reporters did call Rove's lawyer, and according to Rove's lawyer, Bob Lusku, said they were very embarrassed.
Look, I really, my sources are not telling me anything like this, but my editor's demanding I call you because this thing on the internet out there.
And they're saying that Rove's been invited, and it was just endless parade of drive-by media guys calling after that internet blog report hit.
Now, why would the editors, you know, there's a very simple answer to this.
Why would the editors be pressured into pursuing a story based on some wacko kook on a blog?
Because they wanted it to be true, folks.
This is a smokescreen story in The Observer.
This whole thing, now they're wringing their hands.
They're so mad Rove didn't get indicted.
And now they're trying to analyze.
Why not?
Why didn't he get it?
Why do we think he was going to get it?
Because y'all wanted it to.
You end up living a lie.
You guys tell your things, yourself, things that you want to happen, and you get so immersed in it, you think it has happened.
And then when reality slaps you upside the head, you don't know how to deal with it.
This is, and it just keeps happening.
This Democrat conference is the biggest joke.
This thing is, oh, it's, what do you mean it's going to come back to haunt them?
They're already haunted by who they are.
I'll comment on this.
You got Kerry?
Of all people, John Kerry out there saying, can't have it both ways.
I mean, how ironic.
The guy who voted for it before he voted against it, telling you can't have it both ways.
Anyway, we're in the midst of a lot of optimism, and here is this story from Al AP, the headline Pentagon to disclose interrogation tactics.
So I saw that headline.
I said, what the hell is this?
Why are we going to start disclosing our interrogation tactics?
By the way, Somebody wrote that this is a PR move, a president to bop into Baghdad and bob back out.
It was a PR move, right?
PR move flying into Baghdad where a missile could kill him.
The PR move was the three suicides at Club Gitmo.
That's the PR move.
Anyway, why are we going to divulge and disclose interrogation tactics?
Here's a couple of lines from the story by Lolita Baldor of Al AP.
In the face of growing criticism over the treatment of detainees, Pentagon officials have decided to make public all of the military's interrogation techniques.
A decision which comes after months of internal debate and pressure from members of Congress would reveal interrogation tactics in a long-awaited revision of the Army Field Manual, despite arguments it could allow enemy prisoners to better resist questioning.
Defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision is not public yet, said on Tuesday the Pentagon had dropped plans to keep some interrogation techniques secret by putting them in a classified section of the military manual.
So you look at this and you say, this is incredible.
This is stupid.
Why are we doing this?
This doesn't make any sense.
Let me tell you what's going on here, folks.
What this story does not really report.
I read the whole thing and it doesn't really tell you the extent to which the details I'm going to give you are happening.
What's going on here is that the ACLU and other left-wing legal groups are filing Freedom of Information Act request after Freedom of Information Act request.
And then they are using the information they get to represent these dirtbag terrorists in court.
And they are doing all of this so as to force changes in U.S. war policy, including on detentions and interrogations.
And they are working with the media to bring pressure on the Pentagon, who then works with Congress to demand changes and to try to force Rumsfeld's resignation.
So it's a new tactic, actually, from the anti-war left.
Rather than march in the streets, they're just submitting FOIA after FOIA after FOIA, then they use the information that they get to represent the detainees in court.
And so now you've got a bunch of liberal lawyers and liberal judges attempting to change U.S. war policy by virtue of this action.
This has been going on since the beginning of the war, and the door was opened by the courts, which allows nonprofit groups like the ACLU to bring actions in court against the commander-in-chief for the first time.
This is unprecedented.
So you have radical groups and activist judges now attempting to drive war policy.
And the way this manifests itself, you have left-wing politicians and the McCain types who then carry the ball because they react to the information and spin that's published in the lib media, the drive-by media.
So let me trace it.
FOIA request after FOIA request.
Then you get those documents are released.
The ACLU, the activist lawyers, judges, will then cherry-pick, even if out of context, things from the documents that they get.
They will write stories on horrible treatment at Club Gitmel, horrible treatment at Abu Ghraib, horrible treatment at secret prison, horrible this, horrible that.
They always try to link this horrible treatment as high up the chain of command as they go.
Then you have a willing dupe like McCain who will open his drive-by New York Times or drive-by Washington Post, and he'll read the stories generated by these FOI requests.
And while juggling the marbles in his right hand, like Humphrey Bogart, I'm going to fix this.
I'm going to fix it.
This ain't going to happen.
We're America, damn it, and we're not going to be brutes.
So he gets going, and that's why, and in the process of believing everything he hears in the drive-by media, they love him because he carries the water in Congress.
He gets the ball rolling.
And the result here is that the Secretary Rumsfeld and the Department of Defense are constantly on the PR defensive as a result.
So even amidst all this good stuff that's happening, and it's amazing, by the way, given all of the under-the-scene, behind-the-scene undercover efforts to undermine the war effort, you know, it's no mystery to you.
I've shared with you countless times how I think that the American left is attempting to sabotage victory over this enemy, primarily because they are assumed or obsessed with the quest for power for power's sake.
They don't care what they wreck in the process.
They have such an irrational hatred of Bush that they consider him a greater enemy than bin Laden or other terrorists.
So you have a constant PR defensive attitude as a result from the DOD.
And the war now being, they're undermining it and trying to undermine it.
Radical lawyers, activist judges, liberal reporters, liberal politicians, and this is how the whole thing works.
And if they can prevent us from getting intel by shutting down the NSA program, for example, if they can prevent us from getting intel from detainees via the Patriot Act, then we can't wage a successful war.
So rather than take to the streets, they are filing lawsuits.
And so this defensive PR mood has now caused the Pentagon.
Okay.
Growing criticism.
What is this growing criticism in the face of growing criticism over the treatment?
Where's the growing criticism?
It comes from the very groups I'm talking about.
The ACLU, the drive-by media, activist judges, certainly not from the American public.
European wacko human rights groups.
Well, human rights groups, I don't care where they are.
They're all wacko and they all fit under the same umbrella.
So that's the criticism.
And of course, LAP doesn't tell you any of what I just told you in the story.
No, no, no.
In the face of growing criticism over the treatment of detainees, Pentagon officials have decided to make public all of the military's interrogation techniques.
I guess they figure this is the last straw.
I mean, we're not doing anything illegal, and here's our manual, and here's what it is.
And what will happen, the critics, mounting, growing critics, will cherry-pick this stuff, take it out of context, and write horrible stories, and they'll go find some detainees that have been let out of, like CNN did yesterday, a detainee that escaped or was let out of club getmo and talk about how he was tortured and so forth.
And this cycle, the left, no matter how inept they appear to be at the Democratic Party level, the ACLU and these human rights groups, activist judges are hell-bent on undermining this war effort, folks.
It's not just Iraq.
It's the war on terror.
They're doing everything they can to see to it that this war on terror, I don't care where it's waged, is sabotaged.
That's what that story is all about.
And you might be hearing about this in the next, oh, I don't know, tonight, tomorrow, whatever, but I wanted to get you up to speed on it before the drive-by media gets hold of this and starts covering it in a way that will be totally unrepresentative of the facts involved.
Quick timeout, back with more after this.
My friends, welcome back.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-concerned, all-feeling, maha-rushi.
Some of the finest bumper music known to exist in the free world when they use mine and the engineer doesn't bring his own records from home.
800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.
You know, oftentimes, ladies and gentlemen, on this program, we discuss the practice that liberalism has in this country of assigning as many people to victimhood status as possible.
And aside from the obvious reasons why they do it, to make people think that the helpless waifs and they need big government help and so forth, there's another reason for it.
In the case of the Jersey girls, the Democrats pounce victims.
In the case of detainees, we don't even call them terrorist prisoners.
We call them detainees.
And we try to create the impression that these were just innocent, life-loving little Muslims wandering aimlessly in the deserts of the Middle East.
And the big bad United States swept in, swept them out, put them behind bars in horrible conditions.
All of this is done to create victims out of them, to not call them terrorist prisoners, to call them detainees, and then to go write never-ending stories on how they are mistreated, they are tortured, they are dehumanized.
All of this is done for the purposes of making them victims of the evil, all-too-powerful United States.
Now, why?
Well, one of the reasons is, among many, is that when you anoint somebody as a victim and they are a victim of the evil United States or its policies or its culture, what have you, then the liberals are of the opinion, the Democrats are of the opinion, that you have made them infallible as critics.
The Jersey girls, as an example, and Ann Coulter is learning this, finding this out.
You can't criticize them.
They're victims.
They lost their husbands in 9-11.
They can say anything.
They can say George Bush sucks.
They can say a country's, they can say whatever it is.
And you can't criticize them because they are infallible.
They are victims.
They are grieving and they lost their husbands.
And as such, why, whatever is said against them must be ignored.
In fact, must be ridiculed and put down.
Whatever is said about these victims has to be obliterated because they're infallible as victims.
They're closer to the circumstances and they have more knowledge and they have greater feelings.
And so we need to listen to them.
And that's why Democrats recruit victims.
And they're trying to turn these terrorists, so-called detainees into victims.
And that's what this move, the ACLU and lawyers and all these Freedom of Information Act requests is about, is to show basic American unfairness.
We're just too powerful.
We deny people civil rights.
We deny them human rights.
We're just rotten to the core.
We're like Krabby Appleton.
And so the terrorists/slash detainees become victims.
And at some point, they will speak out.
And when they speak out, can't criticize them.
Look what happened to them at the hands of the American military.
How dare you criticize our human beings being made to live like dogs?
And it's outrageous that you would say this about these.
And that's what's going on.
And it's a way to paralyze and stifle.
It's actually censorship in a way.
Establishing somebody as a victim as a Democrat, then making them infallible is a way of stifling free speech.
It's censorship.
It is preventing debate.
And that's what the left is all about.
They need to stop as much debate as possible because they can't win them.
They cannot win debates in the merits.
They cannot win debates in the arena of ideas.
They have to stifle criticism of their side, of their policies, of their beliefs, or what have you.
That's their best bet.
Plus, there's also a desire to stifle conservative speech or opposition speech as well.
Example, new direction is new theme for Democrat plan.
How many times are we going to get this story?
This is USA Today, and it's by Kathy Kiley.
How many, a trained journalist in the drive-by media.
She's been around for moons, been around many, many years.
I think used to work at the New York Daily News.
Not sure about that.
Think so.
Why would she want to write a story that everybody's been writing for the past six months, nine months, 12 months, 24 months, five years?
Story is Democrats angling to get back in power have a new plan, a new theme, a new agenda.
And here we go again.
New direction.
New direction is the new theme for Democratic Plan.
Democratic House and Senate leaders are planning to reduce the cost of student loans and prescription drugs, raise the minimum wage, and launch an effort to develop alternative fuels if they win back control of Congress.
Now, I had this yesterday before Kathy Kiley has it today.
I told you about this yesterday.
I pointed out nowhere in this new direction theme is there any mention of the war.
And nowhere is there any mention of immigration because they're not going to tackle the tough stuff because they know they're going to lose it.
So it's back to the same old, tired and worn-out things: minimum wage, health care, alternative fuels.
In an interview yesterday with USA Today, Nancy Pelosi previewed the New Direction for America platform hammered out by Democrat members of Congress and mayors and governors.
She and the Senate minority leader Dingy Harry Reid plan to formally unveil the plan today.
The American people need to know if you win, what are your priorities, Reed said.
Party's standing with the people.
We have always stood with seniors, students, the hardworking families of America.
We intend to tackle the issues that matter most.
He is going to stand with life's losers.
That's who the Democrat Party stands with, and they want more and more of you to join them as losers.
We're the Democrats.
Be the worst you can be.
Find out how low you can go.
Find out how dark gloom really is.
Be one of our thousand points of doom.
Join us, the Democratic Party.
We'll show you what it takes to be the worst we all can be.
That's who they're going after.
That's what they want their constituency to basically be, because that constituency is essentially a constituency is in need.
And somebody needs to talk to Dingy Harry and Pelosi because they over there at the Take Back America conference or whatever.
It was a hoot.
It was hilarious.
Hillary Clinton getting booed.
John Kerry being typically obtuse and confusing.
Nobody could make head or tails of what he was saying, but that's nothing new.
We have details coming up.
Pounding home the truth to the EIB network, America's truth detector, doctor of democracy, a general all-round good guy combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball, feared to no end by the American left and the drive-by media, 800-282-2882.
We'll get to your phone calls at some point in this program today.
So Democrats out there, Dingy Harry, Nancy Pelosi, granting interviews with the Drive-By Media detailing their new direction, which is simply a trip down the same old dirt road that's led them nowhere for the last essentially 20 years.
And yet, across town, the Take Back America Convention, anti-war activists at a liberal gathering, they didn't name it in this LAP story.
They name it, name it now.
It's a Take Back America convention, and just call it a liberal gathering in LAP.
The liberal gathering booed Senator Clinton on Tuesday for opposing a set date for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq.
Facing down jeers, Clinton said Democrats need to have a difficult conversation about the war.
And then it came time for John Francois Kerry.
He spoke to the group later in the day.
He offered an emphatically anti-war appeal.
Sometimes this is a difficult conversation, in part because this administration has made our world more dangerous than it should be.
Kerry said it's not enough to argue with the logistics or to argue about the details.
It's enough and essential to acknowledge that the war itself was a mistake.
It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraq war resolution.
Now, we have audio soundbites.
I'm going to get to those in just a second.
But amazingly, in the Boston Globe today, they have run a retrospective on all of Kerry's positions, his history, if you will, on this.
And again, they quote him as saying you can't have it both ways.
Who writes this stuff for the guy?
I voted for it before I voted against it.
John Kerry says yesterday, you can't have it both ways.
Let's review some of the John Kerry history as related by the Boston Globe.
Kerry struggled with his position on the war throughout the 2004 campaign, and Bush attacked him consistently for supporting the war resolution but voting against the war funding.
During the campaign, Kerry said repeatedly that he would not have invaded Iraq if he were in Bush's place, but he maintained that he was right to vote to give Bush the authority to use force to strengthen the president's hand in international negotiations.
In August 2004, at an event at the Grand Canyon, Kerry said that he still would have voted for the war, even if he had known the United States would not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
After the election, Kerry said he had misheard the question.
In October, almost a year after the election, Kerry said for the first time that he had been wrong to vote to give the president the authority to remove President Saddam Hussein by force.
He said he was convinced by a variety of factors, including what he described as the Bush administration's manipulation of pre-war intelligence.
But yesterday's speech, in which he flatly declared that the war was wrong and that his vote for the war resolution had been misguided, represented his most dramatic repudiation yet.
Well, they may have found his voice, but that's today.
You know, one of the things that Democrats are doing here, they want, they don't actually want to have fixed positions on things.
They want to be flexible and they want to have moving room so that if events change from day to day, they can modify their position to accommodate those changes.
And of course, you know, folks, as the opposition party out of power party, it's easy to vote no.
It's easy to oppose.
It's easy to stand in the way of everything because you're never going to be held accountable.
You're not in power.
So you're going to vote no, you can vote no, you can vote no.
But these guys have made such a history out of it now that obstructionism has become their byword.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
We'll start with number five.
This is Hillary getting booed at the Take Back America convention in Washington.
And remember, at the same time this is going on, Dingy Harry and Pelosi are announcing their new theme, the new direction, as their new theme, with the old issues of fixing roads, especially the dirt road thereon, health care, raising the minimum wage, education, health care, minimum wage.
What am I living out?
Education.
What am I living out?
Healthcare, education, fixing roads, Hurricane relief, health care.
So, I mean, you've got these guys doing this.
You've got the Democrats in the anti-war crowd over Take Back America.
Here's Hillary.
I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain.
I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country.
Now, she was getting booed there.
That's the line that the crowd didn't like when she said it wasn't a smart strategy to set a date certain.
Don't agree that that's the best interest of our troops or our country.
Now, here's Kerry, and we have one, two, three of him.
The first one, he's comparing Iraq to Vietnam.
We've been told that Iraq and Vietnam were different, but in telling and very tragic ways now.
They are converging.
They are first and foremost together the two most failed foreign policy choices in the annals of American foreign policy.
Yeah, right.
And you hope that's the case.
This is the thing.
These guys want this to fall apart.
They are praying for doom and gloom.
They are invested in defeat.
This isn't selling.
Go up to Soundbite 4 because President Bush was asked about this today in his press conference.
ABC News Ann Compton said, do you see, as some of your critics do, Senator Kerry, a parallel between what's going on in Iraq now and in Vietnam?
No.
Why?
Because there's a duly elected government.
12 million people voted.
They said, we want something different from tyranny.
We want to live in a free society.
And not only do they vote for a government, they voted for a constitution.
Obviously, there's a sectarian violence, but this is in many ways religious in nature.
And I don't see the perils.
And, you know, look, I thought you were going to ask, do I regret what I did?
Absolutely not.
I made the right decision in Iraq.
It's the right thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
This incessant comparison to Iraq or Iraq to Vietnam, it is intellectually impossible to make that connection, to say that they're the same thing.
But the Democrats don't care whether you believe it or not.
They just want to create the illusion in your head, just like this administration is the reincarnation of the Nixon administration.
And Rove and these guys are the reincarnation of Watergate.
That's all they've got, folks.
The Democrats can only consult their past, find what they consider to be their glory days there, and try to recreate them in the modern current era.
And they're failing royally, big time, and they're making themselves look like idiots in the process.
Another senator, Kerry, flip-flopping here, says he was wrong when he voted for the war, but now he's right, whatever he says here.
We were misled.
We were given evidence that was not true.
It was wrong, and I was wrong, to vote for that Iraqi war resolution.
All right.
And then Libs and the anti-war kooks at the Take Back American Convention went nuts.
But what's wrong with this?
He was misled, eh?
Well, this is the same information and data that President Clinton and Madeline Albright handed out in 1998.
And they all bought it then, and they were all supportive then.
They knew Clinton wouldn't go to war, so it was a no-brainer that plus he was a Democrat wasn't a problem.
The difference then was the Republicans in the Senate were also supporting and the House the Clinton administration's call to arms about Iraq.
Bush has never said a different thing from what Clinton said describing Saddam, weapons of mass destruction.
So in addition to all the other problems, the Democrats want to pretend that the years 1998 through 2000 never happened.
And if they did, you weren't paying attention.
Let's go back right before the election 2004 back to our archives.
This is from CNN's Inside Politics.
Candy Crowley interviewed Kerry and said, name me one mistake that you've made in the past three and a half years, a public policymaker.
Gosh, I think I made a mistake in terms of the breadth of some of the programs that I had talked about in the primaries because the deficit was larger than we anticipated and we obviously couldn't afford it.
So I've scaled them back since then.
You never once said to yourself, I wish I hadn't voted for that war resolution.
No.
Nope.
Nope.
Let's go back to cut seven.
This is yesterday, Kerry in Washington.
It's an election year, by the way, talking to anti-war kooks.
We were misled.
We were given evidence that was not true.
It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution.
And let's play cut eight again, a question from Candy Crowley.
Name me one mistake that you've made in the past three and a half years as a public policymaker.
Gosh, I think I made a mistake in terms of the breadth of some of the programs that I had talked about in the primaries because the deficit was larger than we anticipated and we obviously couldn't afford it.
So I've scaled them back since then.
You never once said to yourself, I wish I hadn't voted for that war resolution.
No.
Nope, nope, nope.
Let's go back yesterday to the Take Back American Convention with the kooks, a portion of Senator Kerry's remarks again.
We were misled.
No, no, we were.
No, Let's move on to cut nine.
I'll take the blame since I'm the public face of the program.
Cut nine, we're moving on now.
I am convinced that the only way the Iraqis have moved at any time thus far is with a deadline, and I believe we need a hard and fast deadline, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces.
Take that, Hillary.
He's definitely positioning himself opposite her.
Let's go back to September 18, 2003, Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer.
John Effing Kerry was the guest pushing an amendment to shrink tax cuts for the wealthy and pay for $87 billion.
He was asked a question by Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times.
If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?
I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running.
That's irresponsible.
Really?
Let's go back and listen to Senator Kerry yesterday and cut nine once again, a portion of his remarks.
I am convinced that the only way the Iraqis have moved at any time thus far is with a deadline, and I believe we need a hard and fast deadline, not an open-ended commitment of U.S. forces.
And let's once again listen to Senator Kerry from Face the Nation, September 18th, 2003.
I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running.
That's irresponsible.
Yes, yes, yes.
Your whole party, your whole movement is irresponsible.
I'm going to put all this together for you folks, analyze it into one easy-to-understand analysis right after this.
Only one person can put all this together and explain it to you in an understandable way so that it makes total sense, and that is me.
So let's, from top to bottom, we've heard from George Lakoff, Rhymes With.
We've heard from Howard Dean.
We've heard from Hillary Clinton.
We've heard from John Kerry.
We hear from Joe Biden.
We hear from Dingy Harry Reid.
We hear from Nancy Pelosi.
We've heard from all of these people.
Can anybody tell me what the Democrat position is on the war?
Can somebody tell me what the Democrat position on the war on terror is?
Can you?
No, that's not the position.
In certain he says, it's wrong.
What is their position?
Their position is cut and run.
I don't care what any of them say.
You just heard Kerry and you just heard Clinton.
Hillary's the only one who's not for that, but she doesn't say it convincingly.
But the Democratic Party at all is invested in defeat.
They have no position on the war except lose it and get out of it.
They have no position on winning it.
They have no position on taking it seriously.
They are as divided and clueless as ever, folks.
All the ink that's being spilled, writing about how they're reinventing themselves, they are not reinventing themselves.
They are a pathetic group of panderers who put power ahead of country.
What you are witnessing in the Democratic Party today is the aimless wandering through the desert with one purpose, the acquisition of power for the sake of power.
Not for any reason they want to use, not for any reason they want to announce.
They just want their power back.
They're entitled to it.
It's their birthright.
They don't care.
Mark my words on this.
They do not care how 24 Iraqis were killed in Haditha unless it can be used to smear U.S. troops, and that's going to fall apart on them and blow up in their face too.
They didn't give a rat's rear in.
They didn't care a whit about 300,000 Iraqis being slaughtered before we went in and the bloodbath that would ensue if we left tomorrow.
But they're going to get all concerned about 24 dead Iraqis if the U.S. military's behind.
That's when they're going to get concerned about life in Iraq.
They are leftists who want power, but they can't figure out how to get it in a conservative country.
Their entire debate is not about ideas.
They don't dare go public with their truthful ideas.
Their entire debate is about plans.
It's about strategies.
It's about PR.
It's about themes.
Never about their radicalism.
They're debating, in essence, how to deceive the American people so they can win back power.
Their kook base wants them to spread over the cliff.
Their professional advisors want them to deceive the electorate, deceive the electorate to win.
And that's the battle, whether they should lie about who they are or tell the truth about who they are.
And that's their problem.
They can't tell the truth about who they are.
They dare not.
And yet it's the only thing they can do.
The only thing they can do is be honest.
Here's who we are.
Here's what we believe.
And start debating and try to convince the American people to go along with it.
They haven't got the courage to do that because they know full well that this whole country would oppose them other than a few little red state or blue state enclaves, reject them out of hand even more so than is happening now.
So that's where they're headed.
Not so much in 2006, but in 2008.
Hillary is not pro-war.
Make no mistake.
She is not for this war effort.
She wants the electorate to think she's reasonable about war.
And that's why she's under attack from members of her own base.
They don't care.
They're not little D Democrat types.
These people are authoritarians.
That's what liberals are.
They are authoritarians, and they use any number of techniques to silence people they disagree with.
From political correctness to outright censorship to the infallibility of their victims.
They are about silencing things they don't want to hear, silencing people who say things they don't want to hear, and not having to debate those people for fear of losing.
They just want more big government.
They want more judicial rule.
They want more victims.
They want power.
If you elect these people, you're going to get less political speech.
You're going to get more politically motivated investigations.
You'll get attacks on talk radio and anybody else they think has done them harm who has relegated them to their current status.
They're not leftists.
They're not Democrats.
They are authoritarians.
But they are confused.
They can't even unify among themselves, which is what happens when you get a group of people together who simply can't be honest.
I saw a headline last night doing a show prep for today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
Headline said Hastert deals blow to immigration.
Made me want to stand up and cheer.
So I did.
I stood up and cheered, and I printed it out and read the whole story.
Lots still ahead.
Don't go anywhere, folks.
▲
Export Selection