All Episodes
Previous Next
June 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:33
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 did you know that being fired could be fatal?
There's a 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 res 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 800-282-288-2, 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 I've got audio sound bites out the wazoo.
I've got stacks of stuff.
I literally don't know.
And every everything there's no throwaways in there.
Everything is just so let's get started, shall we, ladies and gentlemen?
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
As you know, the president is uh in Vienna, Austria.
There's some G something or other meeting going on over there.
Uh he was at a news conference with uh the uh Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schussel and European Union President Jose Manuel Barroso, and a reporter.
Snivelling little reporter.
Actually, in the next bite, the reporter is snivelling.
We don't have the reporter on the mite, but reporter says Iran says it's going to respond to the uh offer uh to talk to them about their nukes uh in late August, like on the 22nd.
Is that a suitable time frame, 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 uh we look forward to working with our partners.
Uh we just got word of this uh 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 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 and I watched this today.
Uh while while prepping uh the program and listening to some music, I was also watching the president's press comment.
Well, I read close captioning.
So I can listen to something, I can watch something, and I can prepare at the same time.
It's this this this snivelling European uh journalist, uh media person, uh, stood up and said, uh, 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.
Sixty-four percent 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 gonna forget them.
And therefore I will be steadfast and diligent and strong in defending our country.
Uh 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, uh 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.
This is a uh the question was about a poll that was in the Financial Times, and it just it's really a devastating poll.
I mean, uh not devastating to me, but I mean it it's it's uh it's devastating in the sense that it portrays all of Europe hating us, and they're afraid of 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 uh the question uh was about.
Um after the 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 declare Darfur to be a genocide.
Because I care deeply about those who have been uh afflicted by these uh renegade bands of people who are raping and murdering.
And so I will do my best to explain our foreign policy.
It's tough one needs to be.
On the other hand, it's compassionate.
Leadership requires making hard choices.
And that's how I'm gonna continue to lead my country.
Now, this was uh uh you really need to hear this reporter in his question to hear the snivelling little voice and the the arrogance and the condescending the the insulting tone in which the uh question was asked that this brought the uh uh Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schussel.
Uh he c he wanted to 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 uh in the scope of his remarks.
I think us to 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 live in ruins.
Without the participation of uh America, what fate would have uh Europe?
Where would be Europe today?
Not the peaceful, prosperous Europe like we love it and where we live.
And I think uh I will never forget that uh America f uh fed us with uh food, with economic uh 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 outside of the UK, uh, but this guy's question was so, so arrogant and so offensive and so uppity that uh uh uh Chancellor Schussel here uh uh marched in and tried to set the world straight, at least the people in this room, but this gets it gets to a larger point.
And it's something that that uh you can boil down to personal relationships uh at work, uh 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, uh, you're gonna 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 uh Wolfgang Schussel, uh, have saved the world.
You've already pointed out as president that we feed the world, we clothe the world, we uh provide the world with medicine, and to sit here and listen to some snivelling little European socialist journalist, cite evidence from a poll.
At what point do you f 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's human nature.
We can muscle our way around wherever we want, and we can use soft words and compassion uh 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 office?
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 gonna I'm not gonna 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 um and promote confusion.
Uh it's major mantra of the Democrats.
We once had a great reputation, but everybody hates our guts.
In the first place, everybody doesn't hate our guts.
In the second place, um we're always gonna 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 the way he answered the question.
Don't misunderstand.
I just, as whole, the whole thing here is just it's a it's a big buggaboo with me to sit here and get all concerned about what uh 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 uh what do they call it?
Uh rebuild our uh reputation, uh reestablish our uh good relations.
We're gonna reach out to our allies, basically, um, and try to be whatever they want us to be.
I guarantee you folks, it'll be the the uh it it well won't be the end, but it'll it'll change the direction of the United States considerably.
It thus does not work uh trying to make yourself into what that person wants you to be, or that person or that country or that leader wants you to be, uh, and anybody who's gonna go out and try to do that is uh is is gonna do great harm and damage and make us a laughing stock.
I gotta run quick time out.
We'll be back and continue here right after this.
Stay with us.
America's real anchor man, doctor of democracy, truth detector all combined is one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
I am L. Rushball behind the golden EIB microphone.
We have uh cookie uh put together this uh uh question from this sniveling little uh European twit reporter, and here here it was.
Mr. President, you might be aware that uh 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.
Sixty-four percent think that it is bad.
In the United Kingdom, you are ally, there are more citizens who believe that the United States policy under your leadership is uh 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 uh the I I know the president hadn't answered the question.
He goes, They're doing the press conference, like the way he answered the question, but this uh 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, or we're we're doing more to destabilize the world and damage peace.
I what is the point?
I mean, I've given them too much time.
I'm wasting too much of my time on them.
It's not worth it.
The immigration bill is dead, uh, 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' implicable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants is now they softened this version uh in uh in later dispatches, but translate this for you a victim of election year concerns in the House.
Uh 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 gonna have give it a time of day.
What happened here is that the uh House said, you know, we're gonna we're gonna debate this, we'll debate this week, come back in August.
Or come back in September after our August recess.
Well, there's nothing gonna be going on in September other than members leaving town and coming back to town, going back home to campaign uh for their uh seats that are up for election in uh in November.
Uh also conservatives' implacable opposition uh to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants, not 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 ref shot over what anybody in the country wanted.
And it's clear what happened.
I th I think uh I mean there are a number of factors that went into this with the Senate, uh bad thinking, uh 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, but 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 blue blooders, 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 uh 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 there was 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 linguiny spine senators actually saw all these protests and got scared.
I think the oh wow, they 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 uh than your opinions about it.
Plus the Senate had the uh 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 uh editorial on this, the GOP's immigration shame.
Republicans choose divisive campaign politics over urgently needed policy.
Uh 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, so not town hall meetings are nonsense.
To go out and find out what your constituents ask, yeah, it's nonsense.
That'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 LA Times thinks this represents a Republican crack up.
This is a conservative crackdown.
You have done it again.
The members of the House heard you, and they have put this put the brakes on an horrible piece of legislation.
LA Times, obviously from the uh school of thought that legislation for legislation's sake is the answer to all problems.
Carl and Tacoma, Washington, as we head to the phones.
Welcome, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Yes, hi.
Um I'm a little nervous.
Um what I want to talk about was that um I agree with you, though.
I don't really give a fig what Europe uh 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 One.
I know.
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 I I'm just so fed up.
I mean, I think maybe we ought to start thinking about uh redeploying, you know, the use of the Democrats word, all our troops in Europe back to the U.S. or to other places where they're where they're more necessary.
To the Middle East, for example.
Um, I mean, I'm just really so sick and tired of them if they really think so so low.
See, that's that's that's the rub.
That that that's the rub.
Uh look at these people as your kids.
And that's really half to you look at they have to look at them.
I know they offend you, they're they're not kids, they're adults, but they essentially are spoiled, soft, uh, not battle hardened at all.
They're just spoiled, rotten little children.
And we cannot, in the in the uh 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, and we cannot stop defending them when they're attacked.
That's what leadership's all about.
At the same time, uh I I think 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.
Is it Dutch, yeah, a bunch of Dutch doctors?
It's normal uh 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 in a sense that life and the future are meaningless and purposelessness are signs of complicated grief syndrome.
Uh 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 grievous.
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, and maybe for at least six months to the point of functional impairment.
Dr. Paul Bolin, psychologist, psychotherapist, and old trecht 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 we've got complicated grief syndrome, normal grief syndrome, and super grief.
Yeah, what do we do?
Where do we go?
I can't help it.
I it's I still can't get over this.
I'm 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 it's the population of New Orleans is down by 50 percent.
The crime rate, the cop level, the police uh number of cops is almost at pre-katrina levels.
We got to send the National Guard in there.
I I I this the sight of that is just mind-boggling to me.
All right, folks, I know this could be redundant, but it's out there, and I have to talk about it.
I want to talk about it to boot.
But I gotta 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, Carrie 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 on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.
So Kerry has has it's 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 Florida Day.
Ted Kennedy is debating his minimum wage bill.
There is there are I think two Iraq resolutions, one of them I think is Carl Levins and the other one is Carrie'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?
Carrie 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 is, 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. Carey has insisted on setting a date for American combat troops to pull out in twelve 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. Carey, 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 like 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 they've just shot their wad at Bush, and that's and they're going to continue to do that, but now they're turning to 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 Carrie's too focused on the next presidential campaign.
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 I 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 who are 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 Carrie's stance here is more political than based on principles of joke.
Everything the Democrats have done for the last five years is based on politics.
I mean, that whether it's an event in Iraq or Hurricane Katrina, everything's looked at it through the prism of Cowell.
Does this hurt Bush?
And does this help Bush?
What's this gonna do to Bush's PR?
What's it gonna do to Bush in 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. Carey 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 Dawd, Democrat of Connecticut, standing behind him, raised his eyebrows and then winked at the reporter.
Undercutting, basically telling the reporter that Carrie 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 the whole story to you here, but I'll just let me sum it up.
They're angry as they can be at Carey.
They're scared to death that uh he's running for president again.
He they think that he is totally self-focused, couldn't care less about the Democrats or the Senate, only in his own fortunes, and 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 Carl Rove, they cannot see straight.
Uh they are on the defensive.
I think Grove 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.
Uh 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 um cut and win.
Uh, 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, she had interesting interesting things she said here.
Uh 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-Francois 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?
Carrie 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 let the general the generals are not suggesting we get out at all, other than these retired guys that are under the tutelage of uh what's his face, uh Richard uh Richard Holbrook.
Mitch McConnell was asked about this whole cut and link cut and run, cut and win slogan.
Here's what he said.
The Kerry Amendment, which we defeated in the Senate 93 to 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 timeout here, but there's uh there is there's more.
Uh uh featuring John Roberts of CNN talking to Carl Levin and basically lecturing him.
What are you guys wasting your time talking about, 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 uh uh American Morning, CNN today.
Anchor uh John Roberts interviewing Senator Carl Levin.
First question why can't Democrats speak with one voice?
On removing our troops from Iraq?
Why 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's 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.
Any time 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 gonna get the troops out of there.
We're cutting and running.
Well, yes, we're gonna pull them out of there, but uh, if we have to go back in, we're gonna redeploy them pretty close.
If we have to go back in, nobody 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 gonna get back in quick from Okinawa?
Which is where uh mad dog Jack Mertha wants to send them.
John Roberts 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 crying out?
Why all this talk about troop withdrawals and why not focus on leadership and take away the ammunition that Carl 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 no 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 victoir on your side that you can proclaim.
And you guys want to cut and run and get out of there.
They're getting their ang, they're getting their their uh their uh uh willing accomplices in the drive-by media.
Really upset with them now.
But I mean, with 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.
Couple rungs down on the ladder, I would say.
He's so frustrated here.
Why are you even debating this?
Why are you why are you why are you focusing on on withdrawing or cutting and running?
Why don't I just 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 in 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 guaranteed 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 Mertha, Pelosi, and Levin.
You know, we hear about the A team.
I don't keep reeling off those names.
I'm not going to read 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 uh and made a new deal with Peru, ladies and gentlemen, that will ship stuff straight to us.
▲
Export Selection