All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 16, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
August 16, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, we've got the David Rodham Gergenbite.
We've got it all here, folks.
I know this program may sound like a bunch of satire to you today, but I assure you, everything I'm telling you is for real.
And it's only going to get better.
Greetings and welcome.
Rush Limbaugh back at you, EIB Network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You want to be on the program today?
The telephone number to call 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think the Hezbollahs have learned a great deal from the American left.
The Hezbollahs have created their own little welfare state inside of Lebanon, and now all these Lebanese people are totally dependent on them.
And the New York Times, this story, the headline I shared with you just before the conclusion of the previous hour.
If you stop and think about it, during the war itself, all we heard about was civilians, this, civilian, civilians, civilians, and civilians, and civilians and civilian casualties.
The New York Times today cannot stop using the word Hezbollah throughout its story.
Hezbollah leads work to rebuild, gaining stature.
While the Israelis began their withdrawal, hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon, began cleaning, organizing, and surveying the damage.
Men on bulldozers are busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble.
Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now just a day after the ceasefire began fully passable.
In Saraifa, a Hezbollah official said that the group would offer an initial $10,000 to residents to help pay for the year of rent, to buy new furniture, to help feed families.
In another town, a town of fighting so heavy that large chunks were missing from walls and buildings where they had been sprayed with bullets, the Audi family stood with two Hezbollah volunteers looking woefully at their windowless, bullet and shrapnel-torn house.
In Bint Jabale, Hezbollah ambulances, large new cars with flashing lights on the top, ferried bodies of fighters to graves out of mountains of rubble.
The Hezbollah reputation as an efficient grassroots social service network, as opposed to the Lebanese government, regarded by many here as sleek men in suits doing well, was in evidence everywhere.
Hezbollah's reputation as an efficient grassroots social service network, in evidence everywhere.
Young men with walkie-talkies and clipboards were in the battered Shiite neighborhoods on the southern edge of Bint Jabale, taking notes on the extent of the damage.
Oh, what a great, great bunch of guys, ladies and gentlemen.
I guarantee you that every bit of this money and every ambulance and every morsel of relief is coming from Iran through Syria and perhaps other places too.
The Hezbollahs don't have the means to do this on their own.
And yet the New York Times just loves them.
But the, no, no stories about the buildings damaged in Israel by the 3,500 rockets that were launched in there.
No, no, no, no.
Haven't seen any of that.
Not in the New York Times anyway.
No.
All we're learning is what a great bunch of guys at Hezbollahs are.
And it's very obvious, folks.
They've learned from the American left.
They've been studying American liberals.
They've set up this welfare state within a state.
And all these people depend totally on them.
Let's go to the audio soundbite, CNN International News.
The anchor Hala Ghourani, interviewing David Rodham Gergen from Harvard, Hala Gharani, the anchorette, says, you see, you see, they're already the disagreement, the ceasefire agreement's not even been implemented, and interpretations appear to be very different there, David Gergen.
Well, they certainly do, and I think this is a major, major stumbling block.
There has to be a way forward for at least a disarmament of Hezbollah that makes Israel feel secure and safe from yet another attack.
And absent that, I think it's going to be very difficult to get a United Nations force to go in.
France has made it pretty clear that it was looking to the Lebanese government to do this, and the Lebanese government is basically saying we're not doing this.
Well, whoever thought they would look at Secretary Rice explained all this today in USA Today, where they're going to voluntarily disarm.
And if they don't, then we get really tough, folks.
Then we call them names.
Yep.
Then we're going to make sure the world refers to the Hezbo's as terrorists.
That's our ace in the hole.
That's what we're going to pull out.
That's our Trump card.
And of course, the Hezbollahs actually love that.
More of the surreal.
More Twilight Zone today.
British bomb plot discovered through torture.
According to the Guardian newspaper in the UK, the information that led to the breaking of last week's plot to destroy 10 or so airliners was procured in Pakistan by torture.
Paper says in an editorial: At what point do actions abroad pollute British justice, even if in the short term they may protect British security?
Reports in Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country, and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here in the UK.
In particular, Rashid Ruff, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance.
Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had broken under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights groups.
The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken.
I don't deduce I know.
Torture, she said.
There is simply no doubt about that.
No doubt about it at all.
So the Brits, the Brits left wing over there wringing their hands.
Oh, no.
Did we use torture to foil this plot?
No, say it isn't so.
Yeah, I thought torture never worked anyway.
I thought it...
I thought it didn't work.
Okay, and then there's this in the Los Angeles Times today by Peter Spiegel, seeking to counter the White House's depiction of its Middle East policies as crucial to the prevention of terrorist attacks here at home.
21 former generals, diplomats, and national security officials will release an open letter tomorrow arguing that the administration's hard line has actually undermined U.S. security.
The letter comes as President Bush has made a series of appearances and statements, including a visit Tuesday to the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia, McLean, Virginia, seeking to promote the administration's record on security issues in advance of the midterm congressional elections.
Retired Army Lieutenant General Robert Gard, one of the letters' signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in the 60s, Said the group was particularly concerned about Bush administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.
Guard said the signatories who include the retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoare, head of U.S. Central Command from 91 to 94, and Morton Halperin, a senior State Department, a National Security Council official during the Clinton administration.
Morton Halperin.
If Morton Halperin signed this, that's all we need to know.
Well, we didn't even need to know he was on it to know what this is.
They don't believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build nuclear weapons in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue.
It's not a crisis, Guard said in a phone interview.
To call the Iranian situation a crisis connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them.
This administration is clearly still beholden to Israel.
It raises the concern that we might go along with a military strike, Guard said.
That's why I said that the voices of defeat and pessimism are all over the place, and they are being amplified.
And you can chalk this up to a whole bunch of things, but you cannot take out of the equation that one of the primary motivating factors for those on the left is just pure Bush hatred.
I guarantee you, if world events today were identical, everything going on was the same except Bill Clinton or John Kerry were president, we wouldn't be hearing any of this from any of these groups on the left.
None of this defeatism, none of this pessimism, none of this attempt to undermine the administration and its foreign policy at all.
I got to take a quick break.
We'll get to your phone calls after this.
We got a lot of other stuff in a stack of stuff.
Ned Lament is lamenting today a couple things, particularly something his campaign chief, whatever, said about Waterbury, Connecticut.
It's funny out there.
I mean, this whole day, folks, is just, it's a time capsule day.
I'm just telling you, it is.
It's a time capsule archival day.
Quick timeout.
Back with more here in just a second.
All right, friends, I have an idea.
After reading the New York Times story on what a great rebuilding job Hezbollah is doing in southern Lebanon, all those ambulances, $10,000, $10,000 to every family.
Hell, we only gave people in New Orleans a couple grand on a credit card.
You can't have a great vacation and a couple grand.
Well, you might be $10,000 to be even better.
I think what we ought to do, and to show our willingness to reach out and show that we can all become just one family here on planet Mother Earth, we ought to send a boat over there and get a bunch of Hezbollahs and bring them to New Orleans and put them to work starting the rebuilding New Orleans.
If they're so good, I mean, look at, they've almost got roads rebuilt already.
It's just been two days.
Three days for it.
The roads are rebuilt.
Apartment buildings are going up.
New York Times just says it's incredible to watch all these Hezbollah ambulances all over the place.
Hell, these guys are better than FEMA.
We need to bring them over to New Orleans.
The only problem that we might have here, I think, is that the Hezbollahs might object to the high crime rate there.
We'd have to, you know, maybe give them some bodyguards while they go about the business of rebuilding New Orleans.
But hell, I mean, it's worth looking into.
And put them on retainer.
Anytime there's a disaster, tornado, hurricane, even a terrorist attack.
Let's say the next Al-Qaeda hit, bring the Hezbos over here to rebuild a damage.
This is why I need to be in a position of power, ladies and gentlemen, because I, I cut to the quick and I get to the solutions here.
We don't just moan about things.
And the Hezbos clearly are revolutionary and cutting edge when it comes to rebuilding devastated, bombed-out, war-torn areas.
Chris in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Airborne Dittos, Rush, first-time caller.
Really excited to talk to you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Hey, I just want to talk to you about this foreign force.
It's going to be looked at as an occupying force, just like any other, by the locals.
The terrorists are going to key on that.
We have taken an assaulting force that was destroying terrorists, replaced it with the static force, and created a target-rich environment for the terrorists with their IEDs and BBCs.
Wait just a second here, though.
There's something you're not remembering, Chris, because in this resolution, this force has the power and the authority to fight back, even though they're the French and will likely surrender first.
They have the authority to fight back.
They're not going to sit there and take that kind of stuff.
Rush, I've been in both theaters, both Afghanistan and Iraq, and you can't fight back against isolated terrorist attacks of IED, BBIDs.
The solution that we're using in Iraq to reestablish a government, get a force on the ground that internally will control those type of things is the right way to go.
But to just stick a force in the middle of a situation is liking it to putting a cupcake by an ant hill.
And the cupcake will not destroy the ants.
It will just draw them.
A cupcake by an anthill.
Gee, that is a great, great analogy.
Can I tell you the truth here, Chris?
Sure.
You want to know the truth.
The truth is this stupid force is never going to get there.
Probably not.
It's not going to get there.
Nobody's going to go in there until the Hezbo's disarm.
forgot about that, the resolution.
This is a UN force The UN force, probably what will happen more than anything else is rape.
If they do go in there, rape and pillaging of innocent Lebanese.
Well, that's what happened in Africa when a UN force, when a peacekeeping force went in there.
These little cool blue helmets go in there, and they have all this power.
But they're never going to get there.
I will predict to you right now this force will never get there.
And I predict to you right now the Lebanese government will not come up with a solution and a way to get their 15,000 troops down there.
Yeah, Rush, when those guys look at the mission and what they're putting themselves in for, no competent commander is going to look at this and go, hey, what a great deal.
I can't wait to go in there and restore the peace.
It's a very, very dangerous situation for anybody that goes on the ground.
Well, you're being very serious about this, and I understand.
For me today, it's tough to take any of this seriously because it's unbelievable.
Can't believe that reasonable, smart people crafted this whole thing.
And now the same people that crafted it are wringing their hands, oh, we've got a stumbling block.
We've got to find a way to move forward and so forth.
Their way never works.
It never has worked.
They glom on to all this hope, and that's all.
And then people like you hit us upside the head with the reality of these kinds of situations, which we know instinctively anyway.
But I just bet you that this UN force doesn't get in there.
And if it does, if it does get in there, the problems will begin immediately because the Hezbos are going to be able to get away with committing acts against the UN force, and Kofi's not going to condemn them.
They'll find a way to blame it on Israel or something like that if the situation that you described actually occurs.
But I suspect what's going to happen here is that in another week or so, the Hezbolls will have rebuilt all of Beirut.
And the United Nations say, you know, we don't need a force in it.
We got lasting peace.
We've got the whole, Beirut's been rebuilt.
All those roads and bridges have been rebuilt.
This has happened in a week.
And they'll decide there's no need for a peacekeeping force in there because, why, this is peace.
Something along these lines is going to happen.
I'll be stunned if this force from the United Nations, led by the French, ever gets there in the first place.
Rich, Charlotte, North Carolina, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Yes.
Hi, Rush.
I want to go back to something you spoke about earlier in the program about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the mayor.
I don't know if he's the mayor of L.A. or somewhere in California.
They spoke to a Muslim Arab group and, well rather, I apologize.
They spoke to an Israeli Jewish community, but they sort of snubbed the Muslim community, and they were somewhat outraged and so forth.
And I just wanted to weigh in with that, saying that they should have paid homage to Baltimore instead of just paying homage to Israel.
Had the shoe been on the other foot, certainly all the Jews and the media and so forth would have been up in arms that Schwarzenegger and these officials went to the Muslims as opposed to the Israelis.
Rich, you can't be serious.
I'm sorry.
You can't be serious.
Oh, I'm very serious.
You can't be serious.
On one hand, you've got the Israelis, an ally of the United States.
On the other hand, you have a terrorist group that has killed Americans, killed 281 Marines in 1983, has been responsible for a lot of hijacking, has killed a number of Israelis.
It's a war.
There's no moral equivalence.
There is a good guys, and they're the bad guys.
The Hezbollah are the bad guys.
And I find it interesting that a mainstream Muslim group would get mad at Schwarzenegger for not having the intelligence here to say, well, we hope both sides do well.
We wish them the best here and so forth.
Where's this coming?
Where's this inability to see right from wrong, evil from good, and choose up the right side?
Well, I would ask you that.
First of all, who started terrorism or who were big proponents of it?
Was not Mahaken Begin and Sharon and most of these prime ministers of Israel?
Weren't they the first people that developed this whole concept of terrorism?
The Arabs?
No.
No, you're on the right track here.
In terms of saying who started terrorism, it'd be Moshe Dayan and Begin and these guys.
But that's not true.
The original terrorists, and I know you'll appreciate this.
The original terrorists were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
If it hadn't been for those guys, none of this would be going on because there wouldn't be an America.
There wouldn't be a land of the free and the home of the brave and the wealthiest country on earth, and we wouldn't have any enemies.
If you really want to start the blame in the right place, you've got to go back to the founding of the country.
I've been thinking even more about this Hezbo business and their relief efforts.
I say that we just replace the Red Cross with Hezbollah.
I mean, the Red Cross doesn't do half the job that the Hezbollahs have done already in just a matter of, it's less than a week in rebuilding southern Lebanon.
Well, I mean, if you read the New York Times story today, it is absolutely amazing what these guys are able to accomplish in such a short period of time.
Apparently, there's no bureaucracy involved at all.
They just get in there and they get it done.
Roads have been rebuilt.
Schools are up and running.
Ambulances are running.
Guys are amazing.
They'll have work to do in Cuba soon, too, before it's all over.
To the audio sound bites, ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats are trying the same thing on terror that they tried on the economy and that worked for Clinton in 1992.
Forget the facts.
Forget the facts.
It's ask people, how do you feel?
Back in 1992, the economy was not bad, but the Clintonoids out there saying it was the worst economy in the last 50 years.
People out there thought it couldn't get any worse.
They were doing okay, but the neighbor was suffering and they thought the neighbor was suffering.
We haven't been attacked since 9-11, but you people, you people should not feel very safe or even safer.
Here is a montage.
Dana Bash at CNN, Congressman or Senator Carl Levin, Democrat Michigan, Jaden Skinner at Fox News, Brown University's Wendy Schiller, Nora O'Donnell, PMSNBC, and Charlie Wrangel, among others.
Oh, and David Rodham Gergen from Harvard, also in this montage.
The Democratic Campaign Committee released this bumper sticker line.
Feel safer, vote for change.
These claims that we are safer now just don't resonate because the American public, they don't feel safer.
Do you feel safer?
If you don't, vote for change.
They can't keep saying we're safer.
We're experiencing things that make us believe that we're not safer.
Americans don't feel safer.
Most Americans don't feel any safer.
How to make them feel safe?
They're a heck of a lot more terrorists than there used to be, and we don't feel safe.
Well, Mr. Gergen, we just need more resolutions, more ceasefires.
I keep asking, why don't we just have a ceasefire in Iraq?
If it's the way to go in southern Lebanon, why not Iraq?
There's a lot of suffering there, a lot of bombing going on.
Let's have a ceasefire.
Let's do a resolution.
Let's make these insurgents back out.
See how good they are at rebuilding the places they've destroyed.
So the campaign is on.
You don't feel safer.
And of course, the people that are articulating this are people who've not done one thing to enhance anybody's safety when it comes to national security.
They're out trying to undermine every effort that we make to ensure and increase our continued safety.
The NSA spy program is just one example.
Dick Cheney kept the pressure on the Democrats.
He was in Arizona yesterday to fundraiser for the Arizona Republican Party.
Here's a portion of his remarks.
Here in the U.S., we have not had another 9-11.
No one can guarantee that we won't be hit again.
But the relative safety of recent years was not an accident.
As we make our case to the voters in this election year, it's vital to keep issues of national security at the top of our agenda.
And it's vital to keep facts at the top of our agenda.
Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lament apologized yesterday for his campaign manager's description of Waterbury as a place where the forces of slime meet the forces of evil.
Good old Ned Lament.
By the way, I don't know if you heard this or not, but Ned Lament is thinking about getting rid of his campaign staff.
He wants to bring in new people, but the kooks in the fringe don't want him to do that.
And the reason he's going to do this is because he's got to make a move for moderates now.
And the kook fringe is all upset.
They think they got him nominated, and they are feeling abandoned.
Now, the reason he's going to make the move toward moderates is because Lieberman is leading in the polls in Connecticut.
Despite the primary, exactly what people said was going to happen, if Lament won in the primary, Lieberman would still win and score fairly good in the general election because they're far more independents, quote-unquote, moderates than either registered Republicans or Democrats.
A lot of Republican money going in for Lieberman as well.
There was also an episode on CNN we played the soundbite for you the other day where Chuck Roberts well, let's just play it for you.
Just a review, case you missed this.
Driving the left-wing cook bloggers crazy here.
CNN anchor Chuck Roberts referred to Ned Lament as the al-Qaeda candidate.
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.
Well, there have been so much hell raised about this that CNN headline news booked Ned Lament so that Chuck Roberts could apologize to him on the air.
Here is Chuck Roberts' apology to Ned Lament.
I owe you an apology.
Last week I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the setup.
The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statement suggesting that terror groups, al-Qaeda types, to use Cheney's word, would be buoyed by your win.
But I posed it badly, stupidly, at living about some saying Lamotte is the al-Qaeda candidate.
No one, in fact, used that construction.
Anyway, I wanted to correct the record.
I'm glad we had this chance to do it.
So, you know, after the apology, Roberts says, what is your response to Cheney and Lieberman saying that your win emboldens Al-Qaeda?
So he apologized with the same question.
Here's what Lament said.
Those were incredibly unfortunate comments, demeaning to the voters of Connecticut.
Having 132,000 troops stuck in the middle of a civil war over in Iraq is not helping us fight the terrorists, is not making us safer, is not protecting our shorelines.
I salute Scotland Yard.
I look what the British were able to do in thwarting that terrorist attempt.
And I think we're much stronger as a country.
We work in concert with our allies.
We have shared intelligence, so we go forward together with good old-fashioned police work.
Yeah, good old-fashioned police work.
Well, somebody ought to tell Ned Lament that the British think that the Pakistanis used torture to break the suspect and get the information that exposed the whole plot.
Yeah, a question is MI5 considered.
No, but Scotland Yard is.
MI5 is not considered a police agency, but Scotland Yard is considered to be a police agent.
Hey, there's no question there was some police work involved in this.
You can't say police work is never appropriate because it is.
But the idea that you can defeat terrorism by stopping every attack, not by eliminating terrorists, is absurd.
And that's what the military option is: to root out as many of these guys as you can find.
It's a combination of both things.
But typically, the Libs don't want the military option used at all.
You can talk about great police work, and you can show me in the 90s where it worked.
You can show me how it stopped the 93 World Trade Center attack.
You can show me where police work stopped the bombing of the Kobar Towers.
You can show me where police work stopped the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
You just can't count on these people.
You can't trust them.
Steve in St. Louis, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey, I know it's frustrating, but the Bush doctrine is succumb to public pressure because we are a representative republic, not a dictatorship.
And there is just too much public pressure, however much is contrived by certain in the media.
So even though Bush is sworn to protect us, he's subject to us to some degree.
And, you know, I guess the scary part of the Twilight Zone part is whether he's actually succumbed or is it just words?
Is he changing his stance in an appearance way or is he actually changing?
Do you remember what the Bush doctrine was?
Well, yeah, that's to go after certain nations, peoples, whoever it is.
We go after terrorists in the states that sponsor them.
Exactly.
Exactly.
That was the Bush doc.
Now, obviously, the Bush doctrine exists, but it's changed in some degree.
You think that it's the polls, public pressure being brought to bear by the media.
I don't know what public pressure is being brought to bear on, unless you're talking about the president's approval ratings.
But if you look at the internals on those approval ratings, you'll find that over 50% of the American people support him in the war on terror.
Still remains his strong suit.
So you're suggesting he's succumbing to pressure from external forces like the media, perhaps the State Department.
Who the hell knows?
That's always a wild card in these things.
Right.
Including our enemies, I'm sure, know how to use our free system against us as best they can, which I think that somehow that's turning into pressure against him.
And, you know, I mean, that's a heck of a hot seat to sit in.
And, you know, I mean, you can say he's doing the best he can.
I think he has a lot of forces against him right now, some of which are true evil.
Well, there's no question about that.
Just look, it boils down to one simple fact.
Right now, we just don't have the will.
We don't have the will to deal with it, and we will at some point.
As I said yesterday, it's going to take something devastating, I think, to rally everybody or a clear overwhelming majority, like a suitcase nuke or some such thing.
I know a lot of people.
This is purely anecdotal, so I can't assume this represents the majority of public opinion.
I can't tell you how many people I've spoken to were livid over this latest attempt to hijack 10 airplanes, blow them out of the sky in London.
So there clearly is still a lot of anger at terrorists out there.
And there's still, if you look, look at the reaction of places like New York when that terrorism budget gets cut or they think it gets cut.
On the one hand, you've got people out there claiming it's not that bad.
Bush has oversold the effort to cut their terrorism budget a dime, and they squeal and they moan.
So you'd have to assume they still consider it a serious threat.
Have you seen the latest news from our scientific community that maybe Pluto's not a planet after all?
Scientists are stunned, by the way.
And in fact, not only have they discovered that Pluto may not even be a planet, there may be other planets out there we're just now discovering, and they're stunned.
Now, what does that tell you?
It tells me that these guys in the scientific community thought they knew everything there was to know.
And yet they're continually shocked and continually stunned by the discovery of new species in these out-of-the-way remote places on the planet.
And yet the same bunch tells us conclusively that global warming.
Hill, there's a scientist from Florida State University who's just got a piece out today.
He said, yet there's no question about it.
None whatsoever.
My research is infallible.
Global warming is responsible for the increased intensity of hurricanes.
Where are they this year?
Where are they?
I mean, I don't miss them.
I'm just wondering where they are.
Not only do we not have intense hurricanes, we're going to have hurricanes.
Now, I know the peak of the season hasn't hit yet, but if global warming is causing all this and the oceans should not be cooler this year than they were last year, they don't the point is they don't know half what they think they know if they are continually surprised by what they learn.
Back in just a second.
Well, the Israeli foreign minister, Zippy Levny, is saying that the war is not over yet.
That's more like it.
That's more like it.
That makes much more sense than anything else anybody else is saying other than me.
You remember during the presidential campaign of 2004 when the Brett girl got up there and said that if we elected John Kerry, Christopher Reeve would walk.
Well, I'm not sure how to pronounce this man's name.
I've been told I just can't remember it.
Benjamin Cardin, I think is how you pronounce it.
Representative Benjamin Cardin of Maryland.
He's running for the Senate there against Michael Steele.
With a month to go before primary voters head to the polls to choose Senate nominees, Representative Benjamin Cardin kicked off yesterday a week-long effort to highlight his congressional record and vision on health care by making the mother of all campaign promises to cure cancer.
Cardin gathered with cancer survivors and doctors in Lutherville to detail his efforts to expand cancer screening and his plans to fight the disease.
We're going to lick cancer by 2015.
Cardinal told a group of 15 people at the Hopewell Cancer Support Center on Falls Road.
The healthcare push comes as he and other candidates fight to distinguish.
Why read any further?
So we're going to cure paralysis, spinal disease, and the Democrat Senate candidate, hopeful Democrat Senate candidate from Maryland's going to cure cancer by the year 2015.
I saw this next story and I panicked.
It's a story from my hometown, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
A suspect attacks Cape lawman, tasered twice before being subdued.
A nude man attacked a police officer, attempted to grab his weapon, and was tasered twice before officers were able to restrain him at a Cape Girardea trailer park.
And I just kept wondering about my brother, who CBS News characterized as wandering the streets.
But as I read further, I was assured, reassured, and comforted by the fact that it was not.
Howard in Lakeland, Florida, welcome to the EIB network.
Rush, how are you doing?
Fine, thank you, sir.
It's been a great honor to talk to you.
Thank you.
Hey, my point today was that, you know, since the onslaught on start of the war in Iraq, we've been hearing these correlations between the Vietnam War.
And the only thing that I can see right now is that the way we're fighting it is the correlation between.
It just doesn't seem like we want to go into Iraq and just and take care of what we need to do, take care of business.
What do you think?
Well, look, I have a tend to agree with you, but the political attempt to make it Vietnam is just that.
It's political.
Clearly, the two are not similar.
But there is a political effort being made to compare because we lost and we fumbled around and it was humiliating and so forth.
But in the sense, and I agree with you, we have not even come close to projecting the full force of our power.
We are, we've made a strategic decision.
We're going to build a democracy first and hope that converts bad guys to good guys.
And I'm all for the democracy project.
It's a great thing.
But I think in war, you go after the bad guys, you get them out of the way, and then you set up a functioning government and so forth.
Israel did not use anywhere near its full force capability against Hezbollah.
That's just all this is.
And there is a reluctance to do so.
World opinion or whatever.
We're dropping leaflets.
We're dropping leaflets.
Hell's Bells in a war.
We're dropping leaflets.
I just saw the first attractive female Democratic spokesperson on television in six years on the Fox News channel.
I'm not kidding.
It drew my attention.
▲
Export Selection