All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:59
July 21, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I told you people that there was going to be some good that came out of this business in the Middle East.
One of the things that's happening now is that more and more people are beginning to ask the question, wait a second, how do you have a ceasefire with terrorists?
Wait a minute.
How do you make peace with terrorists?
Wait a minute.
How do you call it timeout with terrorists?
Greetings, my good friends.
It's Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday.
And looking forward to it.
Always love Open Line Friday.
You never know what you're going to get on Friday because we go to the phones.
It's your show.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Some of you may want to bring up other things other than the conflict in the Middle East.
If so, this is the day to do it.
Israelis are massing troops and armaments on the Lebanon border.
And it looks like the long-rumored ground invasion is at least being staged.
The appearance is it's being staged.
By the way, for those of you watching on the Ditto cam today, we got a new camera.
We have stepped up.
We have a new Ditto cam, and I've been toying with it here.
I think, Brian, it was not in focus.
I have focused it based on my supreme eyesight.
You didn't have it quite in, folks.
Not a complaint whatsoever.
But anyway, we are told, well, I know this is a step up because I had to sign off on the budgetary expense.
What are you frowning?
What do you not like about it, Mr. Snerdley?
What's the problem?
You look at it.
Looks fuzzy.
Well, come in here and tell me if it looks fuzzy.
I'm not going to spend all day on this.
Come in here and we'll look at it on a big monitor and I'll show you where Brian had it and I'll show you where it is now.
All right.
Now, come in.
Just look at it.
Just look it up there.
That's the big monitor.
Look it up right there.
Is Lukway?
Now, this is where it hold it.
Hold it.
This is where it was.
A little fuzzier.
Which is fuzzier.
That's fuzzier, all right?
This is focus right in the middle detent position.
Could be.
Could be the cleaning crew.
Always blame it on the clean.
When you're the engineer, always blame it on the always blame it on the cleaning crew.
I do that myself.
My friends, I want to start out here today with some really interesting audio soundbites.
CNN is just devastated that their attempt to recreate a Katrina mindset among the American people regarding the evacuation from Lebanon failed.
Here is CNN's political analyst Bill Schneider, his report on Wolf Blitzer's situation room last night.
What about the evacuation of Americans in Lebanon?
53% think the government is handling it well.
Some critics have made a comparison to another evacuation.
But the public sees a big difference.
Last September, 63% thought the Katrina evacuation was handled poorly.
Only 29% feel that way about the Lebanon evacuation.
Oh, damn it.
Oh, damn it, CNN having to admit defeat, the drive-by media, having to admit defeat.
I guess they couldn't find enough of, what was her name, Marichina?
What's her first name?
You know, the one, no, not Miriam, wasn't.
Wasn't Miriam.
Anyway, she's got a blog.
Do you know that babe has a blog?
That babe has a blog.
She'd been blogging from Lebanon.
She's not just the accidental tourist that CNN just happened to run into on that grungy Norwegian ship.
Here is Correspondent Barbara Starr's report.
CNN producers must have read Bill Schneider's poll because today they're broadcasting all kinds of reports of happy Americans saying thank you.
And let me ask you, who was it that first in the media raised the question about where's all the thank yous?
Where are all the thank yous?
How come they can't find anybody that feels grateful that they have been evacuated from this war zone?
Here's her report.
When the landing craft finally got to the Nashville, the Americans were met by delighted troops.
Thank you, USA!
Thank you.
Thank you, USA.
Oh, another drive-by media effort to destroy the American image among Americans down the tubes, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, look at this, a series of stories, and I do these.
You've heard these.
This is today's news in the drive-by media, but you heard all of this on this program on Monday.
And I simply mention all of this to illustrate once again how on the cutting edge you are as regular listeners here.
First, Al Reuters, Israel's campaign to destroy Hezbollah is a foreign policy windfall for the Bush administration, which hopes it'll boost the U.S. war on terrorism and heap pressure on its nemesis, Iran, analysts say.
It's not just Israel that doesn't want to ceasefire here, said David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy think Tank, longest all ward ally of Israel.
The White House has repeatedly voiced support for Israel's right to self-defense.
A little late here, Al Reuters, we pointed this out to people on Monday, that this was a gift to the world.
There's a fascinating piece, too, today in the Washington Post that talks about how Bush is dealing with this entirely differently than previous administrations.
And that's what's landmark about this, by the way.
As I mentioned at the top, more and more people, like I was watching on the airplane trip home from New York last night, what a nightmare getting to the airport, by the way.
My second time trying the Lincoln Tunnel.
And two blocks in the tunnel, traffic cover.
This is after dinner at Patsy's.
Ran into Roger Ailes and Charlie Rose in there.
The place was packed.
If there had been a terrorist attack on Patsy's last night, half the media would be ended in this country.
At any rate, leave there, I guess it's about 10 o'clock, 9.30, whatever it was, get two blocks from the tunnel and come to a dead stop for 15 minutes.
And we figure out that there's a car stalled in the tunnel.
I said, well, do a 180 and hightail it up the west side of the George Washington Bridge.
So we got out.
I finally got home about 1.30.
And it was a great, great couple of days, great seeing the little nieces.
And oh, those pictures are cute.
Those little girls are just, they're sweet as they can be.
All get straight A's.
I don't know where that comes from because nobody in our family ever did that.
Certainly their father never did, and I never did.
But I mean, they're really applying themselves.
But anyway, just having dinner last night and a bunch of conversations about all of this, I'm flying home.
There's Greta Van Susteren interviewing Madame Albright.
Did you see that?
And Madame Albright looked like a cadaver other than the, I think it was the makeup.
It wasn't the physique.
And she just full of diplo speak.
Like she wasn't even listening to the questions.
It was a bunch of gobbledygook.
And she came out and said, well, what I would hope would be the case is that we'd be able to negotiate a ceasefire.
And Greta Van Sustrin said, How do we negotiate a ceasefire with terrorists?
She didn't even answer the question, didn't deal with it, has never even considered it because that's not her template.
But more and more people are beginning to ask this question now.
And this is a huge turn of events because the standard operating procedure, the template, anytime there's a flare-up in the Middle East, got to have ceasefire.
I also dealt with that earlier this week and told you what ceasefires really are.
They're nothing more than timeouts so the bad guys can regroup and come up with even stronger weapons.
Story number two in the stack of see I told you so's this from Cairo, Egypt, and this is from Al-Ap.
The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah exposed divisions across the Arab world, not only between Shiites and Sunnis, but also between Arab governments and their citizens.
And this story, published today, goes on to tell you what I mentioned to you on Monday.
I'm just, folks, this ain't bragging because as I say, if you can do it, it isn't bragging.
I'm just telling you, we're five days ahead of the curve here.
When I say we're doing the job that the drive-by media used to do, I mean it.
Here's another one: the Hezbollah military machine.
This is Al-Ap again out of Washington.
The Hezbollah military machine that's been attacking Israel draws much of its strength from two shadowy sources that are proving difficult to cut off, Syria and Iran.
Again, this story published today.
You have known about this since Monday and Tuesday when this all began.
The two countries which President Bush blames for fomenting terrorism and destabilizing the Middle East provide Hezbollah with training, weapons, and financing, according to Western intelligence officials who are working to stem the flow of aid.
So I tell you that there are positive signs in this.
And I can illustrate it in a way by asking you this.
Who do you in this audience, who do you look to for the news?
For example, you look for the New York Times or do you look to EIB?
Here's a simple test right out of today's front page headlines.
The New York Times headline, Annan condemns Israel for excessive use of force.
This is the way they review his silly, insipid little speech yesterday that I actually went off on and did a Hall of Fame rant monologue on.
What did we do on this program yesterday?
I condemned Kofi Annan for an excessive use of force.
The New York Times praises him for saying that he condemns Israel for an excessive use of force.
There is no mention by Kofi Annan nor the New York Times in their review of his speech of Syria.
No mention of Iran, not even a mention of U.S. Resolution 1559, which is, here's Kofi demanding all these ceasefires and restraint and so forth.
And the question, well, what about your resolution?
You, the guys that ordered Hezbollah out of there six years ago, where's the usefulness of your resolution?
Doesn't even seek to criticize his own organization.
And he didn't come clean with us either.
The world confessing his failures, failure to enforce a UN resolution, failure to crack down on Syria.
These are UN failures, but you never criticize the UN.
It is above it.
It is beyond it for some reason.
I didn't time Kofi's statement.
It had to be something like 45 minutes, but it was a meaningless, it was cliche-filled, self-serving.
But with talent on loan from God, I can sum up Kofi's statement in three phrases.
Israel is overreacting.
The children are dying.
And I am leading.
No, I won't resign.
That's Kofi Annan.
Children are dying.
I am leading.
Israel is overreacting.
That was the sum total.
But, folks, in a war, I know it's tough, but to think this way, because the forces of negativism and gloom are all out there.
But be of good cheer in one sense, as I told you people days ago.
This has the opportunity.
I don't know if it's going to end up being, but it has the opportunity to be for the best.
We have the cradle of democracy, us, and the cradle of reality, Israel, cutting through the BS that issues resolutions and scoots off to the next cocktail party, then demands restraint, then heads off to dinner, then demands a ceasefire, and heads off to after-dinner drinks.
An olive in your martini, Mr. Secretary General.
Anyway, quick timeout.
We'll be back.
We'll continue in mere moments right after this.
I'm here.
I'm here.
I was listening to some, I was listening to my theme song.
I was listening to Baby Baby Don't Get Hooked On Me by Mac Davis.
And I thought I had gone there early enough.
I usually, my instincts tell me when it's time to get back.
But nevertheless, here we are, Rush Limbaugh Open Line Friday.
Interesting story here today.
This Michael Ledean in National Review Online, when I was away, I guess it was last week, the Lebanese Tourism Ministry's Research Center announced an amazing statistic in early July.
In the first six months of this year, 60,888 Iranian tourists visited Lebanon.
No other Asian country came close.
The Philippines ranked second with a bit over 12,000.
I don't think there's enough disposable income in Mullah land to cover the expenses.
More than 10,000 people a month headed for the Beirut beaches.
Ladine says, Do you think, as I do, that a goodly number of these tourists were up to no good?
Maybe some of them were working for the Revolutionary Guards Corps or were Hezbollah operations people?
And by the way, if there were just a little question here, folks.
If there were indeed, and that's the figure that everybody's admitted to, if there were 60,888 Iranian tourists in Lebanon, why was there no concern on the part of anybody whether they were getting out?
I mean, we're concerned about the Brits.
We were concerned about the Dutch.
We were concerned about the Norwegians.
We were concerned about the Filipinos.
We were concerned about the Americans.
But was there any concern about the Iranians getting out?
This is an interesting statistic because it's going to lead people even into a further direction to conclude, those who are dubious, what is obvious here.
Okay, it's Open Line Friday.
Let's go to the phones to New Orleans and Dan.
You're first today.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Megadittos from New Orleans Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, look, what happened in New Orleans as far as the government's concerned?
Wasn't that a search and rescue?
Hadn't the people already been ordered to evacuate?
And if they didn't listen, they then became a burden on those trying to rescue survivors?
No.
Well, I mean, that may be the reality, but that's not how it was played.
The way it was played was that it was the government's fault for not getting them out of there.
I just don't know how they can even draw a comparison between New Orleans and Lebanon.
Because it was a trial balloon.
They thought they'd see if they could drum up those same emotions among the American people directed at the Bush administration over the evacuation of Americans in Lebanon.
It was pure and simple of trial balloon.
They were giving it a shot.
Remember the template?
I've told you what the action line to every story is.
How can this be turned into a negative for Bush politically, whatever the story is?
And that's why what's interesting about this is they're starting to do a 180 on this stuff, folks.
Now, it's begrudging and it's slow.
There are even some Israeli people who used to be big, big fans of Clinton and Albright who are beginning to talk about the necessity to deal with Iran finally once and for all in this situation.
And I'm telling you, some of the big-time drive-by media superstars who have this great affection for Israeli liberals are pulling their hair out.
This is not supposed to happen.
All of this is supposed to be blamed on George W. Bush.
The Israeli liberals are supposed to be joining the drive-by media in this country and blaming George W. Bush for failing to engage, for failing to pay attention.
But what's becoming more and more clear, and I hate to be redundant about this, but it's crucial that as many people understand it as possible.
It is becoming clear that the 30 years of dealing with Middle East peace crises has been an utter failure.
And that the people like Madeline Albright, and remember, this is interesting too, and I mentioned this, Madeline Albright and her buddy Wendy Sherman, they've got a business.
Albright Partners or Albright Limited or Albright, whatever it is, it's got this global consultancy company like Dr. Kissinger has.
And they're trying to establish a business and they've got bills to pay.
They've got rent.
And that's why Wendy Sherman and Madame Albright are all over television.
They're trying to sell their credentials.
And what are they doing?
They're selling 30 years of failure.
They're setting themselves up as the experts in failure.
Ceasefire after ceasefire after ceasefire after ceasefire.
Thomas Sowell, one of my heroes, as you know, has a great piece today.
Well, I found it at Real Clear Politics.
It's probably a syndicated column.
And he says, one of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality.
And he focuses on the peace movement.
He said, does the peace movement really bring peace?
Do pacifists and people who demand peace actually bring about peace?
No.
In fact, the truth is that the peace movements of the world, the pacifists of the world, actually lead to more conflict.
They lead to more war.
They lead to more bloodletting and death.
If peace activists were worth their salt, we should have had peace for 30 years since they've been on the trail.
I'll give you more details of his thinking on this when we come back, but it all boils together.
It can synthesize it down to one point, and that is ceasefires, peace movements.
None of this works with this kind of an enemy.
Only eliminating them will.
And that's beginning to take root.
That's absolutely right.
It's open line Friday.
And the fastest week in media.
I am America's real anchorman, El Rushbo, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned, Maha-Rushi.
Here's that Washington Post piece that I was talking to you about.
It's by Michael Abramowitz.
And the basic theme is Bush versus the foreign policy establishment on Israel and how he's not listening to them and how he's taking a new tack.
I'm not going to read a whole thing to you.
It's at the Washington Post website.
We'll obviously link to it at rushlimbaugh.com later today.
And this is, as I read this, this is, it's got a couple daggers in it, but for the most part, it's a pretty good story.
President Bush's unwillingness to pressure Israel to halt its military campaign in Lebanon is rooted in a view of the Middle East that is sharply different from that of his predecessors.
When hostilities have broken out in the past, the usual U.S. response has been an immediate and public bout of diplomacy aimed at a ceasefire in the hopes of ensuring that the crisis would not escalate.
This week, however, even in the face of growing international demands, the White House has studiously avoided any hint of impatience with Israel.
While making it plain it wants civilian casualties limited.
The administration is also content to see the Israelis inflict the maximum damage possible on Hezbollah.
As the president's position is described by White House officials, Bush associates, and outside Middle East experts, Bush believes that the status quo, the presence in a sovereign country of a militant group with missiles capable of hitting a U.S. ally, is unacceptable.
The U.S. position also reflects Bush's deepening belief that Israel is central to the broader campaign against terrorists and represents a shift away from a more traditional view that the U.S. plays an honest broker's role in the Middle East.
In the administration's view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed, it is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he's doing in Iraq.
Israel's crippling of Hezbollah, officials also hope, would complete the work of building a functioning democracy in Lebanon and send a strong message to the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hezbollah.
All this is exactly right, and it just keeps going on and on and on.
And that's why, you know, I knew on Monday I said this is a gift to the world.
I didn't envision, though, reaping these kinds of rewards.
I thought people would see the opportunity finally zeroing in on the state-sponsored, you know, the terror masters of this region being Iran.
And that is happening.
But what I didn't envision was: do you realize how old this conventional wisdom thinking is?
This is all my life.
Well, not quite that long, but since I've been paying attention as an adult, flare-up of the Middle East, peace, resolutions, ceasefires.
And you've still got these archaic, Jurassic Park people like Madeline Albright and the Clintonoids out there articulating this very path, which is obvious to everybody now.
It's a failure.
And I'll tell you, you know what the straw that broke the camel's back was?
Israel was told, get out of Gaza, get out of Lebanon, get out of all these areas that you're occupying, and that'll solve the problem.
It's all about land for peace, Israel.
They don't like the fact that you're on land they think is there, so just get out.
Let them have Gaza.
Let them have parts of Lebanon where you've been.
Get out of Golan and get out of some of the occupied territories of the West Bank.
And the world has seen it ain't about that at all.
It's about the annihilation of Israel.
Now, there's some people who don't care about that, but they're beginning to learn here that the people they've been supporting on the diplomatic front can't be trusted either.
There's a new awakening here to the fact that the world is at war with terrorist cults and militias as opposed to nations.
Clearly, Iran and Syria are nation states that have to be dealt with.
They're sponsors.
They are the paymasters, the terror masters of at least Hezbollah.
But the Arab region is also upset about the growing power of Iran and its bellicosity and its promises and threats to take over the region.
What's that?
I've got that.
Yeah, Ahmad Dinizad sent another insane, we think it's insane.
The jury's still out on this guy, but he sent a demand to Merkel, the new prime minister in Germany, saying, Hey, look, we're on the same side here.
We hate the Jews, you hate the Jews, and we want to get him out of here, and it's up to you to take him.
And it literally is, you know, you don't know whether this letter is calculated to make everybody scared to death of this madman or whether he really is a madman.
And I think it's safe thing that it's right.
Take it at face value.
This is what he's presenting, and this is what you have to deal with.
And it was the same thing with Saddam.
I'll find that story about Ahmadinezad and his little letter to Merkel.
What do they call her?
The Chancellor, the president, whatever prime minister, head honcho in Germany.
Let me share with you a little bit more here of Thomas Sowell.
Peace movements are among those who take advantage of the widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities.
Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called peace movements.
That is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.
Take the Middle East.
People are calling for a ceasefire in the interests of peace.
There have been more ceasefires in the Middle East than anywhere else.
If ceasefires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.
Was World War II ended by ceasefires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan?
Make no mistake about it.
Innocent civilians died in the process.
Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.
There is a reason why General Sherman said war is hell more than 100 years ago, but he helped end the civil war with his devastating march through Georgia, not by ceasefires or bowing to world opinion.
And there were no corrupt bushy bodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being wiped out.
But world opinion, UN, and the peace movements have eliminated that deterrent.
An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he'll still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a ceasefire, negotiations, and concessions.
And I'm telling you, folks, the roots of this are many.
Well, the roots are deep and there are many different roots.
But you cannot take out of the equation this whole notion of conflict resolution.
You can't take out of it the infiltration of this culture over the years by pacifist, socialist, and neocommunist agents that preach this sort of stuff.
But the great thing that's happening here, and I'm just reveling in it, the great thing that's happening is that the absence of truth and common sense in the American history curriculum in the American public schools is being countered by all of those of us, me, Sewell, Max Boot, and the Los Angeles Times the other day, all kinds of people who understand the realities.
And a history lesson is being taught in America today about how we did win World War II, how we did defeat the Nazis and the Japanese, and what it took to do so.
And that it wasn't ceasefires, and it wasn't peace movements, and it wasn't resolutions, and it wasn't the UN that brought any of these victories about.
And it's not going to be the case here.
And it never has been the case.
I take you back to the Limbaugh doctrine: peace follows victory.
Amy in Dublin, Ohio, Open Line Friday, your next.
Hello.
Hi, Chris.
Hello.
Yes.
Hi, Amy.
This is Pam, and I'm in Texas.
Oh, you are?
Uh-huh.
Well, I'm sorry, Amy in Dublin, Ohio went away, and you took her place.
What is it that you'd like?
Well, I'm so pleased to be able to talk to you.
I am just ecstatic that I get to talk to Rush Limbaugh.
Well, thank you very much.
I understand.
But what I wanted to talk to you about, and I don't know if you've, because I haven't heard you mention it yet, but are you aware that Senator Cornyn of Texas and Senator Coleman co-sponsored the bill?
It's called Senate Bill 3622.
And they want the United States and Canada to pay for the infrastructure rebuilding in Mexico.
That bill I am not aware of, Pam.
Oh, I wish you would check into it and know about it because he did it.
They put it in.
And, you know, I'm from Texas and Cornyn's from Texas.
And I've always liked Cornyn.
I like Senator Cornyn.
I've always liked Senator Corny.
Senator Cornyn is one of the smartest guys, reasonable voices in the Senate.
Right.
But he got this in just before the break for the July 4th break.
Well, we'll look into this, Pam.
If this is true, we'll blow the lid on it for you.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
You are wonderful.
I'm so excited that I got to talk to you.
Well, thanks for heading us up on something that we don't know about here.
We'll check into that.
And it's a thrill to have you call.
Glad you made it through.
Thank you.
Okay, it's Pam in Texas, and we've got a brief time out.
I'm going to find that story here, the letter from Ahmadinezad to the German Prime Minister, Premier Chancellor, President, whatever, Merkel, after this.
And we're back on the cutting edge.
El Rushbo, talent on loan from God.
All right, here's the story.
Germany has rejected parts of a letter from President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinezad to Chancellor Angela Merkel, which called into question Israel's right to exist.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mutaki delivered the letter to the German embassy in Tehran earlier this week.
A German government official who saw the letter told Al Reuters that it criticized Israel and said Germany and Iran should cooperate in dealing with Zionism and solving the Palestinian problem.
It includes many statements that are unacceptable to us, especially regarding Israel, the right of Israel to exist, and the Holocaust, the German government spokesman.
It's completely unacceptable for us when these are called into question.
The letter didn't mention Iran's nuclear standoff with the West or the fighting in Lebanon or Israel.
The German government official provided Reuters with a few more details on the letter.
It talks about how both Germany and Iran have been victims of the Jews.
Then it also says we have to find a solution to the Palestinian problem and Zionism and so on.
It's rather weird.
So Ahmadinezad has actually proposed the final solution.
He wants to reunite with the Germans.
He wants the Germans to become who they were when Hitler was wiping out as many Jews as he could round up and put in the gas chambers.
And he actually thinks he's going to find a sympathetic ear when he sends this to Angela Merkel, the German chancellor.
Now, as I said earlier, do you deal with this guy, okay, sane lunatic just trying to work everybody up?
Do you get into a psychological analysis of this, or do you take him at face value?
And I think you have to take this kind of stuff at face value and deal with it accordingly, which in this sense is just to reject it and laugh at it and let the world know the contents of the letter so as to illustrate the kind of thinking that is guiding this Islamic Republic of Iran.
Daniel in Pittsburgh, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Professor Lundbaugh.
Hi.
Mega Buster, Tasylania, Didos.
Thank you very much.
Quick question.
And I want to thank you very much for allowing me to come to the head of the class for one question.
Well, absolutely right.
It's Open Line Friday.
It's what the purpose is.
With this being election year, and with the Democratic Party being so transparently pro-Israel all of a sudden, how do you think do you think this puts them at a crossroads with their base who is staunchly and blatantly pro-UN and anti-Israel?
Well, you know, it's interesting that you bring this up, Daniel, because if you go to the Democrat websites, if you go to these kook blog websites, they want Israel blown off the map.
They despise Israel.
They don't want any part of it.
This is a Democrat base.
Now, something that I regret to report to you is happening, and that is so-called mainstream Democrats are beginning to have closed-door meetings to try to figure out what to do about these kooks.
Rather than pay homage to them and court them and cuddle them, they're actually having meetings about what to do about them.
They're very much afraid of them because they are said to be very proficient at raising campaign funds, the donations, and all of this.
But I think that the Democrats that you're hearing supporting Israel, I don't know how universal it is.
Dick Morris is trying to awaken everybody to the fact, he was on Hannadine Colmes last night, that George W. Bush is the best friend the Israelis ever had and that Bill Clinton, all these liberal Jews that thought Bill Clinton was Israel's best friend or just got their heads in the sand with Arafat as the number one visitor to the White House outside of Monica Lewinsky and whoever else was in the Lincoln bedroom all those nights.
The bottom line is I think the Democrats are also, in fact, there's a piece.
I didn't print this out because for some reason I didn't think I would get to it.
But your call has allowed me to transcend to this, transform into this.
The columnist, I can't forget the Greeley, I think, Andrew Greeley, is all upset because a Democrats' new agenda is going to eliminate any criticism of the war.
They're not going to talk about the war.
He compares the Democratic National Committee to the Chicago Cubs.
No matter what they do, they strike out and they lose.
He points out that since World War II, the Democrats have elected three presidents, FDR, JFK, or JFK, Jimmy Carter, and Clinton.
Now, when you look at it in that context, since World War II, you've had, now you throw Truman out because he assumed office after a death in office.
You've had three people, three Democrats elected and only one of them for two terms.
Well, JFK, you threw out LBJ because he took over from Kennedy, but actually, he counted win an election on against Goldwater.
But yeah, but that's this guy is figuring that that was a foregone conclusion anyway, since Kennedy got assassinated and the public sentiment's going to be with Kennedy and his party.
So basically, you've got Jimmy Carter, you've got Bill Clinton and JFK.
And he says, these guys, the Democratic National Committee, just keep losing, and they're just like the Cubs.
They try to improve themselves to go out and get the big hitters, and the big hitters keep striking out, and they start blaming it on all kinds of things other than themselves.
But this guy's point is he's just beside himself that what he's hearing is the Democrats are going to drop criticism of the war from their agenda.
That's not going to please the base either.
That's not going to please this kook lunatic fringe that resides on the blogs.
So that's going to be interesting to watch.
This guy, Greeley, and I think his name is Greeley.
I don't have the piece in front of me.
But he theorizes the reason the Democrats are going to drop their criticism of the war is because they are afraid, that they're afraid of people calling them chickens and weak and afraid to defend the country when it's under attack and so forth and so on.
So this is what I meant.
When people think this election in 06 already wrapped up, there's all kinds of things you don't even possibly predict that will happen and they have that has now shaken up the whole martini here.
Katie Couric told CBS, hell no, I'm not going to Lebanon.
I'm a single mother.
I'm not going to put myself in a war zone like this.
Doesn't make any sense.
I happen to agree with her.
▲
Export Selection