The Rush Limbaugh program on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
If you're wondering where Rush is, well, unfortunately, he's been replaced by an undocumented worker.
This is Mark Stein from Today.
And Walter Williams, All-American Boy, will be back tomorrow.
But for now, it's great to be here.
What a fantastic country.
I never thought, I never thought as I scrambled through the darkness across the border that just 36 hours late, I'd be hosting the Rush Limbaugh Show.
What a fantastic country.
We're talking about a lot of interesting topics today, but one thing I do want to get back to is something that Rush touched upon earlier in the week.
And this is the question of patriotism.
You know, there's something very psychologically weird, I think, about the Democrat line, that whenever you criticize their criticisms, they say, are you questioning my patriotism?
And it shouldn't take a foreigner like me to point this out, but there's something very weird, just psychologically, in the idea that somehow criticizing John Kerry is what this is all about.
There's a great big, huge global existential struggle going on, not just involving the United States, but in Bali, in Madrid, in London, in Chechnya, in the Balkans, in Sudan, in Nigeria, all over the world.
And yet, whenever you criticize anything the Democratic Party says about it, they go, oh, John Kerry goes, oh, are you questioning my patriotism?
And this idea that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, which Ted Kennedy attributes to Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson never said that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and it's highly unlikely he ever would have said it, because it's a really dumb thing.
And what I find so weird about that, this idea that dissent is the highest form of patriotism, is that's only true if you don't dissent from what John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are saying.
If you dissent from the John Kerry-Ted Kennedy view on Iraq, then you're questioning their patriotism.
This is crazy stuff.
So we want to talk today about whether it is time to question the patriotism of Democrats.
Rush talked about this the other day, and in fact, so did the president.
He was asked a question about it directly.
Let's hear that clip.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East.
Leaving before the job would be done would send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it.
Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster.
And that's what we're saying.
I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me.
This has nothing to do with patriotism.
It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.
I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said.
I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people who disagree with him want to lose.
And I want to ask you people a question.
What is patriotic about losing?
How come we can't question the patriotism people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy?
Why can't we question their patriotism?
We most certainly can, and we most certainly should.
Damn straight, we should.
I'm tired of pussyfooting around this so that we don't hurt anybody's feelings and challenge their patriotism.
We've said for all these years, I'm not challenging your patriotism.
I'm just challenging your judgment.
Well, hell's bells.
It's about time we do challenge their patriotism.
The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat.
A wacko judge in Michigan actively seeking our defeat.
Jimmy Carter actively seeking our defeat.
Bill Clinton and John Kerry and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat.
So should Ned Lament.
Why can't we simply say what is patriotic about seeking our defeat?
Seems to me we should be saying that.
Their judgment is skewed.
Their judgment is crazy.
The president says, understanding the world in which we live, who knows whether they understand the world in which we live.
We can't afford to take time to figure that out.
We don't have the time to worry about whether they understand the world, just like we don't have time to figure out why they hate us.
We don't have time to figure that out.
That's irrelevant to the mission, if you want to use that word, or to the cause.
So let it ring out from the mountaintops here at the EIB Limbaugh Institute.
We do question their patriotism.
If they want us to lose, what the hell is it about patriotism that makes us want to lose?
What is patriotic about wanting to lose against this enemy?
Amen, brother.
I agree with Rush.
I think we have a little pronunciation thing going here or pronunciation.
I keep saying patriotism.
He keeps saying patriotism.
But if it's offensive to question their patriotism, I'm going to question their patriotism.
You know, this is interesting.
When I was down in Australia, the Australian government is doing incredibly well in the polls just from questioning the opposition's patriotism because they understand that when you're in a war, the choice is whether you want to win it or do you want to lose it.
The foreign minister, this one, the reason why he's my favorite foreign minister, Alexander Downer, he was asked this question in Parliament about Iraq from the opposition, and he thwacked it back across the aisle with this magnificently low line about how for the leader of the opposition, his constant companion is the white flag.
Amen.
The constant companion of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean is the white flag.
It's all white flag talk.
All this talk, the minute you get it, what kind of serious country, the minute it gets into a war, starts talking about exit strategy, saying, oh, well, you know, we got into this war.
Now we have to think about how we get home.
The exit strategy is victory.
And anything, any exit strategy short of victory profoundly damages the United States.
And the idea that you can somehow be this great big super comfortable isolationist hyperpower and just either lose wars or have wars that end inconclusively, like the first Gulf War or this Kokami thing in Kosovo.
No one even remembers who the good guys or the bad guys were over there now or what it was we were there for.
The idea that you can be a superpower and not win wars against relatively small forces with significantly weaker military power, the idea that you can stay a superpower is preposterous.
So yes, if the only contribution you have to make to the war is about how we need to get out, how it's a quagmire, how it's a disaster, then yes, it is time to question your patriotism.
So let's talk about the Democrats and the war and whether this kind of, I guess this kind of politeness about the whole thing, which certainly, as I said, the Australian government doesn't do with its enemies, whether this politeness is in fact a large part of the president's problems, that simply by declining to question these guys' patriotism, he hands them an enormous rhetorical advantage.
That in fact, we talk about the war now in Democrat terms, in how we can get out of it.
What's the exit strategy?
Exit strategy is for losers.
Serious countries don't have exit strategies.
And it's unbecoming to a great nation to talk about serious issues in that way.
I would love to know.
I mentioned Joe Biden's rethink, his five-point plan for Iraq.
The great thing about Joe Biden's five-point plan is that three of the points are already in the Iraqi constitution.
His idea for running a decentralized federation.
Old Joe Lieberman, when he was running for president, whatever it was, 15, 16 years ago, plagiarized Neil Kiddock, the labor leader.
That, by the way, shows you what a smart guy he was.
The British Labour leader, Neil Kiddock, that Joe Lieberman plagiarized, was one of the most reliable losers in British politics.
And as it turned out, so it proved for Joe Biden.
He's now plagiarizing the Iraqi constitution.
They've already thought of these ideas.
They've got a great decentralized constitution.
What they need to know is that America is behind them.
And if you watch CNN International, and CNN International makes CNN Domestic look like the Rush Limbaugh show, it's an incredible thing.
But if you watch CNN International, like all these insurgents are doing, sitting in their hideouts, you'd think that America was just this big, fleshy, effete, wimpy guy in the lazy boy recliner, ready just to keel over and curl up into the fetal position and cry at the first opportunity.
And why do you think that?
Because every time you see a Democrat on TV, every time you see Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean, that's what they sound like.
So let's talk about whether it's time for the president and the administration to rethink this strategy in terms of fighting an opposition that seems to have no interest in the war other than to lose it.
You saw what happened to a responsible Democrat, Joe Lieberman, in Connecticut.
Clearly, there's not a lot to be gained for the Democrats in going down that route.
But at some point, if that party is the defeatist party, if it's the party of surrender, then they have to be called on that.
Because what is patriotic, as Rush says, what is patriotic about wanting to lose a war?
Nobody, in many countries, it would have been called treasonous behavior to have no contribution other than to say everything's a disaster and to want to lose the war.
Let's go to Susan in Santa Barbara, who wants to talk about this issue.
Susan, you're on the air on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thank you so much.
I just wanted to make a comment that the last time that I looked up patriotism in the dictionary, it said to show love and pride in your country.
And that doesn't sound a bit like anything anyone in the Democratic Party is saying.
No, you're absolutely right.
Their idea is that we're the country that needs to go to the United Nations and make amends and apologize to the global community and in effect allow other countries to have a veto over American foreign policy.
And you're right, that whatever that means, it isn't love of country.
Exactly.
I mean, pride in your country and love of your country.
How much further does it go that I don't hate the president?
I mean, you know, that's, you know, if you don't agree with him, that's one thing.
But to hate him and to disrespect him so is unbelievable.
Absolutely right.
And the tragedy of the Democratic Party is that for them, the issue is the president.
This absurd idea that somehow the war is just some cookie thing that he decided to basically cook up to improve his numbers.
It's not.
It's going on on every continent on this planet.
In Africa, in Asia, in the Pacific, in Russia, there is a global jihad that these guys are waging against other nations on the boundary between the Muslim world and the rest of the world.
And if you're not serious about that, and if you've got nothing to say about it except to say that everything the president is doing is wrong and we need to bring our troops down and hunker down in the fetal position, then sorry, it is time to question your patriotism.
You're not making any useful contribution.
And in a two-party system, it doesn't help when one of the parties is just nuts and has just flown the coupe on it.
This is Mark Stein on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
We will be back with more in just a moment.
Mark Stein for Rush on the EIB network, 1-800-282-2882.
Walter Williams will be here with you tomorrow.
Let's go to Anthony in New Orleans.
We're talking about whether it's time to question the patriotism or patriotism of the Democratic Party.
Anthony, you're on the air.
Yes.
I'm a Marine Reserve, and I fought in Fallujah in 2004 and also in Ramadi right after that.
Right, they're two tough towns.
Yes.
Well, what I would like to talk about is, you know, they say how we're losing the war.
Well, look at Fallujah now as to what it was before.
It was a militant town.
We went in there, we wiped them out, and look at it now.
They say it's one of the safest cities in Iraq right now.
Yeah, you're absolutely right.
I was in Fallujah about, I think, three or four weeks after the war.
I was driving through there, and I stopped and had lunch.
And about a year later, when those fellas were killed in Fallujah, you naturally think, well, my God, that's terrible.
And could it have happened to me?
And the reason it didn't happen to me, I think, three or four weeks, I mean, I've no doubt that that luncheon joint, that cafe, that restaurant that was full of people who would have liked to kill me.
But the reason they didn't was at that time, America was seen as the strong horse, as Osama bin Laden puts it, and was tough and in control.
And what happened in the course of the next year is that with all this talking down the war from the Democratic Party and the media and the Europeans and all the rest of them, is that a lot of people in the SUNY triangle concluded that America was a wimp and you only had to demoralize the media and the Democrats on the home front and America would just take her ball and go home.
That's basically what those guys in the SUNY Triangle figured.
Yeah, I agree with you completely there.
And I actually ended up voting for Bush when I was over there.
I had to send him my absentee ballot.
But what I'd also like to talk about is how Kerry and all these other liberals are trying to cut the legs out of us right now, saying that we should pull out.
But also, Kerry was one of the people, was one of the reasons that we're talking about this right now is what he did in Vietnam and the way that he supported the communists.
Yeah.
Well, he basically contributed to a defeat in Vietnam.
And he thought, do you remember that famous declaration he made when he was appearing before Congress that in fact it would be incredibly easy to get out of Vietnam?
It would just require evacuating a few of America's hardcore supporters and there would be no other price to pay.
Do you remember that thing, Anthony?
I've seen it, yeah.
Also, I mean, my father fought in Vietnam and the Marines, and he said if we'd have stayed in for two or three more years, we'd have ended up winning the war.
But, I mean, like we say, I mean, people like Kerry that cut their legs out for them in Vietnam and is now doing it in Iraq.
Yeah.
I mean, they kind of set a precedent there.
Yes, exactly.
And in fact, they did.
I mean, before, we had never really lost a war.
No, and the demoralization, Anthony, that was caused by what happened in Vietnam is in large part responsible for some of our present-day problems.
You know, the Iranian Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran, in part, that was because those guys were emboldened by the fact that America was this paper tiger, this toothless old lion that wouldn't do anything, that in fact retreated in upon itself.
And then they took over Iran, the mullahs, and they confronted America.
And Jimmy Carter, the quintessential post-Vietnam president, Jimmy Carter, refused to do anything.
And as a result, now, 30 years down the line, we are faced with that crazy state just as crazy as ever, only now it's a nuclear power.
And that's the reality, that if you let things slide, if you say, oh, no, we don't have to confront this issue, chances are you'll only have to confront it 10, 20, 30 years down the line, when things will be an awful lot worse.
Let's go to Todd in Westerville, Ohio.
Todd, you're on the air on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Mark.
Doing a good job.
Thanks, Todd.
I wanted to ask the Democrats, when they talk about exit strategy, what they would say the exit strategy of the Islamofascists is.
That's a very good question.
The problem, Todd, is that the jihadists, they don't have an exit strategy.
They have an entrance strategy.
They're coming here.
They're coming to Spain.
They're coming to France.
They're coming to Britain.
They've got an entrance strategy for the entire planet.
And you're right.
You know, basically, if you want to find an exit strategy for Iraq, then pretty soon you're going to have to be finding an exit strategy for a lot of other places because those jihadists, they're not like the gooks in Vietnam.
They're not just going to be content to take over Vietnam.
If America pulls out of Iraq, they're going to follow us wherever we go.
Yeah, I think the exit strategy for the Islamofascists is Israel is no longer a nation and the great Satan is destroyed.
Absolutely.
You're right.
They're planning the big exit that the infidels and the Zionists and all the other people should basically be burning in hell.
Thanks very much for your call, Todd.
We're talking about the patriotism of the Democratic Party.
You know, I find it interesting.
The drive-by media make a lot of fuss about differences on Iraq.
For example, my boss at National Review, William F. Buckley, it's no great surprise that he has a dissenting opinion from a lot of the so-called neoconservatives on the Iraq issue and on the Iraq war.
And every time he says anything, people say, oh, well, you know, the right is divided on this issue.
They're hopelessly.
Well, that's because we're basically every side of this argument.
The arguments are on the right between the liberty doctrine, the spreading doctrine of the Bush administration.
You've got the so-called realist right who are at odds with that.
Then you've got another faction on the right, a lot of Russia's listeners who want the president to hit these guys harder and faster.
All three sensible positions on the global jihad are on the right.
The left has basically sat this one out.
It's basically this, you know, why liberals and only liberals can win the war on terror.
Well, to win the war on terror, you guys have got to buy an admission ticket.
You can't keep saying it's all about Bush and Cheney and Halliburton and all the rest of it.
You've got absolutely nothing relevant to say about the war.
You've got to get in the game.
And it's unbecoming and disgraceful for a so-called serious party for you to be not in the game.
We'll be back with more in just a moment.
This is Mark Stein sitting in on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Walter Williams here tomorrow.
The Rush Limbaugh Show on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
This is Mark Stein, your undocumented anchor man, sitting in for Rush today.
Walter Williams will be with you tomorrow.
1-800-282-2882.
We've been talking about whether it's time to question the Democrats' patriotism.
There was a fantastic Figod CNED last night.
I love this.
In the footsteps of bin Laden, one of these great two-hour specials hosted by Christian Amon Poor.
I hadn't seen her on TV for a while.
I used to love it during the Afghan war, the way she would ostentatiously call them the Taliban.
And ever since the Taliban fell, I haven't heard Christiane use that delightful pronunciation.
But she was talking about, he was wondering in the footsteps of bin Laden, how he hooked up with the Taliban and all the rest of it.
And there was a very interesting glimpse there that even at that point, the jihad had a media strategy.
And Henry Schuster, who's a CNN producer, he's quoted telling The Guardian in London today to give a quote, to give a notion of how important the Western media was, one of Osama bin Laden's earlier media advisors used the nom de gir Abu Reuters.
Well, it was one of their main subcommittees in the al-Qaeda structure.
The Jihad has a marketing department.
We think of them as just these like guys sitting around in caves.
No, they knew even then how to play the Western media.
And when they offered exclusive interviews, they knew exactly who to offer them to.
Their three preferred candidates for exclusive interviews were CNN, the BBC, and CBS.
You notice they weren't lining up to get on the Rush Limbaugh show or to get on Fox.
They had a media strategy and they marketed themselves very adroitly.
And just remember that every time you see one of these things on whether it's Hezbollah in Lebanon with these artfully posed photographs of the pristine, perfectly clean child's toy, the little stuffy doll sitting perfectly on this heap of rubble.
Just remember that, that the media guy inside Al-Qaeda, he had his nom de go was Abu Reuters.
Abu Reuters is driving a lot of this ridiculous approach to the war that we see in the Western media.
And pitifully, the drive-by guys at the New York Times and their friends in the Democratic Party fall for it.
And they're presenting this defeatist attitude, this defeatist attitude that would have cost this country every war if it had tried to fight in this way in previous years.
Let's go to Jim up in my part of the world.
Well, not really my part of the world, in southern New England, Boston, Massachusetts.
Let's go to Jim.
Jim, you're on the air on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thanks, Mark.
I've been really enjoying your handling of the program today.
I have an important clarification.
Well, an important to me clarification that I'd ask you to make, which is, when you say that the Democrats are not patriotic, are you also saying that they actively want us to lose the war in the Mideast or at least lose this front in the war?
And the reason I ask is I happen to believe that they're more than unpatriotic to the extent they actually do want us to lose because that would get Bush out of office.
But other talk show hosts, and I've heard you won the Hugh Hewitt show, for example, a number of times, and I've called into that show.
And Hugh Hewitt several times says, well, he won't question their patriotism.
They're just misguided Democrats.
They don't understand.
And I've maintained that it's more than merely not understanding.
They do actively want us to lose.
Yes, I'd put it that I'd split the difference in a sense.
I'd put it this way.
I think they think that if we lose Iraq, it's just a defeat for Bush and the Republicans and the conservatives.
In other words, they see it in parochial terms, that they think if we can get Bush to lose this thing, it'll just be a defeat for Bush.
No, it won't.
It will be a defeat for the United States.
And it's part of this tunnel vision and this self-absorption of these pathetic figures, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean and the rest of them, that they don't understand that the rest of the world doesn't distinguish.
They don't follow internal American politics.
They don't distinguish between this or that party.
That if America runs with its tail out of Iraq, it will be a defeat for the United States of America.
And there's no reason in the world, after that, there's no reason in the world why, never mind Iran, why Russia and China or even Belgium should take America seriously ever again.
The American moment would be over because it would be becoming a pen.
Lady Bracknell, in the importance of being earnest, says to lose one parent is a, well, I can't even remember the quote now, to lose one parent is a misfortune, to lose two is something else.
Well, to lose Vietnam is unfortunate.
To lose two is becoming a pattern of behavior.
And it would indicate that this country simply is not willing to shoulder its global responsibilities or even muster the necessary backbone to enforce its own interests around the world.
So in that sense, I think it's beyond being just misguided, that in fact they are really gambling with the future of America as a superpower status.
Rush Limbaugh Show, 1-800-282-2882, Mark Stein with you today.
Let's go to Pat.
Pat's calling from Wisconsin.
Pat, you're on the air.
Yeah, greetings from New Glarus.
And where is New Glaris?
It's a great name.
I hope it's where does that come from?
Is there an old Glaris?
Yeah, in Switzerland.
Oh, really?
Founded by Swiss settlers.
Oh, fantastic.
Good for you.
And are you like the Swiss there?
You're scrupulously neutral in world affairs?
Well, I don't know.
Scrupulously neutral there.
Okay, Pat.
What do you want to say about the current state of world affairs?
Well, first of all, I like the Abu Reider's comment.
That was pretty funny.
But what I want to say about the rest of the discussion is I think it's a waste of time to discuss people's patriotism right now.
And here's why.
Because right now, it's divisive.
We all have our own idea of what patriotism is, particularly in America.
I assure you we all do.
And this is a time when we need to unite behind a successful and speedy plan for victory.
And I have my doubts, like many Americans do.
But I think we'd all, well, you know, the majority of us, which is all you need, strong majority of us, I think would fall behind any plan that addressed our concerns, and they're many.
Soldiers are being re-upped.
The only people that can be drafted in America now are soldiers, guys that have already served sometimes one or two years, dangerous deployments, then being re-upped, ripped away from their families long after their commitments expired.
All this.
We need to have these concerns addressed, and if they're not, you're just going to see public support whittle, and you can't fight a war without public support.
I agree with you on that, Pat.
But let me say what I think that the issue is here, that essentially America, I think, should have fought this conflict in a united way, because governments don't win wars, and parties don't win wars, nations win wars.
So you're absolutely right on that.
But the fact of the matter is that there has been, if you look at it in the days after September 11th, I was told by respected mainstream moderate people on the left that Michael Moore spoke for nobody.
He was just some crazy flake way out on the fringe, just some wacko guy.
And what we've seen since then is, in fact, that wacko fringe, as it's got louder and louder, has effectively swallowed one party to the part where, as you see, sitting senators are now defeated in their own primaries when they try to articulate the kind of united strategy, bipartisan strategy, that you're arguing in favor of.
Joe Lieberman has basically gotten turfed out by his own electorate in 2016.
Well, the only thing that the Democrats all agree on is that the war is, well, the thing they all agree on is that the war is being lost, essentially.
That is what they agree on.
Now, there's people that demand pullout, and you can call that cut and run or whatever you want.
But again, that's a divisive discussion.
There's an ample number of Democrats, and Joe Lieberman, I'm certain, was one of them, that were the first on board to help with the hand, but that simply demanded more accountability from the president than his own party demands from, as an example.
Well, I think that's the guys in the middle are just getting squeezed out now, and that's what happened to Joe Lieberman.
There's plenty of Democrats who'd be right on board with a good plan.
But those Democrats.
I'm not a Democrat, but I'm certain of this.
Thanks for your call, Pat.
But those Democrats have got a choice whether they want to stick with a party, unfortunately, where what you would call the guys in the middle, sensible mainstream, pro-war, let's try and devise a successful strategy here.
Those guys are getting squeezed out because the pleasure of just turning this into an anti-Bush thing is too much.
The sort of kinky frisson that the nutty left get out of this is just too much for them, unfortunately.
Let's go to Tim in Lexington, Kentucky.
Tim, you're on the air on the Rush Limbaugh show.
Substitute teacher dittos, Mark.
I'm calling to make two points.
First of all, as far as the Lieberman race goes, I don't think it's a surprise that his numbers have started to fall.
He ran and lost by, I think, four points because he was the pro-war candidate.
He lost to an anti-war candidate amongst a bunch of extremists in the Democratic Party up in Connecticut.
He got his bounce when he decided to run as an independent from people who were probably pro-war, most of them Republicans.
I'm guessing that based solely on the fact that the Republican challenger has, I think, like 6% of the vote.
Yeah, I think it's down to three now.
Okay, down to three.
And recently, Lieberman has come out, and I think he's asked for Rumsfeld's head, and he started kind of attacking Bush on it.
This seems, I mean, it might have made sense for Lieberman to say these kind of things while he was running against Lamont as a Democrat in a Democratic primary with a bunch of Michael Moore Democrats voting.
It doesn't seem to me to make a whole lot of sense when he's trying to appeal to the Republican Party and moderate Democrats up in Connecticut.
And so I think that may be why you're seeing the drop in his support up there over the last week.
That's a very interesting point, Tim.
You know, he's, in a sense, been trying to do what Hillary Clinton is doing, find a kind of Clintonian way to triangulate this thing.
And the Iraq war is immune to Clintonian triangulation.
You've really got to decide what you're for, what you stand for, whether you want victory or whether the anti-Bush sniping is the really important part of it for you.
And he's having difficulties with that right now.
1-800-282-2882.
This is Mark Stein sitting in for Rush on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
We'll be back with more in just a moment.
Mark Stein for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882.
Don't forget RushLimbore.com.
You can join Rush 24-7 and hear everything Rush said over this past month.
Plus, watch past shows on the Ditto camp.
So if you're getting sick of switching on the Rush show and finding wacky foreigners there, you can go to RushLimbo.com and get the real deal from the Rush archives.
That Lady Bracknell quote from the importance of being earnest that I bungled halfway through.
Never start a quote you don't know how to finish.
To lose one parent may be a misfortune.
To lose two looks like carelessness.
To lose Vietnam may be a misfortune.
To lose Vietnam and Iraq looks like, as I said, a pattern of behavior and one that no serious country can afford.
Let's go to Jonathan in Houston, Texas.
Jonathan, you're on the air on the EIB network.
Hi, Mark.
I just want to say you're going in great for Rush.
I like your style a lot.
Thanks, Jonathan.
But I guess you're coming in from patriotism, and I just have to say, like, I felt patriotic back in 2003.
And I was, you know, I was more or less behind the War Affair Act going in.
You know, nobody likes war, but going in, it seemed like a smart thing to do.
And now, 2006, it doesn't feel so smart anymore.
So that patriotism has kind of waned.
Well, the thing about patriotism, Jonathan, is it's visceral.
It's not something that should be affected by the prevailing political winds.
But the thing about it is, yes, Iraq is hard.
And why is it hard?
Because this is an existential struggle.
During the Cold War, I don't think we appreciated how easy an enemy we had.
We were up against the Soviet Union, which, yes, was sitting on a lot of nuclear weapons.
It was perfectly obvious if you went to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, that their peoples were even more innovated than we were, even less interested in having a great big existential struggle than we were.
It's different this time.
We're up against people who don't want to negotiate anything.
They've got no conditions.
You can't sit around a table with these guys.
They basically want to kill us.
And that means Carter and Reagan were up against the Soviet Union.
There was a give and take, but it always felt like we had smart people in charge.
We had a competent leadership.
It always felt like we could win if we just, if we got a lucky break, if we could break through.
And, you know, sure enough, Berlin Wall falls.
You know, the path to victory is open.
In 2003, we saw a path to victory, and I think Rumsfeld and Cheney and just the guys in the administration just couldn't grab it.
And this far down the line, it's like a chess game that's gone on so long that you see you can't win anymore.
Yeah, but as I said, it's a choice between bad or worse options.
And the worst option of all is to say, sorry, we're taking our ball and going home.
We got on the wrong train, we're getting off at the next stop, and we don't want to be on it anymore.
Because that is never the option, not for any country that wants to retain its global reach.
And the danger in this world isn't that we look at these guys and we're like John Kerry after that debate with George Bush.
You know, I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot.
We look at this enemy and think, I can't believe we're losing to these idiots.
And the thing is, generally speaking, wars are won by the people who want it most, by the people who mean it most.
It's what the Germans used to call Wehrwiller, war will.
And simply put, that means that if the enemy suspects that you're weak, you're soft, you're getting a little uncomfortable, they know how to just prod you enough, just here, there, just a bomb here, a bomb there, and they know you'll weaken and you'll go home.
Thanks very much for your call, Jonathan.
It is a tough thing, but the tough thing is often the right thing to do.
And you mentioned those presidents during the Cold War.
They're very different guys.
You know, Jimmy Carter, that was the détente era.
A second Jimmy Carter term.
And the Soviets might well have won, ended up winning the Cold War just by default.
They were gobbling up real estate all over the world, including in America's backyard in Grenada.
And the idea that somehow there's some continuum there wasn't.
It was that Ronald Reagan determined to win what Jimmy Carter, in fact, thought couldn't be won.
He thought basically that America was in for a period of decline and it couldn't be reversed.
Ronald Reagan was an optimist and he didn't believe that and he won the Cold War.
And that's the thing.
Defeatism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is Mark Stein on the Rush Limbaugh program.
We'll be back with more in just a moment.
Mark Stein on the EIB network sitting in for Rush.
Let's go to Bill in Gainesville, Florida.
Bill, you're on the air.
Oh, how are you doing there, Bob?
Good, thanks.
I like the job that you're doing, just like all the other callers seem to.
Great.
What's your view on Iraq?
Well, to me, it's like a divorce.
A divorce where one party is a little smarter, a little stronger than the other party.
And therefore, they don't get along always.
The sm stronger party seems to win a lot of arguments.
The other side gets mad and they start throwing things at you that don't make any sense.
So you decide to get a divorce, and then they kind of play dirty.
One side's trying to do everything right.
One side's doing everything they can.
The other side, no matter what you do, disagrees and you're not PC enough, and so on and so forth.
You sound like you're speaking from bitter experience, Bill.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll tell you what.
In the long run, I lucked out.
I ended up with the kids.
Oh, oh, okay.
I think there's something in what you say.
I think the problem is that if Iraq is like a divorce, these jihadists are like some nightmare ex-wife that you can never shake off.
There were some ex-wives there were no exit strategy from.
That's the problem.
This is Mark Snyder on the Rush Limbo Show, sitting in for Rush.