All Episodes
Previous Next
June 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
June 15, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, folks, listen up.
Here's the lay of the land today.
It's real simple.
This is a good day, maybe even a great day if you are mentally healthy.
If you're a mentally healthy American who can accept good news, this is a great day.
If you're not a mentally healthy American who can accept good news, today you'll wish you were dead.
Greetings, greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the most fascinating three hours in big time media, the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network at 800-282-2882.
Democrats all over the map on Iraq.
They cannot make even any sense about it.
They're in total disarray.
I begged, I cajoled, I asked all of you.
Weeks and months ago, when you were in the fits of depression, you were thinking of just calling it quits.
Say home with politics.
Who needs any of it?
I warned you.
There was nothing about the Democratic Party that was inspiring, that was upbeater positive.
Hang in there, ebb and flow in politics, always a reason to remain positive.
And now the events that have happened in the last couple of days, last five days, has been worth hanging in.
The liberals are back again complaining about conservative talk radio.
It's unfair.
We have so many listeners.
It's unfair our audience is so big.
It's not fair that the liberals don't have any listeners.
It just isn't right.
It's Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, who wants something done about this.
Clearly indicating he is a genuine socialist.
He does not understand the market.
I wonder if Bernie Sanders thinks that one day back in 1988, some humongous invisible power behind the scenes decided Rush Limbaugh is going to be our savior on talk radio and is going to automatically be given 20 million listeners.
And we're sending out requirements to 20 million Americans that they listen every day and then report that to rating servers.
How does he think this works?
And of course, when it's pathetic, little liberal talk shows out there cannot register even an asterisk in rating services.
He somehow thinks that the deck is stacked against it.
It isn't fair.
And more stations need to put more liberals on.
I'm going to tell you people a dirty little secret.
If it weren't for a major broadcast outlet in this country who is scared to death of Democrats when they get in power, putting liberal talk shows on a bunch of stations, they would have died six months after they started.
If it weren't for the fact that broadcasting is federally regulated and a major broadcast entity in this country buying insurance against Democrats in Congress, going after them on this or that or the other thing, went ahead and put a bunch of liberal talk shows on a bunch of their worst stations and giving them about 65 affiliates more than they would have had.
They would have had 60, maybe two affiliates, maybe three, if it weren't for this big broadcast.
They've had all the help in the world they could get.
They've got help they don't deserve.
They've got help they haven't earned and they still suck.
Pardon me, folks.
Apologize for that.
I know you expect more from me linguistically and in terms of language, but you sit back and you watch all this stuff and it's just at some point it becomes necessary to put the exclamation point to the thought.
The big news today though, folks, the big news today is the treasure trove of documents.
You've seen this, Mr. Sterling?
My friends.
Oh, yeah.
I tell you what, we have a document that has been released, a blueprint for trying to start a war with the United States and Iran, between the United States and Iran, but also the text of a document discovered in Abu Al-Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout.
Now, it's a hideout.
It used to be a safe house.
Now it's a hideout.
The document has been provided in English by Iraqi National Security Advisor Muafak al-Rubai.
Now, AP in later dispatches is using the word purported when they say text of document purportedly discovered in terror leader, blah, blah.
And of course, we have to be guarded about this.
After all, this is Al-Ap.
And, of course, Al-Ap is not benefited by the information contained in this document.
But at the same time, we really don't know the source of this.
They may have a 1% or 2% chance here.
We just have to cover our bets.
We'll report what it says, but until it gets independent confirmation elsewhere, we have...
I know it's the genuine article, but I'm covering my bases.
It's the...
I'm learning about this in a drive-by media.
So I just, I'm covering my bases here.
I know it's a genuine article.
It's too good to be true.
Part of it is just too good to be true.
That's one of the, wait a minute.
This is almost like I sat down and wrote this with the Democratic Party and a drive-by media in mind because it kills them.
It decimates them.
Oops, there went the cigar.
Hope it's not burning because it is.
If it is, we're going to have a fire here in just a second.
And I can't bend down and pick it up, Brian, because it wouldn't look good in a ditto camp.
No, it's not.
Everything's cool.
If you start seeing smoke, just come in here and grab it.
Huh, the cigar just knocked it out of the ashtray there in my exuberance here and my wild gesticulations.
At any rate, this thing reads in such a way that the Democrats are just it blows them out of the water in the drive-by media.
Let me just read you some of the salient points of this.
The text of this document found in a Zarkawi safe house, blasted by the Air Force, called for a review of the current bleak situation in Iraq from Zarkawi's point of view.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq views the continued presence of American forces as harmful to the resistance.
As an overall picture, when you go through this, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries due to the losses they sustained economically and human lives, which are increasing with time.
However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance.
Calls himself and the Al-Qaeda people the resistance in this document.
So what does that mean?
The fact that we have not cut and run, the fact that we have not followed Democratic Party directives and policies, policies they are still advocating to this day, this very morning, the fact that we have not cut and run has dealt a severe blow to al-Qaeda in Iraq and its plans there.
Let's look at the document itself.
Why is the American presence harmful to the resistance, quote unquote?
One, by allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.
Okay, Democrats have been demanding, you got to train those security forces, Bush!
You got to train them.
You've got to get them up so our guys can get out of it.
You got it.
Zarkawi's document indicates not only have we been doing it, we are doing it, and they are succeeding.
Number two, by undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
In other words, we're capturing a lot of these SOBs.
We are arresting them.
And who knows where we're taking them?
And who knows what we're doing to them when we get them there?
But we can all dream.
Number three, by undertaking a media campaign against the resistance, resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
Now, this is another element.
Democrats, when we found out that this was going on, when we found out that we were running a quote-unquote PR campaign, some called it PSYOP, some called it propaganda, but we were trying to inform the Iraqi people of the good guys, who the good guys were, what the good guys are doing.
Here's our cowiest thing, it's working, damn it.
They've undertaken a media campaign against the resistance, has resulted in weakening the resistance's influence inside the country.
Number four, by tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options, and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
So we've successfully frozen some of their assets.
We've cut off inflows of dollars to the al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq.
And we have reduced their options.
I don't know what they mean so much by moral options.
But all of these points here are in this document.
Why is the American presence harmful to the resistance, meaning the insurgents?
Number five, by creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance.
Ooh, we're destroying their morale.
The insurgents' morale is in trouble.
And we know this is true because it was one of Zarqawi's own guys who spilled the beans on him to our security forces and intel operatives that allowed us to nuke him.
Number five, by creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults, meaning they're less able to mount military operations.
Number six, by allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand towards us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation, meaning the United States has an increasing number of allies in the operation, and this is not helping the al-Qaeda insurgency.
And number seven, by taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.
Now, when I got to number two, when I was just reading this for the first time today, and I got to number two, here's number one again, by allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard.
Democrats are dead right there.
Everything that they're demanding, they say Bush hasn't been doing and has been not going well.
Rumsfeld lousy planning, all this stuff.
It's working to a T. Number two, by undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
We're taking prisoners.
We're arresting them.
We're on offense.
And this just the Democrats' only option here is to claim it's a forgery or, as I suspect will be the case, well, this is even more reason why I need to withdraw.
More reason why we need to pull the troops out of there.
The Iraqis are taking good measure of it.
They'll have to admit the Bush policy has worked, but what are they going to do, folks, except continue to flap their gums and make absolute fools of themselves?
And I'm just going to sit here and watch and rebel in it and share the sound bites with you.
Back in just a second.
Hi, welcome back.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
This is the EIB Network.
We're having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
It's going to be interesting now to watch all this.
You know, the House is going to have this debate about the war on terror.
The Democrats are just fit to be tied about that in the first place.
They wanted a debate on a war in Iraq.
And the Republicans, if you guys want to debate, and it's a Democrat idea, you guys want to debate?
We're debating a whole war on terror.
And the Democrats realize they may have been sucked in here, ladies and gentlemen, into getting more anti-American, anti-war talk on the record as uttered by Democrats from the floor of the House of Representatives.
This document also talks about how Zarkawi feels he needs to use the media to put out a positive message of the work and successes of the insurgency, the resistance, the terrorists, al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.
And I think he's well aware of how to do that.
The U.S. military is one of his great U.S. media, the drive-by media is one of his greatest allies in this, as the president has pointed out to the drive-by media a couple press conferences ago.
The document also contains a blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran.
And let me just give you some of the details of this.
The question remains: how do we draw the American troops into fighting a war against Iran?
It is not known whether America is serious in its animosity towards Iran because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Hence, it's necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the West in general of the real danger coming from Iran.
And this would be done by the following.
And among these is by disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the West against Western interests.
So the strategery is clear here.
Try to distract the American military from Iraq into Iran and then using the U.S. military or the media rather, the drive-by media to help spread propaganda about the successes of the insurgency or the resistance, whatever it is he was calling it.
The bottom line is that they're in trouble.
They admit they're in trouble.
This is just among a many number of documents that came out of his hideout, his safe house.
And so it is, it just, folks, I can't tell you how this just decimates the Democrats.
And every point they've been talking about how we failed.
You've heard John Murtha.
Our troops don't have what it takes.
We don't have any leadership.
Rumsfeld's horrible.
Rice is horrible.
They both need to resign his terrible plan for the peace, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And guess what?
From the enemy's own pen or his own keyboard or however this guy wrote all this down, the success that we're having over there is profound, so much so that these guys are rattled.
And now that the Zarkawi's dead, 450 raids, 109 dead terrorists just in the last 48 hours.
It's overwhelming.
This is quite a blow.
Something, hindsight, you say, well, why do we do this long ago?
We sent a wave of people just through Baghdad.
And we were, take no prisoners' time.
And I think one of the answers to my own question, we obviously found out locations.
We found out where these people are.
We found out where they're hiding, who they're hiding behind, and so forth.
And it was an easier operation than to go haphazardly with not so good intelligence and run into possible civilian casualties and so forth, which we studiously avoid.
Mike in Erie, Pennsylvania, you are up first.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Yes.
All right.
I know you understand Dems like the back of your hand, but I think you're giving them too much credit here.
I don't think they need to acknowledge that the Bush plan's working for them to further their opposition.
They could argue that the Iraqi army is doing so well, despite Bush, that we need to get out of their way and get out of Iraq.
I'm not following you here because your phone's breaking up.
Who are you talking about when you say they could argue the Iraqi army is doing so well that Bush needs to get out of their way?
Well, you said earlier that the Dems either have to acknowledge that Bush's plan is working or be on the losing side.
Well, I'm arguing that they don't necessarily need to do that.
They can argue that the Iraqi army is doing so well despite Bush's plan that the Iraq, that the U.S. Army needs to get out of Iraq.
Well, you must have missed me saying that.
That was the second option I gave.
I don't know what happened to you out there, but you people who are going to call the program are going to have to promise me you're also listening to it.
Because that was the, I said, well, they got two options.
And I said, the option they're most likely to choose is, see, see, we should withdraw.
We should come home now.
The plan's working.
I said, the problem is they have to admit the plan's working.
And I said, a dilemma for them.
Okay, do they acknowledge this or do they say this is a forgery?
There's a third option.
Why, this document's a forgery.
Why this is too convenient?
Why, we know this isn't true.
Why, we've seen the media reports of how bad it is.
We see the IEDs.
We see the burning cars.
How about the 24 in Hadith?
This is going to panic them.
They're not going to know what to do, and they're going to have to go out and do polls.
They're going to have to do focus groups, folks.
And that's what the Democrats do.
It's what the Libs do in a tight squeeze like this.
They'll go out and ask the opinion of these focus groups, their constituents, what their reaction should be.
And they may not even wait for that.
They may just go straight to the Kook websites, the blogs out there, to find out what their reaction to all this is.
I can predict to you that nine out of ten of them or six out of ten of them are going to say it's a forgery, that Bush and Rumsfeld wrote it.
It's a rove idea.
It's just too pat.
It's just too good.
It's just too good to be true.
Zarcawhe would never have written this down if it were true.
Blah, blah, blah.
Who was he writing it to?
Blah, but he was writing it to superiors elsewhere, other terrorist leaders inside and outside the country of Iraq.
So what are their options?
Their options to claim it's a forgery.
The option is to claim it's much ado about nothing.
To lie about it, it doesn't mean anything.
It's nothing new here.
We knew all this was going on to say, see, well, the success rate's a little bit better than we thought.
Time to pull the troops out.
I'm going to watch and see what they decide.
Yeah, they're not going to be able to ignore it.
That is another option, though.
We'll discuss that when we get back.
America's real anchor man from the top of the broadcasting mountain, gazing down on all below.
800 282-2882-STEVEN in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Oh, what an honor.
Thanks for having me on.
You bet, sir.
You've changed my life.
I used to be one of those people that lived my life in the gray areas.
There were no absolutes, and that's so completely wrong.
Take a stand.
Take a stand.
Welcome home.
You do.
Thank you for that.
Commenting on what you're saying about the way that the Democrats may frame this documentation that's been found, you're so far ahead of the curve.
It's already been done.
I was reading the AP report on that this morning, and I guess it was roughly eight paragraphs, about six paragraphs down.
They're making the editorial comment that the documentation, the verbiage in the documentation didn't match previous Al-Zarqawi communications.
Therefore, without actually saying it, I think there's an inference there that, you know, hey, wait a minute, this may not be, this may not be real.
Yes, forgery.
I'm not surprised that Al-AP would do this.
You know, they were first publishing just the text of the document today.
And of course, there's been, in many sectors, an incredible, profound reaction to it.
So now it's time to go back and research.
So what you're saying is that the captured documents from Al-Zarqawi don't match the way he spoke in his video messages.
And they don't match his speech patterns.
That's exactly right.
There's a different temperament.
There's a different verbiage.
So therefore, there may be some question about that.
Again, it's not, and this is the seeds of what you're talking about, the way that this ultimately plays out.
These are the seeds.
These are little seeds that are planted.
And then, of course, somebody else is going to grab it.
It'll eventually mushroom.
It'll be, you know, and you're always right about how these things will play out.
The other thing that I noticed about that is they seem to take particular pleasure in reporting that there was a difference in General Tase's summation of how they came by that documentation and the prime ministers.
These two were at odds.
So therefore, again, there's something askew here in this entire story.
Yeah, well, this is going to make it even better.
I think, you know, I must confess to you, though, Stephen, I opened the program to the chagrin of Mr. Sterdley, who thought that I was being a little bit too guarded about this.
But until there is some independent confirmation of it, it does read in some cases like it's too good to be true.
Just points one and point two.
But it is awfully detailed.
I haven't shared with you, but 20% of this.
It is so detailed on the operations and how to screw up the Kurds and the Shia and the Sunnis.
There's a lot in this that is historically accurate that we know has happened as to whether you're going to measure this about its veracity by comparing it to Zarkawi's speech patterns in his videos for crying out loud.
By the way, there is a line in this document about buying new weapons from Iran.
And of course, we know that Iran was supplying the IEDs to Zarkawi.
So he needed a resupply, needed some new weapons and so forth.
We know that several elements asserted in this document are true.
We know that they're on the run.
We know that they're having trouble.
We know the security forces are doing well.
We know that the success rate in Iraq has done a turnaround, and it's not that recently.
It's some time ago that the momentum shifted.
I just haven't heard about it in the drive-by media here.
Another thing about two things about drawing a comparison between the way somebody speaks in a video and the way they write.
I know a lot of writers, and I know you put a lot of writers in front of a microphone or a camera, and they are not who they are when they write.
People are entirely different when they write.
It's just the opposite for me.
With my two books, I had to dictate them because my whole life I have spent speaking to sit down and start typing.
I am not kidding you.
My vocabulary shrinks by about 20 or 30 percent.
My mind slows when I'm sitting down trying to write, a bunch of things happen.
I cannot keep up with my brain on the keyboard.
And when I see errors, I am compelled to stop and fix them.
And I lose my train of thought.
And I say, screw this.
So I got it to tape recorder and I started dictating the stuff and then transcribed it and changed it and edited it for the printed page for the written word.
Conversely, I have met so many people who are just, I envy their writing ability.
They can't say a word in public that reminds you of their writing at all because writers have all the time, well, they're on deadline, but they go all the time in the world to sit down, play with sentence by sentence, word by word, and buff it and shine it up and tone it however they wish.
You get in the habit of communicating that way, and all of a sudden they throw you out there in front of a microphone with a limited amount of time, maybe a camera and an audience thrown in, and it's deer in the headlight eyes time.
And it just, it's not the criticism.
It's just the way it is.
Some people are better at expressing themselves in one form or another than others.
Now, when it comes to Zarkawi, I don't know how this thing got written.
I don't know if he sat down and typed it, but I'll tell you what, we have seen other letters purportedly written by other al-Qaeda clowns in Iraq that have been sent to, hasn't there been, there was another Zarkawi Zark Zarkowi sent one to Bin Laden saying they were losing, and it read pretty much like this one does.
There's also got to be some translation characteristics here.
The Iraqis translated this for whatever lingo Zarkawi was using.
It's translated to English, and there's some changes that have to take place.
For example, I don't know when I read the phrase about we got it in the trying to foment war between Iran and United States, the term of weapons of mass destruction was used.
Now, I don't know that Zarkawi uses that term, but I know he knows we know what it means, and that it is a, it is a, it's almost a, it's a firecracker phrase in this country.
It lights the keg.
And so who knows if he used it or if the Iraqis said, okay, how will Americans understand weapons of mass destruction?
He could have been talking about nukes.
Who knows what he said?
You have to allow for various things like that.
But so soon after the document is revealed, Al-AP, wanting to cast aspersions on it on the basis of comparing the way Zarkawi speaks in a video.
In fact, I never heard him speak much in a video.
I just saw him using machetes and cutting people's heads off.
I haven't heard him speak all that much, to tell you the truth.
He doesn't know how much to use an AK-47 or whatever the gun was.
He had to have some help in doing that.
Who's next in this problem?
Brett in Atlanta.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Rush.
Hello.
How are you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Great.
Thank you for everything that you do for us.
You're more than welcome, sir.
Thank you for recognizing it.
To speak to all of the naysayers about the legitimacy of those documents and the information that was found in Zarkowi's place, you know, the 400-plus raids and 109 kills and, you know, with minimum civilian casualties, that speaks alone to how accurate and how legitimate those documents were.
Yeah, that's a good point.
That's a good point.
It's one of the reasons why this has been so successful, because the intel in those documents gave us precise locations of these SOBs.
We're able to go in there and route them out with not much resistance, by the way.
How many raids were there?
400 plus raids and over 100 insurgents, room temperature on their way to, yeah, over 700 captured.
And yes, my friends, captured detainees.
Ha ha, think Abu Grab.
I think Club Gitmo, where I have a thriving merchandise business.
So, you know, we're not going to close Club Gitmo, although the Department of Defense has ordered the current crop of drive-by media people out of there.
I think it's a great day.
I want to get on to all of it.
We're going to reprise the timber update.
Remember that?
Because Daryl Hanna is out of the tree.
She was arrested.
She did a really, really hard-hitting interview with Larry King last night.
King asked such really hard-hitting and impertinent questions: how did you go to the bathroom up there?
No, he did.
No, no, no.
Yeah, well, you know how she did it?
They had a rotation.
She actually left the tree, went to some outhouse, came back, went up the tree.
Somebody replaced her in the tree when she was gone.
But some of the other questions, I'll have this.
Let me see where it's pouring the end of the roster here.
Any bugs bite you while you were in the tree?
And, you know, asked her about private property.
What about the fact you're trying to tree on private property?
How do you go to the bathroom?
Where'd you do that up there?
Yeah, it was hard-hitting.
ACLU has sued the Pentagon over anti-war group monitoring.
This is a companion story to what we let off the program with yesterday.
ACLU sued the Pentagon to demand information it says the government has collected on groups opposed to the war in Iraq.
ACLU says the Pentagon's been monitoring anti-war groups and individuals and has compiled lists on people it sees as potential threats, but who the ACLU says are exercising their free speech rights.
Now, I told you what's going on yesterday: FOIA, freedom of information requests, FOIA after FOIA, human rights groups, ACLU, demanding these documents from the Pentagon.
They get these documents, they take some out of context, they end up being used to take the Pentagon, the United States, to court over the mistreatment of prisoners, denial of rights.
It's an under-the-table way.
It's not seen.
It's not like a protest march.
It's a way that the left with its activist judges and its human rights groups are trying to sabotage this war effort.
And now they're telling the Pentagon, you can't spy on anti-war groups.
We want to find out what you've got on these groups and so forth.
So this is just a continuing effort here to undermine the ability of the Department of Defense in this country to achieve victory against this enemy.
And I think this would have ramifications if they succeed in all this, have ramifications against any war in the future.
And they're really trying to undercut the ability of this nation to wage war, is what they're doing.
And they're using activist judges that have been appointed by people like Carter and Clinton and previous Democrat presidents, activist lawyers, human rights groups, and so forth with Freedom of Information Act requests.
We are monitoring this.
Keep a sharp eye on it.
Got to take a quick break now.
We'll be back after this.
You know, one more thing about this business of the authenticity of the Zark document.
Who's to say that Zark is the author anyway?
I mean, Zark is not a one-man operation.
Zark had staff.
Who knows?
I mean, it's entirely possible he's not the author of it.
It's probably that somebody else is.
He himself may be dictating it or ordering it done.
Another thing, this document was never intended for public consumption.
All these public statements and these tapes and these beheadings, that was for public consumption.
This wasn't.
This was internal use only.
Probably had a for your eyes only stamp on it somewhere in whatever lingo he speaks.
Something else about Iraq today, folks.
Fox News reported this morning that after this massive sweep that has resulted in 700 captured terrorists, over 100 killed, 400-plus raids, there hasn't been any activity today in Baghdad.
There haven't been any IEDs go off.
There haven't been any skirmishes.
There haven't been any firefights and anything like that.
Must be safe to get out there now for the drive-by media.
Leave the hotel balcony in the green zone and head out there.
I've only seen that on Fox, too.
I have not seen that reported anywhere else about how after this sweep that there hasn't been a whole lot of activity.
You want to hear some audio soundbites?
We have a couple here, actually three from Nancy Pelosi, Speaker to B, Pelosi, asked by Wolf Blitzer about Mrs. Clinton's position on Iraq.
The question, John Murthy wants a redeployment over the next several months.
John Kerry does.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn't.
But you're saying the Democrats and you are more in line with Murtha than with Senator Clinton?
Well, exactly.
Yeah, no, I don't think in the House there isn't very much support.
I don't exactly know what Senator Clinton's position is.
Let's listen to that answer again because I'm had trouble following that.
Well, exactly.
Yes, no.
I don't think they're in the House.
There isn't very much.
I don't really know what.
The question is, Democrats and you are more in line with Murthy than with Senator Clinton.
Well, exactly.
Yeah, no, I don't think they're in the House.
There isn't very much support.
I don't exactly know what Senator Clinton's position is.
If you do, you know that she has no position on this.
She's trying to straddle a fence so that whatever happens, she can say she supported it.
But it does indicate there isn't any unity here at the top of this party.
Wolf says, well, Mrs. Clinton says it'd be a mistake to have a timetable.
Yeah.
But there are milestones that if they are achieved, then we should be able to move on.
Because we've just passed the sad milestone of 2,500 American troops died, 20,000 injured, 10,000 of those permanently.
An enormous cost in reputation to us in the world.
Enormous impact on our readiness to protect America's interests and our security at home or wherever our interests are threatened.
Enormous cost in dollars.
Hundreds of billions of dollars, a trillion-dollar war before it's over.
Yeah, but you ever hear her talking about the cost of, say, her favorite social programs?
What about the cost of the terrorists, Ms. Pelosi?
What about the cost to the enemy?
How many of them are dead?
How many of them have been wiped out?
2,500 Americans in Iraq killed over three years.
In 2005, there were almost 17,000 murders in this country.
There are more Americans being murdered by Americans in this country than troops are dying in Iraq, and those troops are defending and protecting your freedom to be the bumbling idiot that you just were.
And here is another example of just that.
Next Blitzer question.
Well, did you ask Congressman Murthy to withdraw his name as a potential majority leader if the Democrats become the majority in the House?
That was funny, too.
Merth is, I'm going to pull back.
I'm not going to run my campaign till we win.
And that's what Wolf is asking about.
And so what's going on with Murthy right now?
In the interest of winning the election and in the party unity that we have, Mr. Murtha said to me that I will suspend my campaign.
But the reason is also we are about to have our Democratic new direction for America.
You mentioned it said it was postponed.
Out of respect for the president and our troops, when he called the meeting at the White House, we said we'll put that off.
Blame Bush for the fact you can't announce a new, what is it?
Democratic New Direction for America.
I've got a blueprint.
I have what that is.
It's pointless and hilarious at the same time.
It's Bush's fault that they have to postpone the announcement of their agenda yet again.
Damn that Bush.
Such a stupid incompetent.
Talent on loan from God.
Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back.
Our timber update coming up regarding Daryl Hanna being busted out of the tree.
It was a walnut tree, by the way.
We found out.
Larry King found out with hard, penetrating questions of Daryl Hanna.
And I have here the New Direction for America platform as it exists.
The Democratic Party have that coming up as well.
▲
Export Selection