All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
July 25, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Great to be with you.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the man credited with saving AM radio and making it dominant and predominant once again, sitting firmly behind the golden EIB microphone here at the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
A thrill, a delight to be with you today as every day.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
Can you hear me?
I can barely hear myself over the music.
And the must be a mix-minus problem.
Don't panic, Brian.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIVnet.com.
I'm depressed, and I don't know why.
Just one of those flatline kind of moods.
Yeah, I sound fine now.
I'm just being honest.
You sounded great when you started.
Look at professionalism rises to the top.
Mike goes on and so forth.
I'm just being honest.
I'm just in a little bit of a funk here.
I don't even know why.
Those are the worst kind.
You know, when you're in a funk and you know why.
Do you think I'm in a funk because it took the whole weekend off?
No, I just played golf for 15 straight days.
That's one of the reasons I took it off.
Anyway, are you watching TV today?
Have you people seen the media was going bonkers?
They were orgasmic as they were watching bombs drop in in southern Lebanon, particularly on PMS NBC.
But I want to tell you what this illustrates.
What it really illustrates here, and it proves that the Israelis are showing enormous restraint.
I mean, they could roll right through this entire country of Lebanon if they wanted to, all the way into Damascus.
I hear this talk about proportionality, and it just, well, it makes me mad.
And it's, you know, it's not a universal voice that is demanding Israeli proportionality.
I'm still encouraged.
I think there are a number of elements of conventional wisdom that are under assault and in the process of changing.
For example, you know, our morning update today took to task the humanitarian head haunch over the United Nations, Jan Eglund.
But he accused Hezbollah yesterday.
The Hezbollahs, but it's my new name for them.
The Hezbos.
You know, there's so many different pronunciations for these guys.
Hezbollah, Hezbollah, Hezbollah, Hezbollah.
The Hezbos takes less time, makes more sense.
Jan Eglund was speaking with reporters at an airport in Cyprus late yesterday after a visit to Lebanon, and he accused the Hezbos of cowardly blending among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.
The Hezbollah have built bunkers and tunnels near the Israeli border to shelter weapons and fighters, and its members easily blend in among civilians by design.
Hell, they're not letting civilians leave.
In fact, the Israelis have discovered, you know, that the Israelis have fired on some ambulances.
And oh, my God, all hell break loose.
Why?
How can you possibly do this?
That's beyond the Geneva Convention.
That's horrible.
It's violating the rules of war.
Well, the Israelis found out the Hezbollahs are transporting themselves in ambulances from one locale to the next.
So it appears that their intelligence is improving a little bit at the same time.
In addition to that, CNN's Nick Robertson has admitted that the Hezbollahs had control of his anti-Israel piece.
This is one of the pieces I watched.
Remember, we were talking about the humanization of Nasrallah and how deeply involved in social services they are.
I don't think it was that exact piece, but it was one like it.
But Robertson admitted that the Hezbollahs had control of his anti-Israel piece.
Back on July 18th, the Hezbollahs took Robertson and his crew on a tour of a heavily damaged South Beirut neighborhood.
The Hezbo press officer even instructed the CNN camera: just look, shoot, look at this building.
Is it a military base?
Is it a military base or just civilians living in this building?
So it was an orchestrated story in a setup to his interview with Nick Robertson, Howard Kurtz, by the way, who unveiled this on a CNN program.
Reliable sources played clips of NBC's Richard Engel and CBS's Elizabeth Palmer relating their trips to the damaged areas, with Palmer providing the sort of disclaimer that Robertson failed to include last week.
This morning, the Hezbollah showed journalists around the ruins of its former stronghold, but the Hezbos are determined that outsiders will only see what it wants them to see.
CNN did not tag their report thus.
Interesting piece today.
Let me find it by John Pedoritz.
Amazing, ladies and gentlemen, how this program is show prep for the rest of the media.
Podoritz J-POD, as he's known among colleagues at National Review Online.
Title of his piece today, Too Nice to Win: Israel's Dilemma.
Let me just read you some of the questions he asks.
What if liberal democracies have now evolved to a point where they can no longer wage war effectively because they've achieved a level of humanitarian concern for others that dwarfs any really cold-eyed pursuit of their own national interests?
What if the universalist idea of liberal democracy, the idea that all people are created equal, has sunk in so deeply that we no longer assign special value to the lives and interests of our own people as opposed to those in other countries?
Well, I actually can't claim credit for being first with this.
Shelby Steele was first with it in his book, White Guilt.
But don't be put off by that title if you're just hearing about this for the first time.
Shelby Steele's point is that superpowers and majorities have been made weak by guilt over their power.
Guilt about their power, guilt about their pasts, and guilt at the unfair advantage they have over the peons of the world.
And so, when the peons of the world erupt and start killing people in superpower or Western democracy countries, it is, well, you know, maybe we deserve this, the way we've treated the world all these years, and we've got a leftist contingent throughout the world in this country too, that promulgates and promotes that whole concept in classrooms and so forth.
Another question asked by J-POD: What if this triumph of universalism is demonstrated by the left's insistence that American and Israeli military actions, marked by an extraordinary concern for preventing civilian casualties, are in fact unacceptably brutal?
And if it also apparent, is also apparent in the rights claim that a war against a country has nothing to do with the people, but only with that country's leaders.
Can any war be won when this is the nature of the discussion in the countries fighting the war?
Can any war be won when one of the combatants voluntarily limits itself in this manner?
Could World War II have been won by Britain and the U.S. if the two countries did not have it in them to firebomb Dresden and drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Well, no, I don't mean this to be cutting of J-Pod.
Discussed all this on this program last week and even the week before, and discussed it in many ways.
I asked it, what is the will of the American people, where all this is concerned?
Fascinating interview yesterday, by the way, with Ralph Peters, which will be in the next issue of the Limball Letter.
And I'm probably going to cut it up and tempt you, tease you with some audio excerpts of this interview because he's a brilliant man, and he's a great writer.
He also echoed many of the sentiments I have.
He just went on and on and on about the greatness of the American people.
And when finally pushed to the limit, you can always count on them.
You can count on main street, small-town middle America to always do the right thing.
He doesn't believe that's changed.
He thinks that represents a majority of the country's thinking.
He, of course, had effusive praise for the men and women of the armed forces of which he was a former member.
But still, there are new constraints on countries like the United States and Israel when it comes to waging war, even after you've been attacked.
And everybody's asking the question and has been in the case of Israel.
They really have the guts to be the old Israelis of the past.
And look at those tanks moving now.
It looks like the Israelis haven't changed at all.
This is heartwarming news because Israel's fighting this war for us.
They're doing this for our sake as well as for theirs.
Let me take a quick time out here, folks.
Sit tight.
We'll be back and continue.
But there's a great story out today from the Harris poll.
50% of U.S. citizens say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that is up from 36% last year.
And listen to this line.
Pollsters deemed the increase both substantial and surprising in light of persistent press reports to the country in recent years.
Well, what does that tell you about most Americans' reliance on persistent press reports?
It means that they doubt them.
It means that they don't trust them.
I wonder if that will sink into the Harris people as they analyze their own poll.
All right, brief timeout.
Back with much more in a second, folks.
Something else remarkable.
The editor of maybe the publisher, and I didn't print the story.
I thought I printed the story, but I apparently didn't because I don't have it in the stack here.
The editor-publisher of the largest newspaper in Germany has called the Europeans a bunch of cowards.
He's called them a bunch of cowards.
And what reminded me of it is I just saw a little crawl on the TV: Europeans require ceasefire before sending in any members of some peacekeeping force.
The Germans, get this, the Germans said we will only go in if Hezbo's promise not to shoot at us.
And the Germans said this after the editor of their largest newspaper, and I can't even remember the name of the newspaper, basically called the Europeans a bunch of cowards.
Here's another interesting piece on this.
This is from Greg Richards at one of our favorite blogs, as you know, the American Thinker, Israel being set up in the world's media to meet an impossible standard to its critics.
If Israel does not instantly destroy all of the Hezbollah and its fixed installations, and that instant has now already passed, and do it without taking any casualties itself or inflicting any collateral damage on the other side, then it has failed.
By this peculiar standard, any country that has ever fought a war has lost it after the first week.
But it should surprise no one that this standard is only applied to Israel and the United States.
It's an absurd standard and a defeatist one.
Having set the rules of the game so as to ensure failure, critics then commence laying blame on the country, which is presumed guilty merely by being who and what it is.
The victim of unprovoked attacks is thus guilty of a disproportionate response.
Eliminating military installations hidden among civilians, such as hiding being a war crime itself, by the way, becomes an attack on civilians.
Such guilt-mongering is not simply wrong.
It's also camouflage designed to divert attention away from the party which bears far greater responsibility.
And there is a person.
There is a person that is responsible for the devastation both in Israel and Lebanon, and that person is the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan.
This is Kofi's war, writes Mr. Richards.
Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 under the guarantee of a UN resolution that the border area would not be remilitarized.
The responsible agent of that guarantee is Kofi Annan.
You know, it's, I love these guys.
I love all these guys because they contribute to our broad-based knowledge and intellect.
But it's, I must say, and I know this is tough, but it's really, it's tough to see so much of what has already been said on this program in past weeks pop up days and even weeks later.
A little bit more from this poll from the Harris people on the American public and their perceptions of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Not only do 50% of Americans say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, up from 36% who thought so a year ago, respondents were questioned in early July after the release of a Defense Department intelligence report that revealed coalition forces recovered about 500 aging chemical weapons containing mustard or sarin nerve gas agents in Iraq.
The Harris poll also offered some positive feedback on Iraq.
72% of respondents said that the Iraqi people are better off now than under Saddam's regime, a figure similar to that of 2004 when it stood at 76%.
64% say that Saddam had strong links with al-Qaeda, up from 62% in October of 2004.
Now, I don't know what you think of this.
This is something that, to me, is remarkable in the sense that the drive-by media has made its living the past two or three years trying to create poll results that would be just the opposite of that.
Washington Post today, Dana Milbank, fascinating story.
Everybody trying to figure out who this is.
For one Senate candidate, the R is a scarlet letter.
The candidate, immersed in one of the most competitive Senate races in the country, sat down to lunch yesterday with reporters at a Capitol Hill steakhouse and shared his views about this year's political currents on the Iraq war.
It didn't work.
We didn't prepare for the peace.
On the response to Hurricane Katrina, a monumental failure of government.
On the national mood, there's a palpable frustration right now in the country.
It's all fairly standard Democratic boilerplate, except that this candidate is a Republican.
And he's getting all kinds of cooperation from the White House, the Republican National Committee, and GOP congressional leaders.
Not that he necessarily wants it either.
Well, you know, I don't know, the candidate said when asked if he wanted President Bush to campaign for him.
Noting Bush's low standing in his home state, he finally added, to be honest with you, I probably prefer he not show up here.
The candidate gave the luncheon briefing to nine reporters from newspapers, magazines, and networks under the condition that he be identified only as a GOP Senate candidate.
When he was pressed to go on the record, his campaign toyed with the idea, but got cold feet.
He was anxious enough to air his gripes, but cautious enough to avoid a public brawl with the White House.
Well, maybe for a while.
Let me tell you, the aftermath of this story, the blowback of this story, is going to be bigger than the story itself.
Still, his willingness to speak so critically, if anonymously, about the party that he'll represent on Election Day points to a growing sense among Republicans that if they are to retain their majorities in Congress, they may have to throw the president under the train in all but the safest, reddest states.
All right.
Now, who do you suppose this might be?
Who is a Republican who is in a close, close race?
He is doesn't want the White House's help.
The first name that came to my mind, you think it's Santorum?
The first name that comes to your mind, first name that came to my mind was Link Chafee.
I mean, that was too easy.
That's too easy.
The other one of Santorum was the one who came to my mind after I rejected Link Chaffee.
Now, you have to understand something.
Any senator, any candidate who will do this wants it known that it was him at some point.
You can't keep this.
This is going to be a parlor-guessing game in Washington for about 10 minutes until everybody figures it all out.
And then it's going to light all kinds of fires.
This is red meat to the drive-by media.
They just love this.
A senator who wants nothing to do with the president, this will be a clear illustration to them.
The Republicans are in trouble.
I don't know.
Who else is up?
I mean, there are more Democrats that need to protect their seats this year than the Republicans, but I can't think of anybody else.
I haven't really gone to the list to look at who might be in a similar tight race in a state where the president is not doing well.
Well, you can say that the drive-by media won't reveal the senator's name, but the senator granted the interview.
The senator said, I'll tell you whatever you want as long as you don't identify me.
It is interesting to me, though, ladies and gentlemen, that they've just got a huge leak here.
They just had a source close to the election, one of the candidates, dump all over his party and dump all over the president, and the media is willing to keep the secret.
The media will not reveal his name.
The media will not betray his trust.
They have no problem revealing how we track terrorists.
They have no problem revealing any other state secret.
Any other leak they get from the Pentagon, the CIA, or the State Department, they're all over the place with it.
But in this case, they're willing to keep the secret.
And I wonder why, ladies and gentlemen.
Well, because they know that it's...
How long do you think it'll be before this senator's identified?
That'll be it's it's I mean officially officially identified because you this afternoon is probably when it's going to happen if it weren't if it weren't for all you know Maliki at the White House today from Iraq and all the the increased bombardment this story would be getting a little bit bigger play in the drive-by media than it is but believe me they're all having what they're drinking lunch right now and I guarantee you they're all discussing it and figuring out where to go with it well Well, hells are popping over this now.
Who is this Senate candidate?
I read the story.
It doesn't say anything about the Senate candidate being an incumbent.
So people are throwing around that.
Well, how about how could it be Michael DeWyne in Ohio?
I mean, he's probably a little angry at George W. Bush.
There's a popular consensus out there, however, ladies and gentlemen, that it is Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland, who is running for the Senate in Maryland, Maryland, a big blue state.
Bush's number's way down there.
And of course, if Steele is to win, he's going to have to reflect certain thoughts and characteristics of a majority of the population there.
And so he decides to call the White House or the Capitol Press Corps, the D.C. drive-by media, and have this lunch in Washington.
And the theory is that he's got to maintain his credibility.
If he's going to run with a capital R behind his name, he's got to acknowledge that there are several problems in doing so in the state of Maryland.
Others have thrown out the name Jim Talent in Missouri.
But I don't think anybody knows for certain unless somebody does know and wants to let me know that that's here.
Let me check something real quick here, folks.
All right.
All right.
I just got a super secret email from a source I can't identify.
The White House has tracked this back to being Michael Steele.
The White House compared Frist's schedule with a number of other things.
And so throughout the stuff about it being Santorum, the White House is convinced that it is Michael Steele, Lieutenant Governor of Maryland.
Well, there's going to be some aftermath and blowback from this as a result of it.
And the nine members of the drive-by media, let's see how long they can keep this a secret who were there.
Dana Milbank in the Washington Post has written about it.
Here, by the way, is the piece that I didn't print out.
It's by Matthias Dopfner, the CEO of Axel Springer, AG.
He's chief executive of the German publisher Axel Springer.
And he wrote a blistering attack in De Welt, Germany's largest daily paper against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of the Islamic threat.
Must read, it says here.
A few days ago, Henry Broder wrote in Welt on Suntag, Europe, your family name is appeasement.
It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
But his point is, Europe, thy name is cowardice.
And this is the CEO of the largest publishing unit in Germany, Williamstown, Kentucky.
We'll start with you on the phones today.
Ned, welcome.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Thanks for talking to me, Rush.
I appreciate it.
You bet.
My comment was: I'm in the Army, and I see on TV, reading the paper, whatever, how the Israeli-Lebanese conflict with Hezbollah, whatever.
The international community, like, I don't know, makes us look like the bad people when we have to attack a civilian area where the enemy stores weapons, soldiers, stuff like that.
And kind of how they demonize the Israeli Army for destroying these sites when they're being shot at.
They're obviously caches for enemy weapons.
But they don't demonize them for doing so, you know, putting anti-aircraft on top of hospitals and stuff, which is against the law of land warfare.
Why doesn't the international community say, hey, you know, just up and war saying they are the reason for the death for civilians?
More and more of them are.
Those who aren't are doing so simply because of their...
I think it's all...
It's two things.
Two basic things.
There's just a general hatred for Western democracies among much of the world, and Israel gets added into that also because they're Jewish and there is anti-Semitism.
The United Nations is the breeding ground and the modern day repository for anti-Semitism, as is much of Europe.
France, you can't, you wouldn't believe the level of anti-Semitism there.
So there's no question that that's part of it.
But you've got more and more people now that are starting to see this another way.
It's not as universal as it used to be, even to the extent the Arab nations in that region have condemned Hezbollah as well.
In fact, Israel is an interesting study.
You know, Israel is a very, very liberal bunch of people.
Israel's a very socially liberal country.
And in this instance, however, it's fascinating.
A couple of the biggest liberal social political leaders, not elected, but just commentators and so forth, in that country are 100% behind this action.
Public opinion polls in Israel show that 90% of Israelis are all for what the Israelis are doing.
And I go back to what I said last week.
There's a whole bunch of positive stuff in this.
And it's, you know, I don't want to spend a whole day here recounting it, but among some of the things that are positive, terrorist techniques are now being learned and discovered, and they're not being supported.
There's a call from the United Nations, we got to stop this humanitarian blasting.
This is blasting of innocent civilians.
And the world is here.
Wait a minute.
They're driving around in ambulances.
They're launching missiles out of homes.
Terrorist tactics are being widely disseminated here and widely seen for what they are.
One of the rules of war you mentioned, Ned, hiding is illegal.
You're not allowed to hide amongst civilians and this sort of thing.
And they're doing it and they're being called on it.
And the Israelis are being the Israelis that we've always known they are.
When they find out where these people are, they're going and getting them.
And they'll deal with the PR fallout that they're killing innocent civilians because they know what they're doing and they know who they're targeting and they know who they're killing.
And it's by design.
So it's, I think, all in all, this is a huge positive that's happening here.
And people who said yesterday, wait a minute, give them a week.
They've got to get this done in a week or it's a failure.
If Hezbollah survives, even with just a shell of its former self, if Israel doesn't totally wipe them out, why it's considered a defeat for Israel.
There have people who've been people who move the goalposts that way.
And it is seductive.
It does.
In fact, it even drew me in.
And I'll tell you why I fell for it.
And I'm embarrassed to admit that I did, but I fell for it on the basis that it's all PR.
But the reality on the ground is how wars are won and lost.
A lot of people are very concerned about the PR.
Well, Hezbollah can say they won when they lost.
Just like the Democrats, it's a moral victory when they lose by four points in a Republican district.
They run around saying, yeah, the Republicans ought to be worried about this, but they're still losing elections.
Well, the point here, Israel is still winning this battle.
The PR can say one thing, but this is an indication of just how much people get wrapped up in imagery and spin and PR and ignore the reality of things.
And I can cite countless examples of this throughout our culture, throughout our business world, throughout the media world.
I'm not going to name them, but I can't tell you the number of television and radio shows that in reality have no audience worth speaking of.
But if you read certain media, you think they're the biggest thing is going for a host of reasons.
They survive on the buzz.
They survive on buzz, but they're not really winning anything, and they're not really earning a whole lot of money, which is the definition of going into business.
It's one of the reasons you do it.
But the spin, nevertheless, makes it look like they're hot, makes it look like they're huge.
And this is what the terrorists have learned, be it al-Qaeda or the Hezbollahs or whoever have learned about our media.
They are caught up in spin.
They have their own agendas.
They do have an interest in the outcome of events.
And if they can spin the outcome of an event into an alternative reality, they'll do so.
Such as they try it constantly with the U.S. economy, talking about how rotten it is, soup line America.
And they're hell-bent on creating crisis after crisis after crisis.
They want people in the throes of doom and gloom.
They want people thinking pessimistically, because when you're thinking pessimistically, you'll vote for change.
And that's what this is all about.
Well, you factor in with the Israel and the Hezbos, you factor in that there is a natural-born hatred for Israel at the United Nations, in much of the American left, by the way, and certainly in lots of Western and Eastern Europe.
And the Israelis don't play the PR game.
And a lot of people get frustrated by that.
A lot of people get frustrated when a lot of their allies, friends, associates don't respond to the PR game.
And it boils down to what world you want to live in.
Do you want to live in the real world?
When you win the war, you've won it.
You've beat back the bad guys.
You've limited their ability or destroyed their ability to wage war on you.
Or do you want to win the PR war where you don't really accomplish anything, but the world loves you?
And in this case, for Israel, what it would require for the world to love them is to actually be marched into the Mediterranean Sea, which they know, but they're not going to fall for it.
But a lot of people throughout our society in all levels of business, everywhere you go, get sucked in by the notion of winning the spin, winning the PR battle.
And in this case, the Israelis are eschewing that for substantive victory and substantive reality.
And thank God for it.
I think the people in life that you can trust and the people in life that you can count on are the people who have both feet firmly planted in reality because all the rest are a bunch of phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and rollers who can't stand the light of reality shining on them.
Ha, welcome back, folks.
Great to have you.
El Rushboat, serving humanity, America's real anchor man here on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
All right.
Pretty much confirmed now that the comments made in that luncheon to Dana Milbank and eight other reporters were made by Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, Republican in Maryland, seeking a Senate seat there.
And it's sort of fascinating.
I still like the guy.
I was telling Snerdley the other day, what was it?
Who was it in this case that just, you know, Bush has been nice as hell.
It was Spectre again, but I can't think of who else we were.
Who were we talking about?
The difference here, I don't know, I'm not, I'm not, it's because I'm just not aware.
I don't know if the White House has offered Steele any assistance.
I don't know if they're out there doing things.
You say they are.
Well, you know, loyalty cuts both ways.
It really does.
If you're Michael Steele and you're running for the Senate, first-time Republican, and don't forget, Maryland is not a Democrat state.
Maryland is a far-left kook fringe state.
I mean, it could be the capital of the Democrat Looney Tune blog, Kooksville.
It's not just a Democrat state, and he's running there as a Republican.
But the Republican Party, the White House, they've done their best to undercut Catherine Harris in her Senate run.
Pat Toomey, who opposed Arlen Specter, was actively opposed by the White House.
So if you're Michael Steele and you're looking at this and you're running for office in a state that, as I say, is a far-left state, not a Democrat state, and then you watch the White House giving aid to people like Lincoln Chafee and Specter,
but blowing off Catherine Harris and Pat Toomey in that primary, I think Steele's probably distancing himself here because he thinks he can't win otherwise, given the state in which he's running.
I'm not sure that he needed to go to this extent to do it.
This is, I don't know what kind of thinking was involved in this, but he obviously did it on purpose.
He obviously wants this discussion taking place here.
He wants it known that it was him.
I mean, you can't go to dinner with nine reporters or lunch with nine reporters in Washington, D.C. and say, hey, look, gang, this is off the record.
My identity is off the record.
And expect it to stay off the record.
Now, get this.
The Iraqi prime minister is in Washington.
He had a joint press conference with President Bush today.
It was very diplomatic, by the way.
And I guess he's going to address a joint session of Congress.
And three Democrats, Rosa DeLauro, Jan Schakowsky, and I think Senator Turbin from Illinois have all sent a letter demanding that to Hastert, saying, cancel this speech.
We don't want this guy, this new prime minister in Iraq, polluting the House of Representatives and this whole joint session stuff.
We don't want this.
And the reason that they're doing this, the reason they're saying this, is because Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, has publicly taken positions which oppose the United States, particularly in the Hezbollah and Israel conflict.
In addition to that, he's also created a little bit of dander by asking the White House to have the right for Iraqis to try American servicemen who commit quote-unquote war crimes.
Now, the administration is saying, hey, you know, this proves that they're their own government, that they're establishing their own government, and that's what we set out to do.
The Democrats are saying, wait a minute, you said they were going to be an ally.
You said that they were going to be supportive.
You said the reason for going in there was to get somebody that was sympathetic and pro-American in that region, and this guy's not doing that.
I still find it amazing that they want to shut him up, and they don't want to let him come in and speak.
Typical Democrats, First Amendment is for everybody but them.
They'll grant all kinds of rights to terrorists.
They'll make sure terrorists get lawyers.
They'll make sure terrorists have the rights to our Constitution.
They'll make sure we can't spy on terrorists to find out when their next hit's going to be, but let the duly elected Prime Minister of Iraq show up, speak to a joint session of Congress.
Oh, way.
We're not going to let that man come in here and speak because he's not on the same page with the United States.
Quickly to Rockville, Maryland.
Steve, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Rush mega conservative dittos from a conservative exile, the People's Republic of Maryland.
Thank you, sir.
Here's my take on this whole situation.
I'm having a hard time believing that this is Michael Steele for two reasons.
Number one, he really is a man of high moral character.
The second reason is that you talk about Bush receiving scathing attacks.
Whatever tax he has received pale in comparison to what Michael Steele has received.
Don't you think that this gives him the moral high ground?
And if so, then if he has that moral high ground, why does he need to do this?
And that's what baffles me.
And I've got to tell you that if it turns out to be true, he's got some explaining to do because I'm planning on voting for him.
But I really, you know, this is what's on.
You said something very interesting.
My guess he wants to explain this.
And this, this, you know, if this is an accident, if this is, if, if, this just cannot be something that happened coincidentally.
There's got to be a strategy behind this.
The best information that we've assembled here says that it is Michael Steele.
So I think you should brace yourself for that.
He's obviously not going to be asked about it.
And by the way, Santorum's office called us.
I need to spend more time on the flat out denied this.
So they have nothing in common with whatever this person said to these media reporters about President Bush.
Back in just a second, folks.
The first of three exciting hours officially in the can.
We'll be back and wrap it up and continue with the next hour in just a second.
▲
Export Selection