Before we start with audio soundbite 3, as I previously instructed, grab soundbite 15.
And we'll do that first.
Greetings, my good friends.
Welcome back.
Hope you had a great weekend.
Welcome to those of you watching the program today on the Ditto Cam at RushLimbaugh.com.
I am Rush Limbaugh setting the standard for broadcast excellence, speaking to the most informed audience in all of broadcast media, the most knowledgeable audience in all of broadcast media, according to the latest research from the Pew Center for the People of the Press.
It's a sheer thrill and delight to be with you today, folks.
Telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Mr. Snurdly, you guys, a quick question.
Seriously, today I'm not having that tone in my ear, no tinnitus today.
Does my voice sound the same to you today as it did last Friday?
It does.
All right, good.
Because last Fridays, I thought it was hoarse.
I thought it was, you know, it was really bad, that low hum last week.
Well, I got hoarse at the end of the program.
Of course, three straight hours of talking, no guests ever.
I mean, what would you expect?
That's why when I finish the program, I can go eight hours without saying a word to anybody.
Happily so.
At any rate, we're back, and here's the phone number, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I want to take just a brief moment here, folks, to congratulate all the inductees that went in Saturday at the National Football League Hall of Fame.
Rayfield Wright, Reggie White.
I've got, except with Rayfield Wright and Warren Moon, I've got personal stories I could tell you about all these guys, but I will not, especially Reggie.
John Madden, I've been around a number of times.
Love John Madden.
John Madden, as a broadcaster, is one of my heroes.
Told him that once on a golf course out the AT ⁇ T at Pebble Beach.
He said, well, you're one of mine.
I said, well, I knew that, but I just wanted you, just wanted you to know that you were one of my love Madden.
And, of course, Troy Aikman, I have to tell you something, Troy Aikman is one of the, what he said about all he wanted to do was play pro sports, and he's lived a dream.
He meant it.
He's just a solid guy.
I remember when it was announced that I got the commentator gig at ESPN, he sent me a couple notes and even a telegram congratulating me and saying he was very interested to see how I did.
And he never joined in any of the criticism.
Chris Collinsworth was going nuts on their game broadcasts.
And of course, all their studio clowns from Bradshaw to James Brown were going nuts.
But Aikman never joined in any of it.
But I wanted to congratulate all these guys.
It's such a small fraternity of people that ever make it into any professional sports hall of fame.
And it really, really is special.
It's something most people will never, ever understand or be able to do and therefore relate to.
But I think it's fabulous.
I do want to play you.
One little soundbite.
We have a number of them, but I just want to play you Warren Moon yesterday or Saturday actually.
It was in Canton, Ohio at the Pro Football Hall of Fame, one of the inductees.
And just listen to his remarks here.
When I went out on that field, that I had a responsibility to play the game for my people.
And that extra burden I probably didn't need to go out on the field with because I probably would have been a much better player if I didn't have that burden.
But you know what?
I carried that burden proudly.
And as I looked at young people all along my route as a professional football player, they always told me, Warren, you got to represent.
Warren, you got to represent.
Warren, you got to represent.
Well, I'm standing here today to say I hope I did represent while I played the National Football League.
All right.
Well, any idea what he's talking about there, folks?
He was talking about the pressure being a black quarterback in the NFL and how the expectations were and so forth and so on.
And yet here he is inducted in the Hall of Fame and acknowledges, acknowledges.
When I acknowledge that there is that pressure, that expectation, or that latitude, you know the end results.
I just wanted to share that with you.
I've not met Warren Moon, but I have, and Rayfield Wright, but I have met the others.
Had dinner one night with Reggie White in Green Bay after a Packers game against the San Francisco Fortiners.
And he was already planning his retirement and thinking about doing a movie.
He wanted to do a had Reggie White Studios at the time, and he wanted to do a movie that contrasted the old guy, the old game, the players back in the days when NFL players went both ways, offense and defense.
And he wanted to use modern technology to cut those games with current games, with acting and so forth.
And it's a project I guess he never got or saw to completion.
But he was everything that you've heard about him if you've been paying attention this past week and actually the past year since he passed on.
But congratulations to all those guys.
And also, you know what?
Congratulations, NBC.
That was a great telecast last night.
I watched it in high definition on my new projector.
I went back into the library where I've also got a big screen and a projector, and I thought I was watching a black and white television.
You guys have to come over and see this thing.
It's just unbelievable.
What do I do with the old one?
The old one's been donated to the homeless.
All right, time now to go back to the soundbites.
I want you to hear President Bush today, this morning, from Crawford on his resolution that he's working on with the French.
We have two bites here.
Hezbollah will be required to immediately stop all attacks.
Israel will be required to immediately stop all offensive military operations.
And in addition, the resolution calls for an embargo on the shipment of any arms into Lebanon except as authorized by the Lebanese government.
Except as authorized.
Well, okay, Hezbollah will be required to immediately stop all attacks.
Ain't going to happen.
Israel will be required to immediately stop all offensive military operations, meaning if they're attacked, they can defend themselves.
And in addition, the resolution calls for an embargo on the shipment of any arms into Lebanon except as authorized by the Lebanese government.
Well, if the Lebanese government's a puppet of Syria, what good is that?
See, the Israelis are taking care of that even today.
They're bombing more roads.
They are bombing more bridges.
They're continuing their seaside blockade.
They are taking military steps because all these negotiated agreements have been worthless in the past.
They are taking military steps to see to it that the Hezbollahs can't be resupplied with arms from Syria or Iran.
President got a question, unidentified reporter.
Mr. President, you've been quite specific in Hezbollah's role in the creator of the conflict, but what is the magnet?
What is the pressure point?
What is the hook to get this group to accept a ceasefire, to stop shooting, and to stop kidnapping soldiers from across the border of another country?
It is a great challenge of this century.
As young democracies flourish, terrorists try to stop their progress.
They try to spread their jihadist message.
It's totalitarian in nature.
Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism.
They try to spread it as well by taking the attack to those of us who love freedom.
As far as this administration is concerned, we clearly see the problem, and we're going to continue to work to advance stable, free countries.
Admittedly, this is hard work because it flies in the face of previous policy, which basically says stability is more important than form of government.
And as a result of that policy, anger and resentment bubbled forth with an attack, with a series of attacks, the most dramatic of which was on September the 11th.
Okay, the key line here to me when I heard this live was this one.
Admittedly, this is hard work because it flies in the face of previous policy, which basically said that stability is more important than form of government.
Now, the administration has been very consistent about this.
I should say since the hostilities first broke out, the Bush administration, the president himself, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have made it clear that the government of Lebanon must stand during all of this and after all of this, and the government of Lebanon must be the entity that runs Lebanon.
So clearly, this is fundamental and foundational in this resolution.
And that apparently is what changes policy from what was previous policy, because previous policy, we just went for ceasefires, and we just got stability for a year or five or ten until the next attack broke out.
The theory, I guess, is that if you get a stable Lebanon that runs its own country, that it can keep Hezbollah out of there, that it can keep Hezbollah from getting arms and weapons.
This is lofty stuff.
I mean, there's no question in terms of an objective and a goal.
I'm just old-fashioned.
I just think that the best way to make sure all this happens is to wipe out the enemy, which in this case is Hezbollah as a proxy for Iran.
Because if this is allowed to fester and the Hezbollahs are allowed to this ceasefire, by the way, there's no guarantee this resolution is going to work because the Hezbo guys don't like it, which means that the Prime Minister of Lebanon is not going to like it.
One of the features of this resolution, as I understand it now, is that the Israelis get to keep a certain force level in South Lebanon.
Now, the Hezbollahs aren't going to go for that, nor will the Prime Minister of Lebanon.
But even without that being true, the Prime Minister of Lebanon started crying, misting teary eyes today in announcing that this decision won't work.
And they're sending an Arab contingent to go to the Security Council of the United Nations later this week to actually debate this resolution.
Drive-by media is saying that this is a long shot, which tells me it's got a pretty good shot of happening.
I believe the exact opposite.
These people are just foundering in pessimism and negativism anyway.
Two more bites before we go to the break.
This unbelievable, unreal conversation on civilian casualties, inverted morality on display, reliable sources.
Fox, or sorry, CNN yesterday, Howard Kurtz talking with Thomas Ricks, a reporter from the Washington Post.
And Howard Kurtz says, is civilian casualties increasingly going to be a major media issue in conflicts where you don't have two standing armies shooting at each other?
Israel purposely has left pockets of Hezbollah rockets in Lebanon because as long as they're being rocketed, they can continue to have a sort of moral equivalency in their operations in Lebanon.
Oh, you're suggesting that Israel has deliberately allowed Hezbollah to retain some of its firepower, essentially for PR purposes, because having Israeli civilians killed helps them in the public relations war here?
Yes, that's what military analysts have told me.
Yeah, what a bunch of BS.
It's the exact opposite.
Who is it that's having their own civilians murdered and killed, perhaps even by Hezbollah members themselves in order to win the PR battle?
It's the Hezbo's doing this, to suggest the Israelis would let the Hezbos continue to have some launchers and missiles.
They wouldn't destroy them all so that those missiles can hit innocent Israelis, thereby giving Israel a legitimacy in returning volley.
Israel doesn't need that legitimacy, and Israel is, I'm telling you, convinced in wiping these people out and not losing its own citizens.
That's the essence of their existence.
They are not about sacrificing their own citizens.
That's terrorists to do that, Mr. Ricks.
It's terrorists who put bombs on their own kids, you fool.
One more.
Kurtz says, that's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit.
What do these guys think has been going on?
Now all of a sudden we're going to turn this around and it's the Israelis that are doing this?
It's the Israelis having their own citizens killed?
That's what the Washington Post is trying to make you think.
Kurtz can't believe it here.
That's an extraordinary testament to the notion that having people on your own side killed actually works to your benefit in that nobody wants to see your own citizens killed, but it works to your benefit in terms of the battle of perceptions here.
Exactly.
It helps you with the moral high ground problem because you know your operations Lebanon are going to be killing civilians as well.
How do we know that?
How do we know which is civilian and how do we know who's Hezbollah?
But anyway, they're trying to turn this around now that's the Israelis making sure their own people get killed.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you, Washington Post and drive-by media.
We're up to speed with you.
Thanks so much.
Really great service you're doing out there.
By the way, my apologies out there to Harry Carson, number 53 of the New York Giants inducted the Hall of Fame on Saturday.
Slipped my mind and I regret the omission.
I'm happy to have the opportunity to include him in my congratulations now.
Welcome back, 800-282-2882 on the EIB network, and we go to Detroit.
Mike, you're next.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Rush, what I found interesting in the Kurt's interview is when the reporter cited the military expert that Kurtz didn't come back and asked who this person would be.
We are treated to military experts, retired colonels and generals all day, and they all are able to put their name and their former rank and position on display for us all.
Why would that not have been available to us in this interview?
Well, because it's probably meaningless.
Well, you know, there was, you're right.
It said military experts, but we don't know what military.
We don't know if it's the U.S. military.
We don't know if it's the Hezbo military.
We don't know who it is.
And the guy, of course, this is a print journalist now, and they don't do nighttime cable shows with retired generals and military people offering expertise.
They protect their sources.
No, their sources are unnamed, and they will go to Yale to prevent that.
But, look, the bottom line is, it's the fact that he says that he has an expert is, it means nothing.
They can go cherry-pick these guys.
Look, when you're in a drive-by meeting, Washington Post, you can go find anybody to tell you what you want to hear.
This is another thing about the media.
This term expert.
All you got to do is put somebody on television, put a Chiron graphic under the name that says expert.
And by the way, it's then this is conveyed to everybody they're an expert.
So here we have Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post.
Yeah, it's what a military expert.
Oh, oh, okay.
Military expert.
Oh, then it must be true.
Well, Mike of Detroit's right.
Who the hell is the expert?
Sorry for yelling, ladies and gentlemen.
Where does the expert come from?
Is the expert in the military of Israel?
Is it a U.S. military expert?
Is it somebody who's a United Nations military expert?
You know, they're all over the place at the U.N.
It's meaningless.
It's absolutely pointless.
They can go out and find anybody to say what they want them to say.
In fact, it might have taken him 20 people to find his expert.
This might have been scuttlebud at the bar amongst a number of drive-by reporters.
And wow, this is really cool.
I'm going to go ask somebody.
He'll start asking, yeah, some expert calls, raises his hands.
Yeah, could possibly be true.
What this illustrates to me is that Mr. Ricks understands nothing about the Israeli people.
The Israeli people worship life.
They're not going to sacrifice their own people for PR.
What is this all about but preserving a little tiny country?
That's all this is about.
And to think the Israelis are going to help the enemy by wiping out their own people by letting the enemy do it?
To give the Israelis a PR advantage?
This is preposterous.
This is not reportage, ladies and gentlemen.
This is simply propaganda on the part of the drive-by media.
And again, I ask my question, I think it's a very timely and very relevant question.
In fact, I heard the president say in his press conference today, announcing his resolution, the violence must stop.
Okay, good.
A lot of people are saying this.
Why mustn't it stop in Iraq?
Why mustn't we have a ceasefire in Iraq?
That's been going on what?
Longer than the Civil War, what Ted Kennedy says?
Longer than the Cuban-American War, longer than the Ratfink War, longer than every war that's been going on out there, right?
Why no ceasefire?
Why no end the hostilities?
I know the Democrats, the American left, are saying we got to get out of there, but they're not telling Israel to get out of Lesbos of the Hezbo's territory.
It's a American left you have to throw out of the conversation because that's what they say about all war.
We must stop the violence.
But even they are not really saying we must stop the violence.
They're saying America must get out of there.
They want America to lose.
One of the reasons I believe there's no call for a ceasefire in Iraq is because the Iraq situation allows drive-by propagandists to portray America as getting its butt kicked.
Because Bush is a stupid idiot.
Bush's policy isn't working.
There's civil war going over there.
Rumsfeld didn't plan for the peace.
Rumsfeld didn't send enough troops.
And we love the circumstance, Daly, so that we can tell you how rotten Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice and Cheney are.
And that's why there's no call for ceasefire there.
But even at that, why is there no UN demand for a ceasefire in Iraq?
I mean, Kofi Annan runs around, we've got to stop the human suffering.
Well, human suffering in Iraq.
No demand for a ceasefire.
The answer is very, very clear.
Very, very clear.
The Israelis are kicking butt, and it's got to stop because the idea here is really to get rid of Israel, not to let Israel win this thing.
That's the world opinion.
Back in just a moment.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained broadcast specialist setting the standard and doing show prep for the rest of the media which follow.
800-282-2882.
Well, the pipeline to Alaska is now one of the pipelines, the British petroleum pipeline, is down.
Something like 400,000 barrels a day that we are going to lose.
Caribou going to freeze their tushes too.
Bad news for the caribou.
Some people are going to scorn British Petroleum for the loss of supply here.
I have not seen any pictures.
In fact, there's a tiny spill that has been reported, but it's just been reported that it's down.
I haven't seen any pictures, ladies and gentlemen, since I haven't seen any.
And if I saw pictures, what's to tell me the pictures haven't been doctored?
So I'm at a point here where I it's tough for me to believe anything that I read and now see still photography-wise in the drive-by media.
But 400,000 barrels a day.
The market's going crazy.
U.S. says, don't worry, we'll tap the reserves.
We're not going to result in any increased shortages or serious shortages.
British Petroleum will get all kinds of hell for the environmental damage and the lack of quality in the pipeline and so forth.
But you know, folks, if you want to start scorning anybody, scorn Bill Clinton, scorn the Democrats for blocking drilling in ANWAR, which when this first came up in the mid-90s, if it had been passed and authorized, we would now be getting three times this amount of oil in terms of barrels, 1.2 million barrels a day each and every day from ANWAR in the first place.
This would not present the big crunch that it does.
Actually, I want to try to get ahead of this story because I want to tell you what's going to happen.
In fact, it may already be happening in the Kook blogosphere out there on the left.
It could well be, folks, that this is just, and I got to explore the possibility, just a conspiracy.
British Petroleum severed its own pipeline to waste oil, to pollute the environment up there until they could stop it.
A purpose of all this would be to raise prices.
Big oil, not happy with the obscene profits they're already making.
They want to ram it down our throats, folks.
They just want more and more.
They want that oil price up sky high.
So I think you ought to be prepared for the kook bloggers to say that this has been done on purpose to get the price of oil up.
And if it's down, if there's 400,000 barrels a day that we're missing and they're going to miss for a while, the left Kook blogosphere will say, see, see, we don't even need all this oil anyway, so we don't need a drill in and war and so forth.
So it's predictable what will happen here.
Now, Joe Lieberman, interesting, less than a week ago or about a week ago, the Quinnipiac poll had him down double digits, 13 points, to Ned Lamont, this media baboon that's never been in politics before, running for the Senate seat that Lieberman has.
But there's a new Q poll out, and Lieberman has cut the lead from 13 to 6 points.
Finally reversing his challenger's momentum, Senator Lieberman now trails 45 to 51 percent among likely Democrat primary voters.
Four days ago, the Q poll said that he was trailing 41 to 54, 13 points for those of you in Rio Linda.
Also, according to the Q poll, only 4% of likely Democrat primary voters remain undecided, but 28% of likely Democratic primary voters who choose a candidate say they still might change their mind.
A pollster will tell you that when you get this late in the game, the primary election in Connecticut is tomorrow.
When you get this late in the game, the actual distance between the two candidates in a poll is not the thing to look at.
What they tell you to look at is the momentum.
In this case, if the Q poll is accurate, you'd have to say that it was Lieberman that has the momentum.
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has never, never bought into the fact that Lieberman's going to lose big.
He's always thought it was going to be close.
And I'm sure that he's feeling vindicated by the latest Q poll.
Now, despite that, fascinating piece today, once again, demonstrating if you listen to this program regularly, you will be on the cutting edge long before the drive-bys and others in the media get around to figuring out what's going on.
Martin Peretz, who is the publisher, the owner, the grand poo-bah, editor-in-chief of the New Republic, has a piece in the Wall Street Journal today.
Lieberman, the Peace Democrats, are back.
It's a dream come true for Karl Rove.
Basically, Mr. Peretz laments the fact that the Kook fringe has apparently taken over the party.
He's drawing that conclusion based on these polling results from Connecticut.
And he says to you what I have been saying for six months.
And I'm not going naanya nanya nanya.
I'm just it's I'm just again basically validating your decision to listen here.
He's worried about the party governing itself.
Well, that's exactly what I told you they were in the process of doing.
They think the Vietnam War is their greatest legacy.
Hey, think of the Democratic Party, they stopped a war.
They got a country and they turned a country's population against the war.
Yeah, and then they got shellacked in a landslide by Richard Nixon against George McGovern in 1972.
And I said, that's the parallel that's heading here.
These guys are being dominated by, again, a bunch of anti-war kook leftists who are making it appear the Democratic Party doesn't have the guts or the desire to defend this country against known enemies.
In fact, sides with known enemies by accident or by design.
And that's the point that Peretz gets to.
He's very, very, very worried about this.
Peace candidates know only one thing, and that's why people vote for them.
I know the type well.
I was present at its creation.
If Mr. Lieberman goes down, the thought enforcers of the left will target other centrists as if the center was the locus of a terrible heresy, an emphasis on national strength.
Of course, they can't touch Hillary, who lists rightward and then leftward so dexterously that she eludes positioning.
Not so, Mr. Lieberman.
He doesn't camouflage his opinions.
He doesn't play for safety, which is why he is now unsafe.
The Lamont ascendancy, if that's what it is, means nothing other than that the left is trying and in places succeeding to take back the Democratic Party.
Well, kudos to Mr. Peretz.
I have a lot of respect for him, but he's, what, about two years late with this conclusion?
Jesse Jacks, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters have stumped for Mr. Lamont.
As I say, we've been here before.
Ned Lamont is Karl Rove's dream come true.
If he and others of his stripe carry the day, the Democratic Party will lose the future and deservedly.
Martin Peretz, who was, by the way, one of Al Gore's number one staunch supporters, backers, financiers, contributors, advisors, plenty of good buddies.
Here is Lisa in Ackworth, Georgia.
Lisa, glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, how you doing, Mr. Woodball?
Good.
It is an honor to talk to you, first of all.
Thank you.
And I just wanted to ask you this question.
I want to get to the bottom of why they have to draw up resolution after resolution when they could just stick to the one resolution, 1559.
It was broken by this group.
It was never enforced.
It was never enforced to be broken.
What about the previous resolutions?
Name one that's been enforced.
Name one that's worked.
That's what I'm saying.
There's just no reason to...
Well, you're a gag.
Let me tell you...
Is that a dog barking in the background?
I'm sorry?
Is that a dog barking in the background?
I can't believe my.
Are you safe?
Yeah, I'm safe.
My dog just knew you were on the line.
What?
They just wanted to say hi.
I'm sorry.
Wait a second.
I love animals.
What's agitating the dogs?
Oh, this is so embarrassing.
I can't.
No, no, it's not.
It's what we call great radio.
What is the dog barking about?
They either saw a car come up the driveway or a squirrel or something, but they've been quiet this whole time, I swear.
I'm so sorry.
Don't be embarrassed about it.
We love it.
We love dogs here, and dogs do what they do.
They're like UN resolutions.
You can't shut them up.
I close the office door.
I really want to know why they just keep drafting resolution after resolution, and they're not.
Let me ask you, because I have explained this almost daily the past two weeks.
So I'm going to ask you a question here, Lisa.
How old are you?
Do you mind my answer?
I only want to know because I want to know how long you've been paying attention to these kinds of things.
I'm 40.
Okay.
Now, why do you think, despite all evidence, that none of these resolutions have ever brought peace, why do you think they keep coming up with them?
Answer your own question for me.
See if you can do it.
I knew you were going to ask me that.
One of the reasons is that the situations change.
So they feel like they have to put new things in there to help the current situation as opposed to the past situation.
All right.
Here's the answer, very briefly.
I guess that was wrong.
In each of these instances where a resolution has been called for, it always, mostly, mostly always, follows a ceasefire.
And the ceasefires are demanded when Israel is winning.
So the ceasefires are called for and set up to allow the enemy, which is in this case, Hezbollah or the Palestinians, whoever it is, to retreat and regroup and rearm.
And then they break the resolution, the ceasefire resolution, and come back with even stronger weapons.
Now, in this case, the administration, if there were somebody here for the administration answering your question, they would say, well, our resolution is different.
Our resolution is different in scope than any previous resolution because our resolution is not based on stability and security.
Our resolution is based on establishing a firm, sovereign Lebanese government which will enforce its borders, so forth, and so on.
And so they're telling themselves that the administration and France, whoever's a party to this, that this is a new resolution, that this is going to come up with sustainable peace, that this is not the same old, same old policy of the past.
But answering the question about why resolutions don't work, how about the 14 or 1560, whatever it was in Iraq after the first Gulf War, demanding Saddam get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, letting inspectors in to make sure he had done it.
And so none of them worked either.
It's because of where they come from, United Nations.
It's totally ineffective.
Nobody respects it.
They don't back up their own resolutions.
They don't have the ability to back them up.
And the people who write these resolutions are basically diplomats and think that the drafting and the negotiating and the voting and the passing of a resolution represents a tremendous, tremendous, tremendous achievement.
It's great work.
It shows that diplomats are strong and committed and thoughtful and compassionate and so forth.
It's like the war on poverty in this country or any other social program.
The results are irrelevant, especially if they fail.
I'm not supposed to examine those.
You're supposed to examine the intentions.
Because the intentions indicate the key to the heart of the good people who are writing them.
So in this case, we're supposed to praise the diplomats for once again, once again, stopping the violence and ending the suffering, which never happens.
And all the while, it becomes a joke to watch these people pat themselves on the back and tell themselves how great they are and how smart they are with a bunch of doofuses.
So this is insanity.
Repeating the same thing, the same thing, the same thing, hoping for a different result.
In this case, I think that the world community, as embodied by the United Nations, would love to see the Israelis be marched into the Mediterranean.
I think they would love to see the nation of Israel be totally consumed by its neighbors.
And I think these resolutions come about, as I said, when the Israelis are not cooperating, when they're winning, as is the case, I believe, now.
I'll say it again, there wouldn't be a call from anybody for one resolution or one ceasefire if the Hizbos were actually prevailing here.
Back in a second.
Well, well, well, lookie here.
Lookie here.
I have just been informed that the Washington Post yesterday ran a story as well about how if Lieberman loses and Lamont wins, why the Democrats are headed to the McGovernite branch of their party again.
It's by Dan Ball.
Still, many party moderates say they see worrisome parallels to what happened to the Democrats during Vietnam when they opposed an unpopular war, but paid a price politically for years after because of a perception the party was too dovish on national security.
It still is paying the price.
I, my friends, have been talking about the quote-unquote dangers of the Democratic Party going in the direction of McGovernism for over six months.
It's been a long time.
Once again, the mainstream media, drive-by media, after denying it left and right, it has now caught up with my analysis.
Another clear win for the EIB Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Look at this.
Look at this.
Brett Girl calls for immediate Iraq withdrawal.
Former vice presidential candidate, the Brett Girl, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president, said Saturday, the United States should start pulling troops out of Iraq immediately.
Well, clearly, the Brett girl has learned the lesson the wacky left has been trying to beat into Lieberman.
That is this.
Any support for the war on terror and the war on Iraq will have unfortunate consequences for Democrats.
Lieberman's being assaulted for nothing more than being a member to loyal opposition to the president.
That's why Hillary went after Rumsfeld last week.
It's why the Brett girl is calling for an immediate withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq.
The Brett girl is simply saying to the moveon.org crowd, hey, hey, notice me.
Notice me.
I'm here too.
Brett girl, I'm running too.
No, then I think we ought to get out of Iraq now.
That's all it is.
Who's next in this bridge?
James Muncie, Indiana.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi, Rush.
I really appreciate you taking my call.
You bet.
First of all, I just want to tell you that I'm a Democrat with a Democratic point of view, and I just had a question on the Lieberman situation, which doesn't pertain to me personally.
But my question is, why does it seem like you guys are pushing so hard for people to vote for Lieberman?
Because if he was such a great Democrat, I would think from a Republican point of view, you'd want to get rid of him, not to save him.
That's actually a very good question.
In other words, why wouldn't people sit around and let Lamont win this thing?
Yeah, I mean, I just can't, if it was the other way around, and it was George Bush, or whatever, and he was a really great...
That's the key.
Let me...
Let me tell you why.
Yeah.
And I want you to believe me because it's the truth.
Okay.
I believe this country, which I care about, and the United States Senate, would be a far worse place with Ned Lamont in it.
I care about the country.
Joe Lieberman, I've met him and I know him and I respect his position on the war.
I don't agree with him on a whole lot of things, but on things that really matter, like the survivability of our country, you give me Joe Lieberman over anybody in a Democrat coup blogosphere and their candidates any day.
The two commissioners, co-commissioners of the 9-11 Commission, Kane and Lee Hamilton, have written a book, a story about which enrages me as much as I ever get enraged.