All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
June 21, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Did you know that being fired could be fatal?
There's a new study out there.
Being fired from work could be fatal.
And I saw this and I thought, oh, no, poor Dan Rather.
What a day for this survey to be released.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Broadcast Excellence.
All yours three hours straight ahead here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, America's leading radio talk show, a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations on a daily basis.
That's no mean feat, by the way.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
I don't know how I'm going to get all this in today.
I've got audio soundbites out there wazoo.
I've got stacks of stuff.
I literally don't.
And everything.
There are no throwaways in there.
Everything is just, so let's get started, shall we, ladies and gentlemen?
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
As you know, the president is in Vienna, Austria.
There's some G-something or other meeting going on over there.
He was at a news conference with the Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel and European Union President José Manuel Barroso.
And a reporter, sniveling little reporter.
Actually, in the next bite, the reporter is sniveling.
We don't have the reporter on the bite, but reporter says, Iran says it's going to respond to the offer to talk to them about their nukes in late August, like on the 22nd.
Is that a suitable timeframe, Mr. President?
Our position is that we'll come to the table when they verifiably suspend, period.
And we expect them to verifiably suspend.
It seems like an awful long time for a reasonable proposal, a long time for an answer.
And we look forward to working with our partners.
We just got word of this statement as we walk in here, but it shouldn't take the Iranians that long to analyze what is a reasonable deal.
All right, there's the bottom line, the last sentence of the answer.
It shouldn't take that long.
Now, this next one is this.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about this.
I watched this today.
While prepping the program and listening to some music, I was also watching the president's press con.
Well, I read closed captioning.
So I can listen to something, I can watch something, and I can prepare at the same time.
This sniveling European journalist, media person, stood up and said, let me give you some numbers.
In Austria, in this country, only 14% of the people believe that what the United States is doing is good for peace.
64% think that it is bad for peace.
In the United Kingdom, your ally, there are more citizens who believe that the U.S. policy under your leadership is helping to destabilize the world than is Iran.
Why do you think that you have failed so badly to convince Europeans to win their heads and hearts and minds?
For Europe, September the 11th was a moment.
For us, it was a change of thinking.
I vowed to the American people I would do everything I could to defend our people and will.
I fully understood that the longer we got away from September the 11th, more people would forget the lessons of September the 11th, but I'm not going to forget them.
And therefore, I will be steadfast and diligent and strong in defending our country.
I don't govern by polls.
You know, I just do what I think is right.
I believe when you look back at this moment, people will say it was right to encourage democracy in the Middle East.
I believe in the universality of freedom.
Some don't.
Some people say it's okay to condemn people to tyranny.
I don't believe it's okay to condemn people to tyranny, particularly those of us who live in the free societies.
The question was about a poll that was in the Financial Times, and it's really a devastating poll.
I mean, it's not devastating to me, but I mean, it's devastating in the sense that it portrays all of Europe hating us, and they're afraid to death of us, and that we are a bigger danger to the world than is Iran.
We're a bigger danger to the world than Al-Qaeda.
We're a bigger danger to the world than North Korea.
And that's what the question was about.
After we left a chop to some of the president's remarks out, he continued then with this in the same answer.
We're providing more money than ever before in the world's history for HIV AIDS on the continent of Africa.
We'll help feed the hungry.
I declared Darfur to be a genocide because I care deeply about those who have been afflicted by these renegade bands of people who are raping and murdering.
And so I will do my best to explain our foreign policy.
This tough one needs to be.
On the other hand, it's compassionate.
Leadership requires making hard choices.
And that's how I'm going to continue to lead my country.
Now, this was you really need to hear this reporter in his question, to hear the sniveling little voice and the arrogance and the condescension, the insulting tone in which the question was asked.
This brought the Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schusssel.
He wanted to respond to this and came to the president.
Well, I don't know what you call it, came to the president's defense, but joined the president in the scope of his remarks.
I think Astro is a relatively good example to show that America has something to do with freedom, democracy, prosperity, development.
Don't forget, I was born in 45.
At that time, Vienna and half of Austria laid in ruins.
I mean, without the participation of America, what fate would have Europe?
Where would be Europe today?
Not a peaceful, prosperous Europe like we love it and where we live.
And I think I will never forget that America fed us with food, with economic support.
He went on to praise the Marshall Plan and praise the continuing Marshall Fund.
This is something we don't hear much outside of the UK.
But this guy's question was so, so arrogant and so offensive and so uppity that Chancellor Schussel here marched in and tried to set the world straight, at least the people in this room.
But it gets to a larger point.
And it's something that you can boil down to personal relationships at work with friends, spouses, and the like.
And that is at what point do you really care what people think when you have a large job to do and you're committed to doing it?
You're going to see it through.
You know that you are doing what's right.
You know that the things that your country has done in the past, as pointed out here by Wolfgang Schusssel, have saved the world.
You've already pointed out as president that we feed the world, we clothe the world, we provide the world with medicine.
And to sit here and listen to some sniveling little European socialist journalist cite evidence from a poll, at what point do you, and I'm saying as an American citizen, not the president, at what point do we care?
We keep hearing from the Democrats, our reputation around the world has been destroyed.
Bush has destroyed our reputation.
We once were held in high regard.
I would dispute that, by the way.
I don't think we've ever gotten the thanks and the appreciation that we are actually due.
And we never will, folks, because we're the superpower.
And we're the big guys.
And human nature is human nature.
We can muscle our way around wherever we want and we can use soft words and compassion and works of the heart to save people around the world.
We do it all.
We do it in our own self-interest, which is in the interest of freedom the world over.
So at what point do we just blow all this off?
I don't care what these people think.
I don't have time for it.
I don't have time for what rigged polls tell me about what I'm doing.
I'm not going to be affected by it anyway.
The reason I bring this up is because so many people are so affected by what others think of them.
Many people's lives are governed by that.
In fact, way too many, most people try to figure out what everybody else wants them to be, either at work or in a relationship or anywhere, and then try to be that.
Because that avoids controversy and it avoids dislike and it avoids pain and it avoids suffering when in fact all it does is promote pain and promote suffering and promote confusion.
It's a major mantra of the Democrats.
Hey, let Bush out there destroyed our reputation.
We once had a great reputation.
Everybody hates our guts.
In the first place, everybody doesn't hate our guts.
In the second place, we're always going to be resented.
And in the third place, none of that's relevant in terms of us achieving what's necessary to maintain our freedom, to maintain our prosperity, our national security, and so forth.
Now, I'm not getting on the president for, I mean, I love the way he answered the question.
Don't misunderstand.
I just, the whole thing here is just, it's a big bugaboo with me to sit here and get all concerned about what people think.
And I guarantee if you put people in country, in this country in charge of running it, like the Democrats, whose first objective is going to be to, what do they call it, rebuild our reputation, reestablish our good relations.
We're going to reach out to our allies, basically, and try to be whatever they want us to be.
I guarantee you, folks, it'll be the, well, it won't be the end, but it'll change the direction of the United States considerably.
It does not work trying to make yourself into what that person wants you to be, that person, or that country, or that leader wants you to be.
And anybody who's going to go out and try to do that is going to do great harm and damage and make us a laughing stock.
I got to run quick time out.
We'll be back and continue here right after this.
Stay with us.
America's real anchorman, doctor of democracy, truth detector, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
I am El Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone.
We have Cookie put together this question from this sniveling little European twit reporter, and here it was.
Mr. President, you might be aware that in Europe, the image of America is still falling and dramatically in some areas.
Let me give you some numbers.
In Austria, in this country, only 14% of the people believe that the United States, what they are doing, is good for peace.
64% think that it is bad.
In the United Kingdom, your ally, there are more citizens who believe that the United States policy under your leadership is helping to destabilize the world than Iran.
So my question to you is, why do you think that you fail so badly to convince Europeans to win their heads and hearts and minds?
Because their minds are closed, their hearts are cold, and their heads are worthless.
These are a bunch of socialist twits.
And we have to save them from themselves as well as save us.
I mean, that's the bottom line with this.
Don't get me started on these people.
I just, I know the president had to answer the question.
He goes, doing the press conference, like the way he answered the question, but this whole idea that somehow these socialists are superior and these Marxists have all the answers.
When I hear anybody mention the word peace and say that Iran is doing more for it, or we're doing more to destabilize the world and damage peace, what is the point?
I'm giving them too much time.
I'm wasting too much of my time on them.
It's not worth it.
The immigration bill is dead.
Ladies and gentlemen, and the you know, the first AP version of this story, which came out about 7:44 last night, in a defeat for President Bush, Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday that broad immigration legislation is all but doomed for the year.
And get this, a victim of election year concerns in the House and conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.
Now, they softened this version in later dispatches, but translate this for you: a victim of election year concerns in the House.
Well, that's very simple.
It means members of the House realize their constituents are dead set against the Senate bill and they're not going to give it a time of day.
What happened here is that the House said, you know, we're going to, we're going to debate this.
We'll debate this when we come back in August or come back in September after our August recess.
Well, there's nothing going to be going on in September other than members leaving town and coming back to town, going back home to campaign for their seats that are up for election in November.
Also, conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.
They're conservatives, just cold-hearted, mean-spirited SOBs.
I don't care what these people think either, folks.
I don't care what the press thinks.
I don't care about it at all.
The bottom line is this immigration bill, the Senate bill, is dead.
It is killed, and you did it.
Make no mistake.
This is an illustration.
I have always thought that on balance, an informed, educated, participating American populace will get what it wants.
There are exceptions to this, of course, but I'll tell you what, the Senate was going to run refshod over what anybody in the country wanted, and it's clear what happened.
I think, I mean, there are a number of factors that went into this with the Senate: bad thinking, ill-timed motivations, but I also think that there was a lot of pandering.
In addition to the fact that they saw whole bunches of new voters, senators in both parties, and I think they saw an opportunity to grow government and make it even bigger.
And at the same time, and make no mistake about this too, as I said earlier, the moderate elitist Republicans, the country club blueblooders, were doing everything they could in the Senate bill on immigration to destroy conservatism.
Make no mistake about the fact that elitist Republicans, country club blue-blood Rockefeller types, don't like conservative Republicans when they are running the party.
That's why there's enmity for the so-called Christian right and so forth.
And they had a lot of things that were motivating them in this bill, but I also think there was pandering.
I actually think that some of these linguini-spine senators actually saw all these protests and got scared.
I think, oh, they misinterpreted the protests.
They thought the protests were a bigger indication of public sentiment than your opinion on this.
The public sentiment of illegal citizens held more sway or caused more fear in the hearts of some of these senators than did your opinions about it.
Plus, the Senate had the luxury of having a bunch of senators support this who are not up for election this year.
That gave them a little cover.
LA Times editorial on this, the GOP is immigration shame.
Republicans choose divisive campaign politics over urgently needed policy.
How can you tell when a governing party is running out of steam, when it controls all branches of government, yet abandons even the pretense of addressing an issue that most members claim is a crisis?
That's what the GOP-led House did Tuesday in announcing that discussions over reconciling its enforcement-centric immigration bill with the Senate will be pushed back to September at the earliest.
And only after completing more hearings, instead of naming negotiators and attempting in good faith to bridge the chasm between the bills, House leaders are busy naming locations for field meetings that can deliver maximum demagogic effect in the run-up to the November election.
These meetings are nonsense.
Oh, Senator Town Hall meetings are nonsense.
To go out and find out what your constituents actually, it's nonsense.
It's absolutely foolish.
It's a waste of time.
It's pure politics.
These Republicans care only about getting election and getting elected.
A governing party running out of state.
This is, folks, let me tell you what happened here.
This was another conservative crackdown.
The L.A. Times thinks this represents a Republican crackup.
This is a conservative crackdown.
You have done it again.
The members of the House heard you, and they have put the brakes on a horrible piece of legislation.
L.A. Times, obviously from the school of thought, that legislation for legislation's sake is the answer to all problems.
Carl in Tacoma, Washington, as we head to the phones.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Yes, Ty, I'm a little nervous.
What I want to talk about was that I agree with you that I don't really give a fig what Europe thinks about the U.S., but there's a point where I'm just like fed up, absolutely just fed up with them after everything we have done to support and protect Europe during the Cold War, save their butts in two world wars.
And, you know, they're the ones that caused these problems in the Middle East in the first place when they carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I.
I know.
Not only did we had to go put out the mess in Bosnia for them.
We haven't quite got it done yet.
They're not even capable of defending themselves if they are to be attacked.
Exactly.
I mean, I'm just so fed up.
I mean, I think maybe we ought to start thinking about redeploying, you know, to use the Democrats' word, all our troops in Europe back to the U.S. or to other places where they're more necessary, to the Middle East, for example.
I mean, I'm just really so sick and tired of them if they really think so low.
See, that's the rub.
That's the rub.
Look at these people as your kids.
And that's really have to look at them.
I know they offend you.
They're not kids, they're adults, but they essentially are spoiled, soft, not battle-hardened at all.
They're just spoiled, rotten little children.
And we cannot, in the process of trying to punish them, actually do things that harm ourselves.
We can't redeploy out of Germany.
We can't close those bases or any of that.
We cannot stop defending them when they're attacked.
That's what leadership's all about.
At the same time, I think it's time to stop giving a hoot what any of them think, because it's not going to matter anyway in terms of our doing what's right.
Should not affect anybody's self-esteem, is my point.
What they think of us.
A new syndrome to report to you out there, ladies and gentlemen.
Complicated grief syndrome, CGS, been announced here by Dutch.
Yeah, a bunch of Dutch doctors.
It's normal to feel sadness and grief with the passing of a loved one, but an intense and persistent yearning for that person who died and difficulties moving on with life after a period of time and a sense that life and the future are meaningless and purposelessness are signs of complicated grief syndrome.
It warns a group of Dutch doctors.
Although some of these symptoms also occur in people with normal as opposed to complicated grief syndrome, normal grief syndrome and complicated grief.
But the symptoms are shared by members of both groups.
In people with complicated grief syndrome, these symptoms are very intense and they are persistent, maybe for at least six months to the point of functional impairment.
Dr. Paul Bolin, psychologist, psychotherapist in Ultrecht University in the Netherlands, told Reuters Health.
In other words, he said people with complicated grief are basically stuck in a state of chronic grieving, super grief.
So now we've got complicated grief syndrome, normal grief syndrome, and super grief.
Syndra.
Yeah, what do we do?
Where do we go?
I can't help it.
I still can't get over this.
I'm watching on television.
I'm watching the National Guard roll back into New Orleans.
I still can't believe this.
We've got, the population of New Orleans is down by 50%.
The crime rate, the cop level, the police number of cops is almost at pre-Katrina levels.
We've got to send the National Guard in there.
The sight of that is just mind-boggling to me.
All right, folks, I know this is going to be redundant, but it's out there and I have to talk about it.
I want to talk about it to boot.
But I've got to bring the Democrats in Iraq up again.
They are literally making fools of themselves.
It's gotten to the point now there is a front-page story on the New York Times.
And the headline on Iraq, Kerry again leaves Democrats fuming.
This is hilarious.
When Senator Kerry was their presidential nominee in 2004, Democrats fervently wished that he would express himself firmly about the Iraq war.
Mr. Kerry has found his resolve, but it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier.
They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views in Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.
So, Kerry has got them all upset, and it's all about the fact he wants to set a date-specific timeline to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and other Democrats in the Senate don't want to do that.
There are all kinds of debates in the Senate floor today.
Ted Kennedy is debating his minimum wage bill.
There are, I think, two Iraq resolutions.
One of them, I think, is Carl Levin's, and the other one is Kerry's.
And the Democrat leadership has moved Kerry's debate on his resolution to after the evening newscast tonight so that it won't show up on the evening.
So they're trying to hide what Kerry's actually doing from the drive-by media.
And of course, drive-by media will cooperate other than this story in the New York Times.
Now, nothing shows up in the New York Times is as it appears.
An uninformed, casual observer of the news would pick up the New York Times today and take this story at face value.
Oh, really?
Kerry gets Democrats mad at him.
Well, that's no big deal.
We were mad at him, too.
This is a warning shot across the bow to the Democrats.
This is an advice story from the New York Times and the editors say, you guys are going to blow this big time if you don't get your act together.
It's just, you have to look at this for what it is.
This is not just simple reporting.
This is the New York Times palpably afraid that the Democrats are blowing it.
Listen to some of the excerpts from this story that I have highlighted just for you.
As the Senate prepared for what promises to be a sharp debate starting today about whether to begin pulling troops from Iraq, Democratic leadership wants its members to rally behind a proposal that calls for some troops to move out by the end of the year, but does not set a fixed date for complete withdrawal.
Mr. Kerry has insisted on setting a date for American combat troops to pull out in 12 months, saying anything less is too cautious.
In drawing up a schedule for the Wednesday session, the Democratic leadership has arranged for its plan to be debated first, pushing Kerry and his proposal into the evening too late for the nightly television news to starve Kerry's proposal of some attention.
Senate Democrats have been loath to express their opinions publicly, determined to emphasize a united front, but interviews with the New York Times suggest a frustration with Mr. Kerry, never popular among the Democrat caucus and still unpopular among many Democrats for failing to defeat a president they considered vulnerable.
So this is all about the truth is finally coming out.
The Democrats never liked this guy.
He is one of the most unpopular guys in the Senate.
I told you that when he was nominated.
This is so much is coming to the frustration that they feel is finally they've just shot their wat at Bush and they're going to continue to do that.
But now they're turning the fire on themselves.
It's like they've circled the wagons, put Kerry in the middle, and they've started firing.
And some of them are going to hit him and some are going to hit each other.
Others people in the Senate now say that some Democrats complain that Kerry's too focused on the next presidential campaign.
Kerry now describes the war in Iraq as a mistake, even though he once supported it.
His critics say they believe the new stand reflects more politics than principle.
Come on, there isn't any principle in the Democratic Party.
I have a story in the stack about some new group of young Democrat intellectuals trying to figure out how to compete against me and against Fox News.
This is, how many times have we read about this?
First it was Mario Cuomo, then it was Gary Hart, then it was Air America, then it's been any number of people, and they're doing it all over, and each one of these efforts is greeted with ecstatic anticipation on the part of the drive-by media, and it's given in-depth analysis.
But even these new guys, these new young Turks, these so-called intellectuals, were getting together to try to figure out, should we put together a think tank?
Should we put together a series of blogs?
Should we do it the limbaugh way?
Should we do it the drudge way?
They still don't have any principle.
If they had any principles that they could be honest about, beliefs they could be honest about, they wouldn't have any roadblocks in the way.
Their problem is, how can we fool them today?
They've tried every which way to fool people and it jigs up.
They're not getting away with fooling people anymore.
So this notion that the Democrats are concerned that Kerry's stance here is more political than based on principle is a joke.
Everything the Democrats have done for the last five years is based on politics.
I mean, whether it's an event in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, everything's looked at it through the prism of cows.
Does this hurt Bush?
Does this help Bush?
What's this going to do to Bush's PR?
What's it going to do to Bush and the polls?
This is horrible.
The Democrats' exasperation has increased in the last week as they postponed a vote on Kerry's amendment to try to fashion a broader consensus among themselves.
Well, how long have they been trying to do this?
Fashion a broader consensus among themselves.
Six votes, essentially, for Kerry's idea, broad consensus.
They don't have a consensus because they don't have people who are relying on principle.
They're discombobulated.
They're disorganized.
They are not unified whatsoever.
Stepping into an elevator on Capitol Hill late this week, Mr. Kerry was asked whether he was under pressure in the Democrats' meetings to withdraw his proposal to set a firm date to get out of Iraq.
As he insisted he was not under pressure, Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, standing behind him, raised his eyebrows and then winked at the reporter.
Undercutting, basically telling the reporter that Kerry had just lied to them in his answer.
In an interview, Mr. Dodd, who is also considering a presidential run, said that one danger in the November election was in making Democrats look indecisive.
Democrats look indecisive.
And you got John Kerry out there.
I voted before it before I voted against it.
One danger in the November election was making Democrats look indecisive.
Look, I don't have time to read a whole story to you here, but I'll just let me sum it up.
They're angry as they can be at Kerry.
They're scared to death that he's running for president again.
They think that he is totally self-focused, couldn't care less about the Democrats or the Senate only in his own fortunes.
They don't trust him.
They don't have a lot of respect for him and they don't like him.
And they're doing everything they can to put his proposal on the back pages and the back burners so that nobody sees it.
And they are so discombobulated by Karl Rove, they cannot see straight.
They are on the defensive.
I think Rove has boxed them in this cut and run strategy.
Democrats reacting to that.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
Last night on Larry King Alive, Jane Harmon decided to try to deflect this whole term of cut and run.
Larry King said, Jane Harmon, what's your read on these killings?
We need to resolve now, Larry, to change our strategy in Iraq.
I would call it cut and win.
I think we should be redeploying troops now on a schedule set by the generals, focusing on achievable political objectives.
And I should add one more thing.
It's time to have regime change at the Defense Department.
A new Secretary of Defense will help change our strategy, and then we will win and honor those deaths and honor the people who still serve and honor our country.
Oh, so it's cut and win now.
We cut and win.
We get out and win.
Doesn't work that way, not before the mission is completed.
You know, interesting things she said here.
I think we should be redeploying troops now on a schedule set by the generals.
Isn't that what the Democrats are trying to do in the Senate?
Isn't it Jean-François Carrie, who served in Vietnam and the Democrats in the Senate trying to set troop movements?
Isn't it now the same Vietnam syndrome?
Is it not now a bunch of Washington politicians, particularly a bunch of Democrats who have no respect for the military and no understanding of victory?
Kerry doesn't understand victory.
He's never participated in one.
All of a sudden, they want to be in charge of troop movements while saying what the general, the generals are not suggesting we get out at all, other than these retired guys that are under the tutelage of what's his face, Richard Holbrook.
Mitch McConnell was asked about this whole cut and run, cut and win slogan.
Here's what he said.
The Kerry Amendment, which we defeated in the Senate 93-6 last week, is the clear cut and run proposal.
And now we're going to see another version of that, which could best be described as cut and jog.
I have to run, folks, a quick time out here, but there's more.
Featuring John Roberts of CNN talking to Carl Levin and basically lecturing him.
What are you guys wasting your time talking about troop withdrawals and so?
Why don't you just go rip President Bush's heart out?
That's what we want you to do.
We'll let you hear this in just a second.
Okay, a couple sound bites from American Morning, CNN today, anchor John Roberts interviewing Senator Carl Levin.
First question, why can't Democrats speak with one voice on removing our troops from Iraq?
Why can't you get on the same page?
He asked with supportive frustration.
There's a significant agreement, a consensus among Democrats that we have too much of an open-ended commitment and that we've got to have a phased redeployment begin by the end of the year.
That is no way is cut and run.
You'll hear that all day long, but there's no way that can fairly be characterized as cut and run.
Well, then what would cut and run be described as, Senator Levin, if you redeployment, withdrawal, what?
You guys are playing word games.
You've been talking to lack off rhymes with again, haven't you?
Cut and run, cut and run, withdrawal, redeployment.
If this isn't cut and run, what is it?
See, they have fallen into the trap.
Anytime you accuse them accurately of thinking or doing exactly what they're thinking or doing, they just go batty.
They go into conniption fits.
How dare you criticize?
How dare you be accurate about us?
We're the Democrats.
We're above being criticized.
We're above being called out.
Not cut and run.
What the hell is cut and run if this is?
You're going to get the troops out of there.
We're cutting and running.
Well, yes, we're going to pull them out of there, but if we have to go back in, we're going to redeploy them pretty close.
If we have to go back in, nobody's ready to go.
Why would they have to go back in?
Why would you pull them out in the first place if they might have to go back in, Senator?
And how are they going to get back in quick from Okinawa, which is where mad dog Jack Murtha wants to send them?
Now, John Roberts is not satisfied with that answer.
So he said, Senator, damn it, Senators, I mean, some Democrat strategists wonder why you're even debating this.
I mean, if you should be doing anything, it's focusing on leadership that got us to this point in Iraq.
Why don't you keep bashing Bush for Crane?
Why all this talk about troop withdrawals?
And why not focus on leadership and take away the ammunition that Karl Rove has to try to put in that new box?
Many of us were critical of this administration's blunders going in, this administration's failures in terms of management of the war.
There's been plenty of criticism.
It's been appropriate.
We think constructive.
Now the question is, what course should we now follow to find a way out of Iraq?
There's nothing from the administration except stay the course, stay the course, a bumper sticker, not a strategy.
Stay the course equals winning.
You stay until you win.
You stay until there's victoi on your side that you can proclaim.
And you guys want to cut and run and get out of there.
They're getting their willing accomplices in the drive-by media really upset with them now.
By the way, John Roberts, a cookie cutter anchor who didn't get the Dan Rather gig that he so wanted and had to take that, would it be a lateral step or a downward step over to CNN?
What would it be?
Audience size, a couple rungs down on the ladder, I would say.
I ain't so frustrated here.
Why are you even debating this?
Why are you focusing on withdrawing or cutting and running?
Why don't you just talk about leadership?
Because they don't have any, John.
There isn't any leadership.
You can't tell me that the Democrats have any leadership when they can't even shut up John Kerry.
John Kerry, who the architect of their defeat in 2004, wants to be the same thing in 2008.
They're worried sick.
They're so worried about it.
They're trying to humiliate and embarrass him with his front page story of the New York Times that he's above that.
He is so thick-headed, so self-centered, so self-conscious, so me, me, me, me, that he'll look at this piece and consider himself to be a true power player.
He will not understand that Democrats in the Senate are winking and nodding behind his back and assuming that he ought to be on a little yellow bus for school every day.
He's become a joke even among the Democrats, but he's a dangerous joke, but he doesn't see it.
I'm guaranteeing he doesn't have the ability to see that.
He's just so impressed with himself.
And he is so above the phrase.
Boston Brahmin is an elitist.
So forth.
The bottom line is this.
Their morale is low.
They're disoriented.
Their battle plans are failing.
They're making life-threatening mistakes.
They've got no replacements.
I'm not talking about our troops.
I'm talking about the Democrats.
Let me give you a reality check here, folks.
The Iraqi people formed a temporary government.
They voted to approve that temporary government.
They drafted a constitution.
They voted to approve that constitution.
They voted on a permanent government.
They named a president.
They named a prime minister, key ministers.
The people of Iraq have done all this in less time than it is taking New York to rebuild the Twin Towers.
In fact, the people of Iraq did all this in less time than it's taking New York to start rebuilding the World Trade Center.
If you follow the reasoning of Kerry and Murtha, Pelosi, and Levin, you know, we hear about the A-Team.
I'm going to keep reeling off those names.
I'm not going to read it.
They're the Z team.
A team's at top of the list.
Democrats have fielded their Z team, folks.
They can't get any lower.
Did the Dubai Ports Company simply go back home and cry over spilt milk when we shut them out?
No.
They have opened and made a new deal with Peru, ladies and gentlemen, that will ship stuff straight to us.
Details coming up.
Don't go away.
▲
Export Selection