All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
July 24, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, folks, now you know, you know that I am the epitome of good cheer and optimism and upbeatism and all of that, but I'm worried.
I'm worried the way this whole Israeli Hezbollah thing is being dealt with here.
It seems that people in key positions are missing the point.
At any rate, it doesn't mean we're not going to have fun today and enjoy ourselves and have more fun than human beings should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh, welcome back.
I did.
I told people I was going to take a hermit and veg weekend, and I did.
And I needed it, but I'm back.
Batteries are charged, raring, and ready to go.
Telephone number here on the EIB network is 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Well, John Kerry's out there.
I don't know what it is.
I get under this guy's skin.
He put a press release on a statement on his website on Friday telling me to go get a donut or to stop getting a donut and instead pull up a history book because he didn't like what I said about Democrats' position on Israel versus Bush and Republicans.
We have that coming up.
Morton Kondracki.
I don't know what's happening, guys.
I don't know what's happening to people on our side.
I don't think Mort's really on our side.
But he called me a hot dog again.
He called me a hot dog and compared me to these kooks on the Democrat blogs on his Little Watch television show, The Beltway Boys, on the Fox News Channel on the throwaway Saturday time slot.
We'll have that coming up.
We also have, well, we got, there's a big controversy.
I don't know how big it is.
In some circles of the conservative movement, there is controversy raging over the comments Bill Buckley made in a CBS interview about George W. Bush saying he's not conservative and that the Iraq war was a mistake and so forth.
And we'll weigh in on all this as the program unfolds today.
First, let's start with what is troubling me here in the Middle East conflict, not the least of which is Kofi Anon on television again here.
You know, have you people heard this phrase going around today and over the weekend called sustainable ceasefire?
Diplomatic term, sustainable ceasefire.
We're all trying to, diplomats are trying to come up with a sustainable ceasefire that would leave in place a terrorist organization, Hezbollah, in effect, as a functioning sovereign government.
I mean, that's the diplo speak that's going on right now.
And I, you know, I'm also going to tell you this.
I'm a little perplexed at Israel's restraint.
This is not the old Israel.
This is not the way Israel used to go in and fight people that took shots at her.
This is a new paradigm.
I was hoping that political correctness and the feminization of cultures had not reached Israel in the way it defended itself.
And Ralph Peters, who I'm going to be interviewing after the program today for the next issue of the Limbaugh Letter, had a piece over the weekend in which he said, if Israel keeps fighting like this, they're destined to lose this.
And that's the worst thing could happen because Israel is fighting this for us.
You know something?
Can I give you a phrase?
I think this is profound.
And I think that this ought to shock you.
Right now, the Iraqis are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq for our sake.
The Israelis are fighting Hezbollah and Iran for our sake.
There are a number of skirmishes going on out there that are for our sake that we're not actually getting involved in.
And this is one of them.
This thing in Israel is one of them.
And of course, we don't dare get involved in it.
But at some point, you know, this, I'm going to get a monologue coming pretty soon on, because I was thinking about this over the weekend while I was in my hermit mode.
Do some of my best thinking when I'm in the hermit mode because nobody interrupts me.
Nobody knocks on the door and says, hey, want to take the kids up to Palm Beach Idol or whatever it is up in Jupiter.
Nobody, no, nobody, I didn't talk to a soul, folks, other than via email now and then.
I didn't, I don't think I uttered a word all weekend.
There was nobody in the house.
I went nowhere, didn't leave.
And as a result, I did some of my best thinking.
What?
What do you mean?
What do you mean?
What did I eat?
What does that get to do?
The food was prepared for me prior to their departure on Friday, enough to last the weekend and then some.
I don't think I said a word to anybody.
I really don't.
I might have laughed watching television a couple times, but I didn't say a word to anybody.
I had zero content.
I'm just telling you, I was on the go for 21 days.
That's, you know, I just, I needed it.
I needed to chill out.
I closed all the shades to keep the media on the beach and being able to get pictures because I was running around unshaven and unkempt.
Oh, yeah.
I was, I was, I didn't even go outside.
I did not even go outside.
I had the paper delivered inside, but I didn't see it happen.
I just know it happened because the paper was there.
You keep interrupting me here.
I did some of my best thinking, and I always do in these circumstances.
And the monologue coming up, I think, on the similarities between al-Qaeda and the Cold War and the communists and the way we look at both, the threat posed by both.
What got me on this was I think, you know, people rush, what's happened to Pat Buchanan?
What's happened to Bill Buckley?
What's going on?
And I think it's more complicated than what I'm going to say to explain.
But a simple answer is, in the case of Buchanan, when the Cold War was over and we defeated the Soviets, that was it.
The enemy was dead, and it was time to retreat and come home.
No other business around the world is ours.
In the case of Mr. Buck, well, we'll get to him later because I've got the sound bites from his interview with CBS.
I don't know, for example, if he said anything positive about Bush that they left on the cutting room floor when they edited this or whether this was life to tape edited.
I have no idea.
But I don't think that people are taking this quite seriously enough.
Some people aren't.
This full scope of this enemy, militant Islam, Islamo-fascism, and the call for sustainable peace or sustainable ceasefire and appeasement and containment seems to me repeat the mistakes of old.
And I'm very, very troubled by it.
Anyway, get the little news.
Before we get to the thoughts in the monologue, Condoleezza Rice shocked everybody by showing up in Beirut.
Everybody thought she was going to be heading to Jerusalem.
She met with the prime minister of Lebanon and made clear that any resolution to the conflict had to remove Hezbollah missiles and terrorism from the southern border and that Lebanon's government had to assume sovereignty over its territory.
Secretary of State Condaleezer Rice met with the Lebanese prime minister reading up in the news story.
If there is a cessation of hostilities, the government of Lebanon is going to have to be the party, she said.
Let's treat the government of Lebanon as the sovereign government that it is.
No question, no doubt.
The Bush administration wants the Lebanese government to assert itself and be in charge of all that happens within its borders.
And that is understandable and reasonable, but I mean to expect, but are these guys capable of rooting out Hezbollah?
Are they capable of keeping them out if they root them out?
Don't forget, Syria's infiltrated this place.
Let me go up there and try to talk to Syria.
I'm just going to tell you right now, it's going to be a waste of time.
But, you know, this whole business of making a ceasefire agreement, sustainable or otherwise, with a terrorist group is just absurd.
It's just frankly absurd that we're also hearing that Hezbollah, the Israeli Defense Forces, are saying that Hezbollah is running out of missiles, running low on munitions and morale.
IDF intelligence believes that Hezbollah has 10 days left before diplomatic pressure puts an end to Operation Change of Direction against Hezbollah.
This is in the Jerusalem Post yesterday.
In addition, the IDF military intelligence, reflecting its latest strategic assessment, believes that the Islamist group has already been dealt a severe blow by the IDF operation launched 13 days ago, and that within a month it'll run out of Katyusha rockets to fire at Israel and they won't be able to be resupplied.
They're having a problem being resupplied because Israel has taken out the infrastructure, the airports, the ships, there's a blockade and so forth.
Wise move there.
A quick timeout here.
We will continue right after this on the EIB network and El Rushbo, not going anywhere.
Sit tight.
Hi, welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man doing the news, the news play-by-play, a news commentary, and setting the standard for all who follow.
800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Doesn't it strike you as sort of scary?
If I were to say to you, Israel must win for our sake, Iraq must win for our sake, does that not send a little bit of a chill up your spine?
Maybe you disagree with it.
Maybe you don't think Israel has to win this.
Maybe you don't think Hezbollah has to be vanquished.
Maybe you don't think that it's that big a deal.
It's just part of the Middle East skirmish.
Come on, Rush.
Lighten up.
No, this is different.
This is different this time.
Whereas last week I was optimistic that people are understanding you don't make ceasefire deals with terrorists.
You don't let them hang around.
You can't make ceasefire.
I know John Bolton's still talking that way, but there's so much appeasement talk, so much diplo speak going on.
Kofi Annan ought to be hung out to dry.
Kofi Annan and the UN Security Council have Resolution 1559, which authorizes and orders the veritable destruction of Hezbollah.
And once again, the UN hasn't undiddledly squat because it can't.
And yet he's still on television pontificating over what's wrong here, who's making errors, what we need to do to fix this.
It's utterly absurd, and it's frustrating, and it's frankly maddening to me.
I think the best way to make the case for my comparison to this and the Soviet Union, and I must also say this is not my original thought.
Gosh, this is over a year ago now, but a couple of guys showed me a movie they were working on, a documentary, and their thesis, I don't think the movie did open, I forget the name of it, too, and it did play in places, but I don't think it did that well.
But their thesis was that, hey, we've just the Soviet Union has just been replaced with a new worldwide enemy, and it is militant Islam.
And the movie drew comparisons.
I don't remember too many of the comparisons the movie made, but it did get me thinking about this over the weekend.
Let's draw some analogies, shall we?
Terrorism is spreading, just as communism did.
They're not spreading exactly the same way, but Islamo-fascism is on the move, just as the communists were in Africa, in Asia, in Iran, which is a non-Arab state, in the Philippines, and within our own country.
And I think actually this is a little bit more dangerous in many ways, as it is a religion-based ideology, and as such is above criticism.
You can't criticize the fundamental aspects of militant Islam because it's their religion.
Witnessed the cartoon fiasco that the Dutch endured and that inflamed ostensibly much of the world.
And of course, the world media sides with this.
Oh, yes, we must all have religious freedom.
And nobody can say that anybody's religion is extreme.
It's a faith-based belief system and blah, But because it's a religious-based ideology, it can hold up in churches, mosques, or what have you.
You know, in the old days, when we had arguments about communism, many communists in this country, and they were here, they ran and hid.
The worst thing in the world was to be called a communist.
It was harmful.
And that's why the McCarthy era was what it was, why it roused so many and ruffled so many feathers.
But in this case, it's a religion, and you can't argue with the religion.
You really can't argue because there are articles of faith and so forth.
What you have here is an ideology that is bent on world domination as best it can, that hides behind a religion in practically every way it can.
It's very smart, by the way, in doing this.
I don't think this is a happenstance or coincidental.
These guys are also, I think, more dangerous than the old communists were because the communists operated out of nation states.
Now, they funded terrorism and they established little base camps around the world like Cuba and Nicaragua.
But their mission there was to always have nuclear weapons pointed at us and to foment disruption and unrest in other parts of the hemisphere.
But these Islamo fascists, I think, are even more dangerous because it only takes a handful of them to unleash all kinds of hell, and they don't have to conquer countries to do it.
They just have to move in.
They just have to move in and establish a neighborhood, just have to establish a mosque.
They don't have to go in with guns blazing and take over Nicaragua or Cuba or anything of the sort.
But more reason to fight this wherever it is is simply because we are fighting through satellites as well as directly, Iraq, Israel, Somalia, etc.
Nobody wants to really call this what it is.
It is a world war against Islamo-fascism, and it has many fronts all over the world.
Right now, the front, the most paid attention to front, is, of course, the Israelis versus Hezbollah.
But Iraq is one.
There are countless others.
These clowns are trying to take over Africa, as we speak, Indonesia.
And they're making inroads, and of course, they do it as a, as I say, as a religion.
It's not a perfect comparison here, folks.
And I'm not trying to say that this is a flawless analogy, but there are similarities which ought not be ignored.
And I think it's important to point this out.
I think it might be easier for some people to wrap their brains around what we're fighting and how we're fighting it if, for example, there's some way to analogize it.
It's not conventional in any way, this war, and it's not nation-states.
Look at what we're going having arguments here about whether terrorists who are no more than enemy combatants have constitutional rights as though they were American citizens.
It's silly.
That hamdam decision from the U.S. Supreme Court was an absolute mistake.
It may be a cloud with a silver lining, given the congressional action, hopefully, that will follow it.
You know, Mr. Buckley is opposed to the Iraq war.
He doesn't think we should have gone.
He doesn't think it's been a success.
In fact, it's a huge failure.
But he supported the Vietnam War, and he supported the Vietnam War not because it would defeat the Soviets or the Chinese, but because it was part of the war against the Soviets.
And the old Cold Warriors, the Soviet Union was enemy number, and it was.
I mean, they were not wrong.
But the failure to see what has replaced it and to be consistent in opposing what has replaced it is a little perplexing.
The North Vietnamese never had weapons of mass destruction.
They never sought to assassinate an American president.
But it was a righteous effort by us to stop the spread of communism.
That was our objective.
We might have goofed up in not understanding the vagaries of nationalism and pride on the part of the Vietnamese people, North Vietnamese people.
We might have made some mistakes in that area, but the intentions were honorable.
We were trying to stop the spread of communism, which tortured its people, set up political internment camps, slaughtered millions.
Again, don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying that the old commies and the current terrorists are exactly the same, but I'm saying that there are strong similarities which have to be understood and distinctions that make them more and not less dangerous.
The communists killed tens of millions.
They conquered large areas.
They had large-standing armies.
The terrorists don't have large-standing armies, obviously, and they don't need them.
We're in the era now where they can get hold of weapons of mass destruction, and then they don't need large-standing armies.
They don't need nation-states behind them, although they do.
My only point here, folks, is that we have to fight this enemy directly and through allies to where Israel, Iraq, tribal leaders in Somalia, their fight is our fight.
And I don't want to be confusing to anybody.
I'm drawing this parallel in a limited sense.
It's not us against this enemy.
It's the world against this enemy.
So when Israel or most Iraqis or most Somalians fight the Islamofascists, that is our war too.
We can't step back from it.
We've already declared it, in fact, a war on terror.
It's time to take it seriously.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
As I'm the architect of the fun, kicking off a brand new week of broadcast excellence.
And just a couple more thoughts on this.
I'll get to your phone calls.
I got a lot of audio soundbites, a lot of stuff on the stacks of stuff, so I'm going to try to pare this down and get as much in today as I can.
This enemy, the Islamofascists, like the communists, attack where they can.
They attack in different ways.
They're more nimble.
In many ways, they're more dangerous because it doesn't take much anymore to blow up cities with millions of people.
Not nearly as much as it did back when the Cold War was at its peak.
But let's not forget, and I don't want you to think I have, Stalin and Mao did, in fact, kill tens of millions of their own citizens.
They were dangerous guys.
The Cambodian communists killed around 3 million, and the list goes on.
And there's no question in my mind that if this enemy could do that, they would.
And when they can, they will.
What worries me more than anything, I'm hearing all these critics and all these diplomats, and they're out there doing the same old, same old that's led to failure after failure after failure, and that is requesting all these ceasefires and MU resolutions.
And now this idiocy, this sustainable ceasefire.
What is that an admission of?
The whole term sustainable ceasefire means the previous ones have bombed out.
A poor choice of words, but pretty accurate.
So now we need a sustainable ceasefire.
Really, how are we going to get that?
With this bunch of terrorists comprising the enemy.
But the problem is the opponents of us fighting this war, the opponents, you know, the U.S. opponents, the opponents of Israel, they have no answers on how to pursue this enemy on the left or the right, American or European or what have you.
The people who oppose this action and who oppose what's going on in Iraq don't have any answers themselves.
Have you heard anybody from John Kerry on articulate what they would do?
All Kerry saying, if I were president, why this wouldn't have happened?
He said that.
He was in Detroit over the weekend.
If I were president, why this wouldn't have happened?
That is as lame and intellectually bankrupt as anything anybody of supposed stature could say.
Come on, Senator, tell us what your plan is.
Well, I don't know a plan today in the White House.
I don't know what's been hidden from me in terms of strategy and so forth.
You know how this administration is.
Limbo, go have a doughnut.
Really, I don't hear any alternative.
I hear no suggestions.
I hear no answers.
I hear no answers from Pat Buchanan.
I hear no answers from Mr. Buckley.
I hear no answers from John Kerry.
I hear no answers from Howard Dean.
I hear no answers from Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, or whoever, name it, whoever it is that opposes all this.
I yet to have heard a solution, or I have yet to hear a solution or an answer on how to pursue this enemy.
But I think you and I, folks, agree at a minimum that we should support those allies who are fighting them.
It seems basic to me.
It's a common enemy.
I mean, if not this way, in Iraq supporting Israel, intercepting their communications, then how?
How do we do this?
In the case of Hezbollah, the case is quite clear.
They are an Iranian military force.
They're bought and paid for.
But we refuse to hit the source, which is Iran.
And until we do, they're not going to relent.
Now, I know what people say.
But Rush, but Rush, they're such a small band of just misguided little people.
You know, they're so old-fashioned and they just come from the Middle Ages.
We can understand how they feel, Rush, given the Jewish aggression against them all these years.
They've been displaced from their homes.
It just isn't fair for them.
And as such, they're entitled to address their grievances.
That's the common way that victims are accorded their latitude in responding or replying.
That propaganda has been extremely effective over the decades.
There's no historical context to any of it, no historical truth to any of it.
And in all of the reporting, we don't hear.
All we hear is how rotten the Israelis are.
We're now starting to get video of wounded Lebanese children with burns over massive amounts of their poor bodies.
And the Israelis are responsible for that.
We don't get any such reporting of the Israeli casualties.
We also get no context whatsoever on all the peace deals that have been made and bombed out.
We have no report.
There is not, I have yet to see any network just put up a graph describing all the ceasefires, all the peace agreements, the Oslo Accords, whatever they were.
I don't see any of this on television demonstrating how every damned one of them has failed.
All we get is, there must be a ceasefire.
There had to be a ceasefire.
We must set in hostilities.
We've got to stop the fighting.
We have to stop the violence.
We have to stop the killing.
No, only until we kill the bad guys to the point that they surrender.
But apparently they're just not the stomach for it anymore.
There just isn't the stomach for it.
Here's Scott in Springfield, Ohio.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program, award-winning program, that is.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
You do have the answer right there.
Just go ahead and let the Israelis do their job.
Kill the terrorists.
Well, I'm not sure the Israelis are willing to.
The Israelis have now signaled their agreement to allow another international force to come in and act as a buffer.
Now, they don't want a UN force, but they'll accept a NATO force.
What do we do in Tora Bora?
In Tora Bora, we were accused of getting the terrorists up in Toribora and then letting them slip out.
Now we're doing the same thing here.
We're doing the same thing here.
The Israelis knows where the terrorists are out.
They know where they're at.
They can go in and kill them.
And what are we doing?
We're talking about negotiating a peace treaty.
Now, the Democrat has told us that we let Osama bin Laden escape.
Now, why are we turning around, on the other hand, and saying, let the Israelis tell the Israelis to let the terrorists escape?
That doesn't make sense to me.
Well, look, there's a possibility here.
I'm reminded of the old days of Ronaldus Magnus.
I have to laugh, by the way.
13th day of fighting is the graphic.
13th day, tri-40th year.
What is this 13th day of fighting?
That's another thing that's missing, is the historical context and the historical perspective.
It's not the 13th day of fighting.
This is just one skirmish in this war that's been going on ever since the UN resolution in 1948 establishing Israel.
At any rate, in the old days of Ronaldus Magnus, Rinaldus Magnus would publicly say, Israel must lay down the Israel and then whisper to them, keep going.
And we hope that this is something that's happening now.
We do know that Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have not put the brakes on Israel.
They're not even putting the pressure on them.
But they are moving in asking for a ceasefire.
And one can only hope that this is just for public consumption and that under the table they are doing what Reagan did and goosing the Israelis and saying, you go, guys.
But the Israelis, you know, in the old days, they would have sent tremendous ground troops in and they would have, I know there's some hidden weapons and tunnels and this sort of thing.
But you have to understand why I'm saying this.
Hezbollah can win this thing even if they lose it.
All they have to do is survive.
All they have to do is survive.
And all that has to happen is for there to have been a perception that the world did not really take these guys out.
Look, we're talking about perception.
You know, in politics, perception is often reality.
You've got the terror masters in Iran.
You've got old Mahmoud.
And Mahmoud has got three or four different strategies going here at the same time based on what happens here.
You've got, what's his face up there, Basher Assad in Syria, and these guys, and the Chinese are watching as well.
So here's what happens.
If Hezbollah survives in any way, shape, manner, or form, then it is going to be perceived by the terror masters in Iran that there really isn't the stomach for dealing with them and dealing seriously with them.
You have to understand, these are, since Saddam is off the table, there's a thing going on in the Arab world.
Who can appear to be the biggest, bravest SOB to stand up to the U.S. and Israel?
Now, Mahmoud wants the title, even though he's not Arab.
And this is the kind of thing that can be used to motivate the so-called Arab street.
But they have a different way of defining victory and defeat than we do.
And if Hezbollah survives, and if they survive under any kind of a ceasefire, where the rest of the world, oh, hallelujah!
Success today!
We're going to ceasefire!
Why hostilities have ceased?
The celebrations and partying in the Islamo-fascist world will be incredible, if that's the solution to this.
Because they're just going to see Somalia all over again.
They're going to see unable to take it, unable to finish the job.
They're going to see a world that would rather try to find a way to appease and coexist rather than do what's necessary to take them out.
On the other hand, if there was a quick dispatching of Hezbollah here, that would send an entirely different message to the people that are running this show.
From southern Lebanon.
Let me take a brief time out.
We'll continue in just a second.
Stay with us.
Hi, we're back.
All right, let's get on to John Kerry here.
A couple things.
U.S. Senator, we've looked for audio of this.
We can't find any.
This is in the Detroit news yesterday.
U.S. Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam, was in town Sunday to help Governor Jennifer Granholm campaign for her re-election bid, took time to take a jab at the Bush administration for its lack of leadership in the Israeli-Lebanon conflict.
If I was president, this wouldn't have happened.
He's a laughingstock.
Kerry said this during a noon stop at Honest John's Bar and Grill in the Cass corridor of Detroit.
Bush has been so concentrated on the war in Iraq that other Middle East tensions have arisen as a result, said Kerry.
The president has been so absent on diplomacy when it comes to issues affecting the Middle East.
We're going to have a lot of ground to make up in 2008 because of it.
At any rate, ladies and gentlemen, let's go back to the audio soundbites, shall we?
This is December 5th, 2005 on Face the Nation with Bob Schaeffer.
John Kerry said this about U.S. troops.
There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, women, breaking sort of the customs of historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not.
Iraqis should be doing that.
Yeah, Iraqis should be doing the terrorizing, not the U.S. troops.
Anyway, we made big hay out of this.
The drive-by media ignored this totally, but we didn't on this program.
And it led to a response from Senator Kerry on his website, an official statement on December 7th of 2005, which is two days later.
He said political hack Ken Melman and draft-dodging donut-eating Rush Schlimbaugh have something in common.
Neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe.
John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq and protect brave American troops.
John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq.
Then, over the weekend, I'm minding my own business, as I've previously documented, bothering nobody.
And somebody sends me an email note saying, have you seen John Kerry's website?
And I said, no.
I said, well, you ought to go there.
And it seems that Kerry got a little mad about an analysis that I made on Friday suggesting Republicans are better friends for Israel than Democrats are.
On his website, Kerry said, Rush Limbaugh's ignorance and willingness to divide Americans knows no bounds.
His latest statement about Israel is beyond offensive to all of us who have fought to protect Israel in the face of enemies committed to its destruction.
And I think, what did I say?
You know, I say so many things.
I mean, what got under his skin?
He also suggested that I pick up a history book rather than another doughnut.
Whoever writes Kerry's statements for him, maybe he does it himself for his website, are fixated on me and donuts.
So I've been putting together, I haven't told Kathleen to do this, but I'm putting together a gift box of things to send to Kerry.
Some French vanilla coffee beans, some croissants, a whole bunch of French things just to send to his office.
And I don't know, I'm going to include anything from Cambodia.
I don't know if we can find any Cambodian goods.
Maybe so.
Just for the nostalgic benefit and memory that he might resuscitate in him.
But so I went to my website to figure out what did I say that got this guy so upset.
And what I basically said was that the most frequent guest in the Clinton White House, besides Monica Lewinsky and all the people at the Lincoln bedroom, was Yasser Arafat.
And I said that President Bush is the best friend that Israel ever had in the White House.
And that sent him off.
That set him off.
That's when he said, Rush Limbaugh needs to pick up a history book instead of a doughnut.
It was a Democratic president who first recognized the state of Israel, a Democratic president who first sold Israel defensive weapons.
It was a Democratic president who first sold Israel offensive weapons.
The people of Israel, the Jewish community, don't need Rush Limbaugh to tell them who stands with them.
And no one has time for right-wing trying to score cheap political points while Israel fights to defend its very existence.
All right.
Now, I guess he's forgotten that there are a whole bunch of Democrats in the Senate and the Democrats' liberal blog base who hate Israel.
You ought to go read some of the Democrat blogs.
They are all over.
They despise Israel.
There's some senators that are not saying favorable things about Israel, blaming Israel for this.
Chris Dodd is one.
He was on Wolf Blitzer's show.
Let's see.
Bolton was on the show or not.
Anyway, Blitzer says, do I hear you correctly, Senator Dodd, when you say the Israelis have overreacted to the threat that they feel?
I think going as far as they have, in this case here, is going further than they should have, in my view.
I think going after Hezbollah in the South clearly warranted without any question whatsoever.
But it seems to me here, just going beyond that here, is doing exactly what the Iranians want here.
You're now radicalizing Lebanon, a population that I think was far more moderate prior to all of this.
You're radicalizing elements in Jordan and Egypt.
That is dangerous for Israel, in my view, and the United States.
That's absolutely not happening.
It is in those countries that Hezbollah is opposed.
But that's not the point.
The point is that John Kerry says that the Democrats are the best friend Israel ever has.
Here's Dodd undercutting them on television just two days after Kerry issues his statement suggesting that I go eat a doughnut or stop eating.
I don't even eat donuts.
I should go get a history book.
But we also have a Kerry flip-flop himself on the whole concept of an Israel border fence.
And I don't have time to get into it now before the break, but we'll remind you of this shortly.
Bottom line here is that it's laughable.
I just had to chuckle.
I'm minding my own business, and I find out that John Kerry has responded to something that I said on the radio.
And you just know when that happens, you just know that it had to be true.
Otherwise, why refute it?
It was effective, and it bothered him.
And that's why Kerry, running for president again, had to speak out.
By the way, the BBC of all places is admitting that many of these so-called civilian casualties in Lebanon are actually terrorists.
The BBC is admitting it.
I will have details when we come back.
Stay where you are.
I know you won't.
▲
Export Selection