All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 15, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:01
August 15, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings to you, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across the fruited plane Rush Limbaugh back in a saddle.
As they say, here at the EIB Southern Command, I am America's real anchor man, Doctor of Democracy, Truth Detector, General all-round good guy, harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
In the month of August, more popping in this, more popping around this August than I can remember in past August August's in years.
800 282-2882, if you would like to be on the uh program, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
We just had a guy call, and I want to go into this in a little greater detail.
A guy calls, say, hey, this is set up.
And I know folks, a lot of you think this way, um, and it's understandable why.
Uh well, this is just the first obvious step that everybody's always being chicanerous, uh, deceptive.
Yeah, we'll sign on to this deal, but what this will really allow us to do is let the other side kind of screw up so the world will see the other side screw up, and that will give us license to go out there and kick butt.
Uh, all well and good, except that's been the pattern here for the last 30 years in this region, even longer than that.
I mean, how do you go through a period of time where you got Yasser Arafat screwing everybody with the Oslo Accords or any of these other militant Islamic leaders?
What what more evidence and proof does anybody need here that resolutions are not abided by, that ceasefires are irrelevant?
What more is needed?
Now, if there, if there's anything more to this, uh, it is this.
It is that the side of right, the side of the good guys us thought this ain't going so hot, and we gotta shut it down.
And I think that may be one of the one of the factors here.
But let's just take what the guy said to call a very nice guy, don't misunderstand this.
Actually, very good call because it allows your host to shine.
Guy said, look at they're gonna come up with this uh resolution and they're gonna violate it, and they're gonna violate the ceasefire and so forth, and then that will allow everybody to see that the Israelis are being wronged, and the United States and the Brits and the Israelis can join forces and finally take it to Iran, where we know this stuff is all coming from.
Let me share with you again from Caroline Glick, who's really good on this stuff, I think.
She's uh columnist at the Jerusalem Post.
This is from August the 13th.
While this rev resolution, 17, whatever the hell it is, 1701, while the resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and so does not have the authority of law in practice, it makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hezbollah without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale.
Now, I know that though those are those are just words to you right now, but think about the way it was written, is the point.
It was written in such a way that it's impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hezbollah aggression.
And Kofi Annan sent the letter over the weekend to the Israelis, don't you dare respond, don't you dare, you know, you can defend yourself of something, but don't you dare mount a new offense, don't you dare do it.
So Kofi Annan is the general, if you will, in charge of all of this now.
That's why every picture you see of him, he's smiling and grinning from ear to ear, because he's El Commandante when it comes to all this.
So the resolution, even though it allows for the fact that the Hezbos might violate it to Israel, is got its hands tied in terms of how much it can do.
Now, this is the case, first of all, because the resolution places responsibility for determining compliance in the hands of Kofi Annan, who has distinguished himself as a man capable only of condemning Israel for its acts of self-defense while ignoring the fact that the it uh that in attacking Israel its enemies are guilty of war crimes.
By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that the Hezbols will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself.
The resolution makes absolutely no mention of either Syria or Iran, without whose support the Hezbos could neither exist nor wage an illegal war against Israel.
Uh and in in so ignoring Hezbollah's sponsors, it ignores the regional aspect of the current war and sends the message to these two states that they may continue to equip terrorist armies in Lebanon, the Palestinian authority in Iraq with the latest weaponry without paying a price for their aggression.
And that's that's what I mean when I say that everybody's making the mistake of just looking at this as an episodic event in a series of other episodic events.
The for some reason, the leaders of the Western world right now just don't have the will or the desire to go to the source of all these problems.
Hezbollah's just uh what do you want to call them?
Call them a pimple.
Uh call them an outgrowth.
Syria too, but Syria is a little bit more prominent because it's a state.
Although hell, the Hezbollah have essentially been proclaimed a state as it is, they're being negotiated with as a state, rather than as a terrorist organization.
So nobody wants to go after uh Iran right now.
Nobody wants to do it.
Uh and it's a question I've been asking.
Do you want to do it now?
Do you want to wait till they have nukes?
Or do you not want to do it at all?
And we'll just continue to look at things uh in an episodic uh context.
Also, the resolution uh presents the Hezbos with a clear diplomatic victory by placing their erroneous claim of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shaba farms or Mount Dove, that's a vast area on the Golan Heights that separates the Syrian Golan from the upper Galilee, it is disputed between Israel and Syria.
Uh it places that on the negotiating table, and in doing that, the resolution rewards the Hezbollah aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of uh aggression in contravention of the laws of nations.
Now, when you when you cut to the chase of this, there are a lot of sources in Washington who uh are saying, at least to Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, that the U.S. decision to seek a ceasefire was the result of Israel's amateurish bungling of the first three weeks of the war.
The Bush administration, they argued was being blamed for the Olmert government's incompetence, and so preferred to cut its losses and sue for a ceasefire.
There is no doubt much truth to this assertion, writes Ms. Glick.
The government's prosecution of this war has been unforgivably inept.
At the same time, it should be noted that the short-term political gain accrued by the U.S. by forging the ceasefire will come back to haunt the U.S. and Israel and all forces fighting the forces of global jihad in the coming weeks and months, because by handing a victory to the Hezbos,
the resolution strengthens the belief of millions of supporters of jihad throughout the world that their side is winning and that they should redouble efforts to achieve their objectives of destroying Israel and running the U.S. out of the Middle East.
And uh that's that kind of sums it up for me in a nutshell as to what this outcome uh signifies.
Call it a loss, whatever you want victory.
I mean, some people are going to spin this as a victory, some people will pr will portray it as the uh as the loss that it is.
But you know how momentum is, and you know how attitude is, and the the the more positive your attitude, the more energetic your pursuit of your objective is going to be.
Uh and clearly that is on the side of the uh of the jihadists right now.
Uh because it uh if if if you know the the problem with Olmert, he may be a nice guy, but he's not a general, he's a lawyer, he's a lib, and he doesn't come from the uh great generations of previous Israeli prime ministers who um led the country into battle.
Uh but it's not, you know, it's not entirely his fault.
I'll I'll show you this.
I went to Israel in 1993 and I met a bunch of people I met with the Yitzhak Rabin at the time.
The Oslo Accords are being negotiated, and nobody knew that that was happening.
Except it was it was known that they were negotiating for peace.
I mean, it was every this has been going on my whole life.
Uh and uh in the pre-before 1993, before the early 90s, the Israelis had always been very reluctant uh about negotiating with these people, and Rabin was the first uh to actually seem to welcome it and think that it held promise.
And I asked him why.
I haven't heard any change uh from the mouths of your enemies.
I haven't heard them renounce their desire to march Israel into the Mediterranean and to exterminate all Jews from this region.
I haven't heard any change.
What's what's different?
I said, is it generational?
Is it you you're just your grandfather?
You don't want your your grandkids to grow up with their whole lives being spent at war.
He denied that, said it was just time.
Uh it was there that there was a legitimate opportunity here for peace and so forth.
And keep in mind this is 13 years ago.
And it gave us the Oslo Accords.
I never I actually do think it's generational.
I think I think part of it is generational.
Uh you can't possibly enjoy this.
It's a human being.
You can't enjoy your whole life being spent at war surrounded by people who want to wipe you out.
You just can't enjoy that.
And you can't want that for your kids.
And you can't want it for your grandkids.
What you want to do is you know, eliminate the threat.
And that's what gives you peace.
That's what's so puzzling about this.
But hey, Israel has its share of libs, folks, and they elected one, uh Ehud Olbert, and this is what you get.
There's a little microcosm here of uh what you're gonna get.
You're gonna get incompetence, lack of certitude, uh lack of planning, handcuffing the military, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, liberals are liberals, and there are lessons every day when you watch and observe them.
Hi, welcome back, folks, serving humanity, El Rushbo, simply by showing up.
One more one more aspect of our previous call, we'll get to some more calls.
The guy said, Well, once we have uh the ceasefire violated, once the Hisbos hit the Israelis, then us, and then the Brits, and then uh Europeans will uh join forces to go out and get uh Iran.
Can I give you a sobering thought, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to the Europeans and the Brits joining forces with us against Iran?
What do you think the birth rate of Muslims in Europe is and in Great Britain versus Europeans and the British?
It's a little uh it's it's it's it's I think it is two or three to one uh plus you count the immigration.
Uh who in Europe is exactly going to be our friends uh when it comes time to go after Iran.
The uh the arithmetic is pretty simple.
Two times two is four, eight times eight sixty-four, it becomes a geometric progression.
The birth rate of Europeans versus Muslims in European countries uh leads to uh substantial voting blocks and militia blocks in European nations.
Uh I I've j I just wouldn't the longer this goes, I wouldn't I wouldn't count on the uh the historical uh population construct of Europe and uh and the UK being what you think it is.
And then this, this from the New York Times today, uh the number of immigrants living in American households rose sixteen percent over the last five years, fueled by uh largely recent arrivals from Mexico.
This, according to fresh data released by the Census Bureau, and increasingly immigrants are bypassing the traditional gateway states like California and New York and settling directly in parts of the country that until recently saw little such activity, regions like the upper Midwest, New England, and the Rocky Mountain states.
Uh it's an incredible number.
What is the percentage?
Uh-huh, blah blah.
I have to find I did this is a huge the percentage increase is uh is stunning here.
Here's uh Mike in Oklahoma City, your next sir on the EIB network high.
Good afternoon, Russ.
How are you doing?
Yeah, I'm just great, sir.
Thank you.
Well, let me preface this by saying I'm a Democrat.
I don't agree with you 90% of the time, but on the war, man, you got it right on.
In fact, I'll say you don't go far enough to the right because I'm a Christian.
To me, this is a crusade.
These people want to kill me because I'm a Christian.
They want to kill Jews because they're Jews, and they want to kill Muslims because they live among us and they don't and they tolerate us.
And what I think we need to do is, you know, we do need to take the army out of Iraq, but we need to point it east and uh headed towards Iran.
And we need to do it right now because I'm not gonna wait until we have a nuke in Iranian hands.
Do you think we should?
Uh well, no.
I know you don't read uh I don't think we should wait till Iran has nukes, but people like you generally say, uh who what business is it of ours whether Iran has nukes?
What is it?
How can you how can you be this uh this uh uh uh as your friends would say bloodthirsty uh on on this?
How can you be such a conservative on this and and on ninety percent of the other things you hear us discuss here, you totally disagree.
This is that's that's a huge, huge gap you have there.
Well I mean, I'm not being critical of it, I'm just curious.
Rush, I like to uh I look to I like to look at history and I see two periods where this has played out before.
Uh of course World War Two, where it's which we're you know, we're in about nineteen thirty or eight eight or nine right now, as far as the peace process goes.
And then you have to go back to eleven eighty seven to uh see another period, which is the time that the Christians lost the uh lost Jerusalem to the Muslims.
And Salah Hadeen, the leader of the uh Saracens at the time was very, very good at uniting the Muslim world against a common enemy.
And that's what's happened again under Iran, and you know, I just don't think we can stand by while they make plans to wipe us off the face of the earth.
Do you think we're safer or not?
I since nine eleven opinion.
I honestly I don't think we're much safer, but uh, you know, I'll I'll go through the security checkpoints and uh be patient because it it might take a little time, but if we are safer, then it's worth it.
You know what I mean?
I do.
All right.
Well, look, I appreciate the call out there, Mike.
Thanks uh thanks much.
Sacramento, my adopted hometown.
Mark, you're next.
Hello.
Mega samplified Ditto's rush.
Um you were talking about the population explosion of Muslims in Europe.
And uh we're not fighting any nation.
As you said, it's a uh religious war, and they've got these madrasas all over the world.
And uh I argue, like you said, that we're gonna uh this is gonna be an intergenerational war, several generations, and they're pumping out these fundamentalist kids from the age of four to twelve out of these madrasas that they're building at the site of the twenty twelve Olympics and everywhere else, as fast as Chavez is gonna be pumping out Kalishnikovs.
Uh well, the the i that's another thing too.
We haven't even discussed about uh uh our own our own hemisphere and uh Hugo Chavez.
I mean, we are we're a great nation at risk in a dangerous world.
There is no question about it.
Uh and and uh I keep overusing the phrase, and maybe I'm overusing it.
Certainly keep using the phrase that too many people just look at all this as a series of episodes.
Um and they just it's part of what life is got to be now, where it's gotten so complicated and so diverse that you got expecting a bunch of knuckleheads out there now now and again to try to start wars and cause uh trouble.
Um the idea that this is um uh random or episodic and and not part of an overall plan.
Um it could be both, just to s satisfy some of you may be doubting Thomas.
Let's take a look at the London attempt.
Yeah, there's a British citizens.
Those young men were British citizens.
I mean, they're born there.
And uh they're of Pakistani descent.
Yeah, yeah, they may have been acting on their own.
They may not have had any marching orders per se from wherever, but they have been inspired.
They have been motivated, they went out and learned what it took.
They and they may be may have been training.
Some of 'em did train in Afghanistan, is what some of the intelligence that they have announced is.
But w even so, you you don't have to have everything being ordered from headquarters, if you will, for there to be linkage.
All you need these these people are being inspired and motivated uh from the earliest time in their lives.
They're being taught to hate and so forth.
And uh the the they could be renegade mobs, all oriented toward the same thing.
Uh, and it's being motivated and inspired by religion, and that's what people don't want to face.
That's that's hard, folks.
We're back in a second.
Here, ladies and gentlemen, make the complex, understandable.
Back to your phone calls in just a minute.
Here's the number I was looking for a moment ago.
Immigrants have continued a surge in the metropolitan New York since 2000, according to census figures released today, and that increase, combined with high birth rates, has elevated, and this is unbelievable to me, but this is this is this is the story, has elevated the foreign born and their children in New York City itself to fully 60% of the population.
The rate of change was even more pronounced in the 24 suburban counties around the city, where a record 20% of the residents are now born abroad.
These figures, while showing the city's gains from immigration were not nearly as marked as they were in the 90s, and nonetheless striking in their detail and their magnitude.
Do you believe that, snurtly, that that sixty percent of the New York city population is now foreign born and their children?
Man.
Man, oh man, oh man, that's that's uh well, all right.
Just put that in the hopper then when you start figuring out who our friends are gonna be uh when it when it's time to take action against the uh the bad guys.
Apparently Dick Cheney really ticked them off.
This was so funny, folks.
This was absolutely fabulous.
Dick Cheney, apparently uh Wednesday, uh, was asked, what about Lamont's victory?
By the way, I'm gonna I'm gonna change Lamont's name on this program from now on.
He is Ned Lament, because the Democrats are going to end up lamenting Ned Lament.
They're gonna that Ned Lament has now locked them into a total anti-war position.
Now they're gonna have to run around and act like we're not safe and we're not secure because of a thwarted terrorist strike in London at Heathrow Airport.
It was a great event.
It was a successful event.
And what do the Democrats do?
Try to turn it around and say, well, Bush hasn't made anybody safer.
Well, this is horrible.
We stopped it, working with the Brits, it was stopped.
How in the world I watched on television I was just stunned the way this is portrayed, almost as though the attack had happened.
The long faces of the drive by media reporters.
And the interviews with inconvenienced passengers crying over the fact that they'd lost their bottles of water.
And were standing in line for as much as three to four hours.
And it was all Bush's fault, because it was almost like we'd had a hit.
And then the Democrats run out and say, our security needs beefing up.
I Bush hasn't made anybody safer.
These are the guys that stood in the way of it all along.
These are the anti-war guys.
Here we have on the face of the Hesbo-Israeli war.
And the Democrats run out there and they elect Ned Lament in the state of Connecticut.
And the very next day we get a terrorist.
Two days later we get a thwarted terrorist attack in London.
And so somebody asked Cheney, what do you think of the election?
He said it ought to please the Al-Qaeda types.
Well, the Democrats are fit to be tried.
Todd, Robert Cuttner.
Writing in the Boston Globe is uh Cutner's one of these guys that started and is ahead honcho at the very, very lib website, The American Prospect.
Dick Cheney was certainly far-sighted when he declared Wednesday that Ned Lament's victory over Joe Lieberman would comfort Al-Qaeda types.
Voila.
One day later, Al-Qaeda was revealed as plotting to bring down ten planes.
I thought that was a nice parody line until I picked up yesterday's Wall Street Journal there.
Editorial page writer Daniel Henninger in a column headed Democrats knife Lieberman on Eve of Airliner plot goes beyond parody.
Heninger writes, getting on a U.S. airliner, would you rather have uh in the Senate formulating policy towards this threat, Ned Lament or Joe Lieberman?
We'll face this storyline between now and the November election and beyond, writes Cutner.
As the terror threat rises, you can't trust critics of the Bush administration to keep America safe.
The war in Iraq, the nuclear designs of Iran, Hezbollah's rocketing of Israel, now diabolical tactics by Al Qaeda, and the general ideological and military menace of militant Islam is Islamists are all jumbled into a single all-purpose word, war on terror.
And if you're against the Bush strategy, you are, of course, with the terrorists.
Bipartisan Democrats like Lieberman, who helped President Bush are good guys.
Those who question Bush's strategy help our enemies and make America less safe.
The November elections and the future of our security will depend on whether Americans see through this Blarney.
If the right succeeds in persuading voters that this is all one undifferentiated mess requiring Bush-style bravado, America is in even deeper trouble.
See, right there it is.
This is a classic.
This guy's considered to be a brilliant theoretician, a brilliant economist.
He's a he's an egghead.
He's an elitist.
He's at the upper crust of liberalism and thinking.
And even he looks at this as all episodic.
That is that these are totally un unrelated.
And he writes war on terror here as one word, war on terror.
As though it's a misnomer, as though it's a creation of the Bush administration.
And yet these guys are the ones going to run around now saying we're not as safe.
We're not secure.
And it won't be hard.
We have the archives.
It won't be hard to go back and produce their words on tape.
Won't be hard to listen to them beat up their own country when it comes to Abu Ghrab or Club Gitmo.
It won't be hard to produce evidence that they want to reward the terrorists of the war on terror with constitutional rights in the United States Constitution.
They want to give them lawyers.
They want to make it hard to track them down.
They try to they try to uh stop the NSA spy program or the what have you, um they think they can pull this off.
Right now they don't matter much to me because I think these guys the the the lament election was just classic.
It's been happening to these guys since 2001.
I'll give you the first instance of it.
The first instance, after 9-11, we're all unified.
The country has linked arms.
We are at one.
We're going to solve this problem.
We're going to find out who did this, and we're going to get them.
Well, a week went by and Bush hadn't done anything.
So the Democrats, eager to score political points, decided on a Friday or Saturday to release a statement on Sunday saying that they demand action.
The Bush administration is lagging, hasn't done diddly squat.
The Bush administration is paralyzed.
We've got to get going.
What are we waiting on?
Within about five seconds of their statement being released, they get called up to the White House, and Bush said, Our offensive has begun in Afghanistan.
We're going to be announcing this in a short period of time.
So Democrats put out their statement, lamb-based Bush as an effectiveness do nothing whatever.
And within minutes of their statement coming out, uh the news hits that we're pounding Torabora in Afghanistan.
So what do they do?
You know, they they see a door and they can't wait to get through it.
They open it too fast, right into their nose.
So they elect Ned Lament last Tuesday night, and lament's out there doing his acceptance speech.
And it's it's it's solidifying a Democrat see no war.
Anti-war.
This is what you must do, Democrats.
There's no reason for the war on terror.
There's no reason for Iraq, no reason for this bamboo two days later, the London terror event takes place.
And of course, Heninger's right.
You're going to get on an airplane today.
What kind of people do you want making a policy dealing with the war on terror?
Some ineffective guy who's never done what he's going to try to do, Ned Lament.
By the way, Ned Lament, you know, you've heard he's a wealthy uh broadcast tycoon.
Let me ask you a question.
Just have you have you heard that?
All right, what what?
Yeah, he's he's a tree as a trust funder, but Craig, let me ask you a question there.
one of my chief broadcast executives is here, uh, spying on the operation today.
Have you you you know media tycoons?
Have you you don't need have you ever heard of Ned Lamont?
Okay.
One of the most powerful broadcasters in America is in the studio, the other side of the glass.
Has never heard of this guy lament.
Yet he's some big media tycoon.
Now, I think what I what I what I have heard, what I have somebody some people from Connecticut told me this, that he's a John Kerry.
That it is his wife who has the books.
Uh ha.
Uh you've read the propaganda.
Build build up his country.
Yeah, right.
Yeah, build up the company, his own little hands pull the cable himself.
Whose seed money was it?
That's all I'm saying.
And I that's all the people up there telling me.
Now I know Connecticut people, some are so screwed up you can't believe what they tell you because they're so depressed up there.
But that's um that's that's that's that's what I've heard.
Uh here's a little story there from the independent this I just want to share this with you.
Two days ago.
UK independent.
Target Britain.
Wave of attacks plans, say investigators.
Terrorists in the UK still possess huge arsenals of bombs and weapons.
Country remains under very severe threat.
Security sources warn.
Now, obviously, ladies and gentlemen, to liberals, and let me speak to you, liberals in the audience.
I know you're there.
This is all nonsense.
And nobody out there that hates us or wants to kill.
Well, they hate Bush.
But th th this is just overblown.
This threat, all these terror threats, we know these are just manufactured.
This is a this is a Rove plot.
This is a Karl Rove plot to deflect criticism away from Bush and his lap dog Blair about the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
And now look what they've done.
All these fine young Muslim men in London.
Nobody's got any proof.
We haven't seen any evidence.
All we've told was these guys have been rounded up and they plan to blow up airplanes uh in midair, and that they're Muslims and so forth.
But do we really know this is whole we this whole thing was staged.
This whole thing staged by Bush and Rove in a cooperation with Blair to show everybody just how serious the circumstances we're in are when they're really not serious at all, just to d detract everybody's attention.
Uh distract everybody's attention from Iraq.
Uh it's it's just easy to figure out how the Libs are thinking on this.
Simple as uh as pie.
Uh uh who has weapons of mass destruction.
Well well, they do.
Uh that that uh the uh people that have uh weapons of mass destruction are the terrorists.
Uh that well that that's that's that's that's what this little story that I just what are you doubting what it this is.
They still contain huge arsenal of bombs and weapons.
I didn't say mass destruction.
Uh country remains under very severe threat.
Security sources warn.
This is what MI5 is saying.
But I didn't say anything about weapons of mass destruction.
Well, well, maybe a bomb on an airplane would be a weapon of mass destruction, but uh that that's that's not everybody knows that's what we're talking about.
We're talking about weapons of mass like chemicals and uh uh neurological and uh you know uh nukes.
Uh this this this kind of thing.
But you're right, a bomb on board uh a jumbo jet, 300 people on it, you consider that a weapon of mass destruction, but actually it wouldn't be, it would be the airplane that's the weapon because it just stopped flying.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
And the Democrats out there say, Republicans, hey, ought to not politics to play politics with this uh London terrorist event.
They ought to not do that.
Amazing coming from the people that look at everything that happens in this world through a political prison.
Let's go to Good Morning America yesterday.
Reporter Jake Tapper interviewing former President Derschlikmeister.
Uh uh Tapper reports Clinton said the GOP is hoping to use the London terror arrests to score political points.
I don't think the falling that London bomb plot has any bearing on our Iraq policy.
They seem to be anxious to tie it to Al Qaeda.
That's true.
How come we got seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan?
Why has the the administration of the congressional leadership consistently opposed adequate checks on cargo containers at ports and airports?
I think the Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics with this London airport thing.
Because they're going to have a hard time with the facts.
This is a guy who tried to politicize the Oklahoma City bombing right out of the box, trying to blame talk radio for it, trying to blame anti-government rhetoric in the United States.
His own party politicizes virtually everything that happens.
He's going to say, I think Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics because they have a hard time with the facts.
When I hear Democrats warn Republicans, hey, don't go there.
It might be pretty dangerous.
If the truth be told, and Clinton did have facts on his side about this, he'd be urging the Republicans on.
Hey, you guys ought to go politicize this.
Just like we are urging the Ned Laments of the world and the move on.org's and all keep it up.
We want to hear more from you.
We love the anti-war movement on the left.
Let's hear from it.
Let's find out who among the Democrats are members.
Elected officials and not.
Now, Joe Lieberman, if you're listening, I want to give you an example here of who your friends are.
Jake Tapper said Joe Lieberman said that that was basically liberals in the party purging moderates such as him and you out of the party, and there needs to be a voice for more moderate national security voices.
There were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was I want to attack Iraq, whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.
His position was the Bush Cheney Runswell position.
I think it's important for the Democrats not to let Iraq be the dividing line for our party.
Because whether you were for it or against it, no Democrats responsible for the mistakes in judgment which have been made almost constantly since Saddam was overthrown.
Back to this weapons of mass destruction thing that Clinton kept warning everybody about himself back in 1998 and didn't do anything about.
Just like Jimmy Carter gave us a bunch of messes to clean up, so has Bill Clinton.
And people are doing their best to clean them up.
One more.
This is interesting, too.
This happened on CNN Headline News.
Their anchor, Chuck Roberts.
And he was talking to the senior editor of the Hotline, John Mercurio.
How does this factor into the Lieberman Lamont contest in Connecticut?
And might some argue, as some have, that Lamont is the Al Qaeda candidate.
CNN headline news might some argue that Lament is the Al Qaeda candidate.
So it wasn't just Cheney, it was uh Chuck Roberts slip of the tongue.
Anybody seen him lately on uh on headline news?
Just curious.
We worry about uh the security of every American, uh particularly journalists, uh drive-by journalists who somehow slip over the uh over the line.
Uh I think you know, Clinton ought to ought to share that advice he gave to Joe Lieberman with his wife, because I think his wife did the same thing Lieberman did.
Wife voted for the war in Iraq, still hasn't renounced the uh vote.
Um, she didn't wait to jump out there for lament.
But the the fact of the matter is that what really ought to be asked here is uh President Clinton, why why is it that virtually every candidate you endorse gets creamed?
I know I say it all the time, it's as fast as two hours in the media, but damn, we've only got only got one hour to go here, folks.
And as usual, it'll fly by too as we make the most of it.
▲
Export Selection