All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
July 24, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, folks.
You are tuned to the most listened to radio talk show in America, the program that sets the standard for all media which follows the Rush Limbaugh program.
I am firmly ensconced behind this, the golden EIB microphone at the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Great to have you with us, folks.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, has admitted that many of the victims of Israeli retaliation in Lebanon are terrorists and not innocent civilians.
A BBC reporter said that he saw Hezbollah terrorists using a private home and added, it's difficult to quantify who is a terrorist and who is a civilian.
No, it's only difficult if you're not really trying to.
If you're trying to protect the template here or the action line that Israel is killing innocent civilians and so forth, then you have trouble recognizing the truth that the Hezbollah types are using private homes as their launchers for these Katusha rockets and other rockets that they are firing.
And it's typical.
Hide behind civilians and therefore try to win the PR battle.
Terrorists, in this circumstance, kind of like Democrats, when they lose, they claim a moral victory.
If they're not totally obliterated, then they go, we won.
And that's one of the problems here is the PR spin associated with all this.
All right, let's keep going.
Audio soundbite number three.
This is from the Beltway Boys on the Fox News channel on Saturday.
Ned Lamont represents, if he wins, represents a triumph in the Democratic Party for the moveon.org, Howard Dean, Daily Cost, Michael Moore, left wing of the Democratic Party, which is not only bad on foreign policy, but on globalization, but is also just as nasty and mean on the left as Rush Limbaugh and those other hot dogs on the right.
What has gotten into this guy?
I mean, this is, you know, he knows better than this.
There's got to be some reason for that.
He knows that this program is not on the same page as those guys.
But let's talk about this Lieberman thing because the latest announcement is that Der Schlieckmeister is going in there to campaign for him.
And I'll tell you the reason why, folks, it's really not complicated.
The Democrats, more and more of them, are really getting afraid of the moveon.orgs and the daily COSAs and these wackos at the Democrat Underground.
And they're trying to deflect as much of the influence of these people as possible.
If Lieberman can get the Democrat nomination in this primary, then Democrats think that it'll have dealt a severe blow to the Kuk Fringe base that considers themselves to be the ones that are running the party.
The only really powerful person the Kuk Fringe base has been able to install is Howard Dean.
But for all of that, it's still laughable to try to watch Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer flock to their blog meetings, flock to their strategy sessions, say what they want those people, what those people want to hear.
So you can say that there are elements of the Democratic Party that are scared about the blogs, maybe the moderate Democrats.
I don't believe there's a moderate Democrat.
That's the thing.
A Democrat is a Democrat.
A liberal is a liberal.
There are various stages of liberal, but I think moderate Democrats just call themselves moderate for the obvious reasons.
They don't want to be called liberals.
It scares them.
And of course, moderate carries with it this Erudito Leafism smarter than everybody else in the room.
People that are more thoughtful, not knee-jerk in their reactions.
Now, a couple things on Mr. Buckley.
I did not see this.
I've got the audio soundbites.
Apparently, it was Saturday on CBS.
Their weekend infobabe, Thalya Assurus, went up there to Buckley's house in Stamford, did an interview.
I don't know if they left anything on the cutting room floor or not, if Buckley had said anything nice or positive about Bush.
But let's listen to some of the soundbites.
This happened on the CBS Evening News.
And of course, this is a typical drive-by media.
Go out and find any conservative to rip Bush, and that just relieves them of the need to do it themselves.
We have the first of four soundbites.
I think it's four that we have.
Let me double-check just to make sure that I'm not missing one.
Yep, first of four.
All right.
Question, actually, statement.
She says, Buckley finds himself parting ways with President Bush, whom he praises as a decisive leader, but admonishes for having strayed from true conservative principles in his foreign policy.
In particular, Buckley views the three and a half-year Iraq war as a failure.
If you had a European prime minister who had experienced what we've experienced, it would be expected that he would retire, resign.
All right.
Next soundbite, she says, has this administration been distracted by Iraq?
I think it has been engulfed by Iraq, by which I mean that no other subject interests anybody other than Iraq.
The continued tumult in Iraq has overwhelmed what perspectives one might otherwise have entertained with respect to, well, other parts of the media with respect to Iran in particular.
And she says, has Mr. Bush found himself in any different circumstances than any of the other presidents you've known in terms of these crises?
I think Mr. Bush faces singular problems, best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology.
With the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress, and in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge.
And the final one, what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor.
There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush.
I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words that he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious.
So therefore, I think his legacy is indecipherable.
Okay, now, what explains this?
You know, we've dealt with this once before.
This is not the first time that Mr. Buckley has been highlighted by drive-by media in his disagreements with President Bush.
I think, and I don't, look, I don't want to speak for him.
I asked his soundbite number three.
Let's tackle that one first because that's the easiest.
Everybody has said this.
I have said this.
Buckley just said it in a different way when he says, I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem, best defined, I think, is the absence of effective conservative ideology.
Well, I'll climb on board.
I'll agree with that.
But all he's saying is that Mr. Bush is a Republican, but he is not the leader of a movement.
Buckley's pal was Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan was the definition of a conservative, and he showed how it could be done.
He won two landslides.
He got the country behind him on virtually everything that he was doing, to the chagrin of all of his opponents.
But he was leading a conservative movement.
He was an elected conservative leader.
There isn't one in Washington right now in terms of ideology or leading a movement.
That's why so many Republican conservatives are off the reservation and trying to carve their own niche, is because there's not this figurehead leader, well, not figurehead, but substantive leader, who is leading a movement.
We have a Republican president who is conservative on some things and others he's not.
And he's going about his job in his own way.
That certainly is no crime, but to the drive-by media, why that would be an indictment.
He's lost his wheels as a conservative because they are interested in conservatism losing its wheels.
They are interested in conservatism falling apart because they know conservatism is the foundation and the dynamic of the Republican Party.
So when you have somebody as powerful as Mr. Buckley saying it, they get all excited and they start panting.
Republican Party about to fall apart.
Bill Buckley says so.
We got it on tape.
Saturday night CBS evening news.
As to the other things, particularly Iraq, you know, Mr. Buckley, as I said earlier, supported the war in Vietnam, and Vietnam had not attacked us, just as Iraq had not attacked us.
He did so because he supported the war against the global spread of communism.
That's why I spent some time in my first hour monologue here trying to draw some similarities between the spread of communism worldwide and the attempted spread of militant Islam worldwide.
I think that there are many similarities.
It's not a perfect analogy, but Iraq is clearly a front in the war on terror.
I think Mr. Buckley and others who viewed the Soviet Union as the big enemy, when the Soviet Union went down, the big enemy went down.
And hey, come on home.
Let's not involve ourselves out there in the world.
We don't have the power to do it.
It's not our prerogative.
Let's just, you know, leave it alone.
We've dealt with the big enemy.
We've put it down and we can now take care of our own domestic problems and do so responsibly and so forth.
The thing that it seems to me many people forget here is 9-11 when we were attacked.
And it's going to happen more and more if we ignore it, if we put our heads in the sand and say, well, this is not something for us anymore where the world can fight its battles without us because we're going to head back.
I don't hear from any of these people who have opposition to what we're doing their own plan other than isolationism.
Now, they don't like that word when I use it, but I don't know what else they're talking about because I don't hear another plan.
I don't hear a plan to deal with this.
And it's clearly something in my mind has to be dealt with.
Brief timeout, folks, back right after this.
And back to the phones, 800-282-2882.
Lennon in Santa Barbara, nice to have you on the program.
Welcome.
Thank you.
It's a privilege to be on the show.
Thank you.
What I want to say is that Mr. Buckley is philosophically senile.
He looks at these events, Iraq, Israel, in Lebanon.
He looks at them one at a time.
He tries to relate them backwards to a world that was and not forward to the world that is going to be and the real battles we are going to have to fight.
A lot of people agree with you on that.
You know, the well, when you say philosophically senile, I'm not talking about his age, but you're saying it a different way than I did.
You're talking about Cold Warriors.
You're talking about guys.
I mean, Buckley was profoundly instrumental in instigating this nation's fight against the Soviets and making sure that someone actually took it to them rather than appeased them.
If you go back and look at National Review was for the destruction of the Soviet Union, National Review was not for the appeasement of it.
National Review educated the American public as best it could on the true nature of communism and communism's leaders.
It was their real enemy.
And I'm saying when it went down, mission accomplished.
And the rest of this is just a bunch of skirmishes that we have no business being involved in.
Well, you've said it, of course, 100 times better than I said it.
But the fact is, this guy is unable to have a new perspective on the enemies we're confronting now.
And he doesn't see the relationships between them.
He's like the guys doing the 9-11 report, saying, well, they didn't do this here, and the Iraqis weren't really connected here.
He really has no overview of the world situation today.
That's very sad.
It's a great loss to lose Mr. Buckley, but we have to move on and get more spokesmen for people who do understand your number one.
Yeah, but you know, I'm always one who looks for good in everything.
And in the case of Mr. Buckley, as you know, a man that I admire tremendously, I think there's something to learn here.
If Bill Buckley, who is not senile, trust me, if Bill Buckley is philosophically senile.
Well, yeah, I know, but I mean, for anybody questioning his age and his faculties, don't.
That's all I'm telling you.
I've been around him recently.
He's still who he is.
I mean, he's got health problems here and there, but I mean, his mind is who he is.
But it's an indication, if Bill Buckley can arrive at this view, then it easily explains why so many other Americans can as well.
And so you have to say, okay, why?
You can say, well, he fails to relate current to past and has lost a contextual relationship.
And it may be true, but at the same time, this insistence or this thing he said that the British prime minister would resign and disgrace or so forth, we don't have a parliamentary system here.
We don't, you know, presidents don't resign over this.
They carry out their policies and they stand for re-election.
Really lies with Mr. Bush, who he's inarticulate at best, and he has not given us the true overview of the situation in the Middle East, including things nearby, whether it's Ukraine or Uzbekistan, all of the tremendous changes that are going on in this entire subcontinent or half continent.
And Bush isn't putting them together.
Maybe he's afraid we wouldn't understand.
But Buckley apparently doesn't get it at all.
Well, you can say that all of this is Bush's fault, but I'll tell you, there are a number of forces here at work that you think he's not even tried to make the case for the successes?
Oh, I think he's tried.
He hasn't.
But you think it's a result of his lack of articulation?
I think he hasn't done it enough, and he hasn't given us the big picture.
I think he thinks we're not up to understanding it, that we just say, oh, this is a lot of hogwash.
I don't think that's the case at all.
I hate to say this, but you have to trust me.
There are people in this White House who would blow you away with their intellect, and the president's one of them if he chose to address you in that way.
Why he doesn't is not because he doesn't think we can't understand it or won't believe it.
There's something else going on here.
You have to understand, there is a shadow government out there, Bob, or I'm sorry, Lynn.
There's a shadow government going on out there that's doing its best to sabotage everything that we're doing.
The one mistake that Bush made, well, one of the mistakes Bush made was the new tone when he assumed office.
He didn't clean out the Clintonoids in some of these positions at the Pentagon and at the State Department, and they had CIA and they've been free to leak all this gobbledy-gook, war plans and what have you, trying to show that it was going to be a new Washington.
We're going to stop all this partisan infighting here.
We're going to come together as a country and get along.
And once again, it was well-intentioned, but naive.
The liberals don't want to get along with people.
They want power.
And they will sabotage whoever has it in order to get it back themselves.
This has led us to fighting what I call a minimalist war in Iraq.
The idea, and I think this is something that probably is bothering a lot of people, maybe bothering Mr. Buckley for all I know.
The idea that we can't take care of this in three and a half years is what's astounding to people.
And they're right.
We could.
We could take care of this much sooner than we have, but we're fighting under different rules.
And it's witnessable here in the way that Israel and Hezbollah are going at it.
You know, it's the old, and you can say the number of reasons for it.
Well, the media is on scene every day showing civilian casualties and showing the results of all the military action.
And that's going to temper people because the world is going to say, stop it!
Stop it!
Enough is killing!
Enough violence!
Enough and enough.
It was easier in the old days when nobody saw this stuff.
Nobody saw 92,000 battle fatalities in the Pacific theater in World War II, and nobody saw the million and a half Japanese deaths.
So it was easier to do.
It's a different set of circumstances today, and it results in the United States and its allies not using the full force of the power that we are able to project in order to appease and get caught up and worried about whether people think of you and world opinion and so forth.
You're going to get hamstrung, and we're hamstrung.
Precisely where we are.
With half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
All the while using talent on loan from God.
Yes, it all happens at the same time.
It's a miracle.
Back to the Fawns, Bob, in Brownstone, Michigan.
Welcome, sir.
Glad you waited.
Thanks, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
The reason I called, I remember back in 2004, you counseling us to be patient with Bush because he wasn't firing back with the 527s and carry attacks against him.
And I would urge the same caution here and same patience with the Israelis.
You know, they've never been one to pay much attention to world opinion.
And I think they're massing on the border.
And I think we're going to see a large pincer movement going into southern Lebanon and maybe beyond.
Who knows what else?
But I think they're preparing, and I think they're going to do a marvelous job for us.
Well, so a lot of people are hoping that because they want to see the old Israel.
They want to see the same old Israel.
Israel shows the way.
Israel lights the way on this.
Israel doesn't fight minimalist wars.
It hasn't in the past.
As I mentioned, Ralph Peters had a piece on Saturday in the New York Post headline, Can Israel win?
And he says, not the way it's fighting.
I'll give you some excerpts of this just so you understand what I'm talking about.
But you mentioned the tanks.
You mentioned Israel is massing the tanks on the border here.
Can I point something out for you?
Wall-to-wall coverage this weekend of the war on Fox, CNN, PMS, NBC, etc.
And it struck you, folks, have you been aware, have you realized that you haven't seen any pictures or videotape of all the rockets that Hezbollah has lobbed at those tanks?
All we hear from the reporters that tanks are massed just across the border, and we see videotape of the tanks.
Have you seen any of those tanks targeted by Hezbollah?
Now, this is not just an empty, baseless question.
There's a reason for it, because I would think that if you're Hezbollah and the enemy has all kinds of tanks and armored personnel carriers, artillery, and so forth, then it's an appropriate military target to hit, is it not?
Fire your katouches at it.
Fire your rockets at that massed, amassed base of weaponry and take it out.
Purpose of armies is to kill people and break things, right?
And this is elementary, military, strategi, folks.
But Hezbollah doesn't seem interested at all in taking out those tanks.
And there are lots of them that have been massed on the border.
And don't tell me it's because they can't recalibrate their aim.
The azimuth and the algorithms and all that.
Don't tell me it's...
I'll tell you why they're not aiming at those tanks.
It's because they don't care about the tanks.
They want to kill innocent civilians.
They want to kill Jews.
This is not about a war to them.
This is about continued acts of terror.
You don't get 72 virgins for wiping out an Israeli tank.
You just don't.
I haven't read it, but I am relatively confident in pointing this out.
So, you know, network infobabes, go stand by the tanks.
It's going to be your safest place to be because they're not going to be targeted.
The worst place the infobabes and the media could be is next to some Jewish settlements or some Jewish civilian populations because that remains the target.
You know, I was told over the weekend there's a similar thing that happened here in World War II.
Remember Hitler's bombing campaign against England?
He was preparing for the invasion.
The goal of that battle for the Germans was to gain air superiority over the British Isles, and they were within literally a few days of succeeding by concentrating their attacks on RAF airfields and radar installations and other similar support units.
They were taking out the Royal Air Force's ability to wage war.
Then a British pilot on a bombing mission over Germany one night got lost.
He accidentally dropped his load, so to speak, on Berlin.
And that just made Hitler so damn mad and the Third Reich High Command so mad that he shifted the focus of his bombing from the strategy of acquiring air superiority to essentially terror bombing, bombing innocent civilian targets in London and other parts of the UK in hopes of breaking the will of the English people.
Well, this gave the RAF a breather and a chance to put itself back together.
It did not destroy the will of the British people because Churchill was there guiding them through it all, and it made them mad as it made Hitler.
The RAF was able to put itself back together and wage war.
And as we all know, what happened, Hitler went down to defeat via suicide and a number of other things.
Point here is, ladies and gentlemen, if Hezbollah was anything other than a bunch of wacko terrorists, it would be using its military assets to attack Israeli military assets, and it's not, but the Israelis are doing that.
The Israelis are aiming at every military asset of Hezbollah they can find.
They're trying to root out these bunkers.
They're trying to find the cash of weapons that's inside them.
They're trying to bomb the bunkers that the Hezbollah cowards are hiding under.
And they are bombing civilian locations where the rockets that Hezbollah is launching are being launched from.
Hezbollah, typical terrorist cowards hiding behind innocent civilians.
And don't forget this, pointed us out last week.
Hezbollah is not letting innocent Lebanese civilians leave the neighborhood.
They've got roadblocks set up.
They want these people killed.
So there's a lot to learn.
There's video of the tanks right now.
I bet not one tank has been hit.
I'll bet not one tank has been lost.
I'll bet Hezbollah is not even trying to hit the weapons of war as used by Israel.
They're just trying to kill Jews, folks.
It's that simple.
They're just engaged in blatant terrorism, which is their stock and trade.
Why should they change now?
Here is the real sad thing about this, too, by the way, is that the people responsible for this are not suffering at all.
Bashar Assad, Ahmadinezad, and whoever else in these satellite countries that's behind all this, the Hezbollah guys, they're dying, but the leadership's still pretty intact.
But it is Israeli civilians and some Lebanese civilians that are being killed here or wounded and injured.
But far more Israeli civilians are being wounded and killed than are Lebanese.
Because even as the BBC is reporting, most of the Lebanese dead are, in fact, terrorists disguised as civilians living in these homes, which are serving as rocket launchers.
Jim in Kansas City, Missouri, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Today was from Kansas City, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
Second time caller, everyday listener.
I'm glad to have you.
Let me get right to it.
As I've been surveying the general attitude of what I see in the United States at this time, and more specifically focusing on your previous comments about Mr. Buckley and the idea of a minimalist war, my thought has been for quite a while that in order for the United States to be totally shaken out of what I feel is a very complacent, even apathetic attitude,
is that we're going to have to have another 9-11 event that is going to be of a magnitude that the American people, or at least enough of them, will get the feeling that the only way we can do this is to take Israel's approach.
We just got to go after them and get it done.
And while I don't relish the idea of this, I just don't see any other way that the broad spectrum across the political boundaries is ever going to change unless and until that happens.
And so my question is, what are your thoughts on that?
And if not that scenario, what would you see as a scenario?
Well, I'm not going to sit here and advocate for another 9-11 type attack.
I have, like you on many previous occasions, I have said that I fear it is going to take that.
And I did just, I mean, every day last week, I thought I went through this explaining why I think it is.
We have so much affluence and prosperity in this country that we have the freedom and the time to ignore it.
If we don't want to pay attention to it, we don't have to.
If we want to, as individuals, if we want to assume that, hey, you know, that war is over there.
Nothing to do with me.
I mean, life is to be enjoyed.
I'm not going to get all caught up in this.
That's the safe play.
Because once you commit to taking it on, then, of course, you're committing to being involved in doing something about it.
And I don't mean joining the army, but I mean, you're committing to taking it seriously.
And some people, there's no need.
The United States does not appear to be that threatened by this.
But then you bring in such unknowns as Iran and the question: do we want them to become a nuclear Iran or not?
And if we don't, what do we do about it?
And if we don't care, what's our plan to deal with them afterwards?
And I don't know that anybody's got a plan to deal with a nuclear Iraq other than the Iran, other than the famous containment and appeasement.
Favorite words of the Eastern elites, intellectuals.
As to whether another 9-11, you certainly don't want to wish that.
But look at it.
Networks still will not play videotape of what happened on 9-11.
It's just too dramatic.
It's just too soon.
Remember, it was too soon to see United 93.
It's just too soon.
Our emotions haven't recovered and so forth.
So too many people or enough people in this country can check out.
I don't believe it's a serious problem.
Don't want to play.
Don't want to participate.
In that case, it's tough to muster a national will to deal with a problem that other people think is severe and serious.
The parallels here are eerie.
And I've pointed these out too: the parallels to Winston Churchill trying to warn the British people in the late 30s and early 40s about what was going on in Nazi Germany.
And the British leadership at the time just didn't want to hear it.
They had no desire to hear it.
And even if it were true, this is not our fight, not our problem.
We don't want to get involved.
And we hear the same things.
I guess liberals are liberals, and the human nature of liberals is consistent across the span of generations.
Brief timeout, back and continue after this.
Share with you a little bit of what Ralph Peters wrote, a big supporter of Israel, by the way.
His latest book is Never Quit the Fight.
Famed columnist of the New York Post, famed military credentials, as I say.
I'll be interviewing him for the next issue of the limbo letter after the program today.
But he wrote on Saturday, Israel's losing this war for a lifelong Israel supporter.
That's a painful thing to write, but it's true.
And the situation is worsening each day.
A U.S. government official put it to me this way: Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time.
The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists.
Every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel.
Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.
All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely.
But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah.
Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.
Israel has to pull itself together now to send in ground troops in sufficient numbers with fierce resolve to do what must be done: root out Hezbollah fighters and kill them.
This means Israel will suffer painful casualties more today than if the IDF had gone in full blast at this fight's beginning.
The situation is grave.
A perceived Hezbollah win will be a massive victory for terror as well as a triumph for Iran and Syria.
And everybody loves a winner, especially in the Middle East, where Arabs and Persians have been losing for so long.
Israel can't afford a Hezbollah win.
America can't afford it.
Civilization can't avoid it, and yet it just might happen.
Israel tried to make war halfway and only made a mess.
Let's review where the situation stands.
By trying to spare Israeli lives through the use of air power and long-range artillery fire instead of ground troops, the IDF played into Hezbollah's hands.
The terrorists could claim that Israel feared them.
Meanwhile, Israeli targeting proved shockingly sloppy, failing to ravage Hezbollah while hitting civilians to the international media's delight.
The IDF is readying a reinforced brigade of armor and 3,000 to 5,000 troops for a limited incursion into southern Lebanon, but that won't work.
Not enough troops.
And Hezbollah's had time to get locked and loaded.
This is going to be messy.
Any half-hearted Israeli effort will fall short.
Now, it goes on, but let me just read to you the conclusion.
The mess Israel has made of its opportunity to smack down Hezbollah should be a wake-up call to the country's leadership.
The IDF looks like a pathetic shadow of the bold military that Aridul Sharon led into Egypt three decades ago.
The IDF's intelligence, targeting, and planning were all deficient.
Technology failed to vanquish flesh and blood.
The myth of the IDF's invincibility just shattered.
If Israel can't turn this situation around quickly, the failure will be a turning point in its history and not for the better.
I ask you more about this this afternoon when I speak with him, but I've talked to a lot of people, and there's a, well, didn't talk, communicated, email and so forth, but it is a different Israel in the way they're fighting this battle than the way they have dealt with it.
I mean, remember when they leveled Arafat's compound in Ramallah?
Not that long ago.
This one, didn't care.
Just rolled the tanks in it, rolled right over it.
Blew up their plumbing, did everything.
Made life miserable for them in there.
Again, because Arafat had backed out of a deal, which is constantly what happens over there.
Now, I know this is Lebanon.
This is crossing a country's borders, but if there was ever any justification for it, this is it.
Violation of a UN resolution, which over there seems to matter.
Provocation here that was actually started by Hezbollah.
And even that lame-brained Kofi Annan acknowledges that.
Donald in Navarra, Florida.
Glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
How are you doing, Rush?
Fine, sir.
Listen, I was watching the news and listening to you, and I hear about collateral damage as if it's a bad thing.
It's not.
It's a good thing.
These people have to know if you're on a battlefield, if you let terrorists into your neighborhood and you support this kind of thing, there's going to be a price to pay.
And I don't want to see anybody innocent die, but if you're letting terrorists lob rockets out of your neighborhood, you're not so innocent, are you?
Well, I don't know that you have any power to keep terrorists out of your neighborhood.
I don't know if there's a let terrorist in your neighborhood or not.
You probably aren't armed, and the terrorists are.
But I understand the philosophy.
War.
I feel badly I'm being so redundant here.
But, I mean, over the past week, this is now the sixth day of this.
But I guess it's necessary for people's historical context to be brought up to speed.
But, you know, war has always been about killing innocent people, in addition to taking out the weapons of war used by the bad guys or your enemy and destroying their ability to fight by killing them, too.
But, you know, Japan, Germany, it's the way it was, but it's changed now.
It's not that way.
There are too many eyes, cameras, microphones, and so forth recording things.
And let's face it, the vast majority of the media in the world covering this is a bunch of leftists and a bunch of pacifists who have chosen sides in this.
And it is not Israeli or the United States sides that they support.
Back in just a second.
Fastest three hours and meet.
I can't believe two hours are already in the can.
But sit tight, folks.
Lots more straight ahead.
A couple more things on the Israeli-Hezmalah conflict.
And then on to our domestic stack of stuff.
Interesting things in there.
▲
Export Selection