I've been so eager for this broadcast hour to begin.
I'll tell you what, the more I do this program, the more I know how just pathetic and insufficient this so-called big media is.
Greetings and welcome back, Rush Schlimbaugh, America's real anchor man here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Okay, so let's take the music down.
I'm having a shout over today.
Let's review what we've got here.
We've got Hugo Chavez, who has said that Europeans came, massacred Indians and black Africans to an audience in an African church in Harlem, and they just went nuts and they applauded and so forth.
We have Charlie Wrangell coming out and hey, hey, hey, hey, we can criticize him, but you can't.
After thanking Venezuela for cheap oil for Harlem residents this summer, this winter, then he begged Chavez to understand that it's not appropriate for him to come and do this.
We went back in time.
We've played audio soundbites of real criticism of President Bush by Charlie Wrangell, in which he has basically accused Bush of the same thing that Chavez did, massacring people after the Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.
We've also dug up some other things from Wrangell.
On Republicans winning the House, he said, and I'm quoting him here.
Charlie Wrangell said, it's not spick any inward anymore.
They say, let's cut taxes.
In 1995, Charlie Wrangell described a House ways and means vote that closed a tax loophole as being just like under Hitler.
In June of 2005, Charlie Wrangell said the Iraq war is the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country.
This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed.
June of 2005, Charlie Wrangell comparing the Iraq War to the Holocaust.
And these guys dare ask why Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad come to the United States and criticize this country and their president?
What the hell have you been doing?
The point is, ladies and gentlemen, anybody who cares, and I'm telling you the people that drive by media don't, as evidenced by the fact that Chavez's speech at the UN is buried inside both the New York Times and the Washington Post.
You won't find any reference to it on the front page.
The idea that this is somehow happening in a vacuum is absurd.
The stage has been set.
These two guys are simply doing what they have been listening to Democrats and liberals in this country do for the last five years.
Now, when he was walking the streets of Harlem this afternoon after his, maybe been before the speech, I don't know.
Hugo Chavez today told a group of passersby on a Harlem street, Bush is an alcoholic, a sick man, a lot of hang-ups.
He walks like John Wayne.
He doesn't know anything about politics.
He got there because of daddy Bush's father, George Bush, also a U.S. president.
This is a news story.
So he's a drunk.
He's a sick man, a lot of hang-ups, walks like John Wayne, but doesn't know anything about politics.
Let's go back and listen to Ted Turner in March of 2006, March 29th, receiving a prize at some meeting of an outfit called Global Understanding.
Had never been out of the country but once in his entire life when he was elected president.
Unfortunately, quite a few mistakes made when you do that.
Better to go to school, you know, and learn there than learn.
And this guy's got the nuclear trigger under his finger, too.
Reformed alcoholic, well, nothing wrong with that.
Might decide to get drunk again, you know.
Sometimes they do slip.
Okay, so here's Ted Turner accusing George W. Bush of being a drunk with his finger on the nuclear trigger.
We're outraged when Hugo Chavez calls Bush an alcoholic, a sick man, a lot of hang-ups.
But I ask you, and this thing, Ted Turner, a prize at Global Understanding, a bunch of socialist libs getting together and congratulating themselves on their eliteness and their brilliance and their single-handed ability to save the world from all of the plebes and the bourgeois that live in this in this world.
But I'm telling you, folks, for everything you can find said by Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we can find an equivalent stated by countless Democrats.
There is one Hugo Chavez.
There are countless millions of Democrats in this country all saying similar things.
And they've been saying them a lot longer than Hugo Chavez has.
For everything Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says, we can find countless Democrats, millions of them who've been saying the same thing about Americans.
They try to destroy John Bolton's career in life.
They try to destroy Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Clarence Thomas.
Look at their practices.
They do nothing but smear, smear and destroy their political opponents.
They attempt to criminalize the policies of their political opponents, as in Wrangell, saying that the Iraq war is equivalent to the Holocaust and the slaughter of six million Jews.
Ted Turner, the list goes on and on and on.
I can give you John Kerry.
I could give you Pelosi.
I could give you Harry Reid, Howard Dean.
So every time you get outraged at something Hugo Chavez says, remember he's a piker.
He's late to the party.
He's just the latest voice on the left side of the aisle.
You think Hugo Chavez is closer to being a Democrat or Republican, ladies and gentlemen?
Hugo Chavez closer to being a liberal or a conservative?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, closer to being a liberal or closer to being a conservative?
With whom do these people most relate?
To whom do they most relate?
To whom they most sound like.
And then ask yourself a question.
Do people on the right, do Republicans and conservatives attempt to smear and destroy?
Some people, Rush sounds like what that you're doing today.
Nope.
I was minding my own business this week.
Wasn't bothering anybody.
Never do.
And all of a sudden I hear my country being attacked by a third-rate tin horn, nothing but a bunch of oil little thug from South America.
And then I hear no outrage from Democrats.
So I decide I'm going to defend my country and I'm going to defend the person about whom he's speaking, the President of the United States.
And then I hear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doing the same thing.
I was minding my own business until these guys showed up.
Then they start flapping their gums and it's time for somebody to speak up.
I did not wake up today looking for ways to attack Democrats.
Not necessary.
They provide all the relevant opportunities.
Speaking of Ahmadinejad, let's move to some audio soundbites featuring him.
This is actually kind of hilarious.
CNN Anderson Cooper360 last night talked to Ahmadinejad.
And Cooper says, you do realize, though, why it would be deeply offensive to so many people that you say the Holocaust never happened.
You don't speak here for all Americans.
In the past two or three days, I've met with many members of the media and the press here.
Some who are even related to the U.S. government.
But the questions are the same across the board.
It's a fascinating subject.
I mean, I think what people in America are.
Are you asking the questions that are on your mind or questions that are given to you by others?
Actually, in America, we have a free press, unlike in parts of Iran.
But I'm asking the questions that I'm interested in, but I know your time is short.
Frankly, I'd love to talk to you for two hours.
Well, given that all the questions are very similar, it speaks for itself.
Well, this just doesn't happen.
Drive-by-media being dissed and challenged by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Anderson Cooper having to defend his journalistic style and techniques.
And at the same time, even while being dissed and challenged and insulted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Anderson Cooper says, I'd love to talk to you for two hours.
And Ahmadinejad slaps that away and says, why?
Every question you're asking me is the same questions about the Holocaust.
So I want to go back again.
August 1st of this year, Anderson Cooper in northern Israel, along the Israel-Lebanon border, interviewing the New Yorker magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg.
They had this exchange about Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Hezbo's.
I think what's been lost in a lot of this coverage is just how anti-Semitic Hezbollah is in their rhetoric.
It's absolutely fascinating, Anderson.
The anti-Semitism, there's two things that are fascinating about it.
One is how embedded in the core of Hezbollah ideology anti-Semitism is.
And I don't mean anti-Israel thinking or anti-Zionism.
I mean frank anti-Semitism.
The other thing that's so interesting about it is how blunt they are and how frank they are about their anti-Semitism.
They don't hide it.
They don't try to mask it in any way.
They state very openly to you when you ask their exact feelings about Jews, which are quite extreme.
Yeah, and no condemnation, Lou.
It's fascinating.
It's interesting.
Absolutely fascinating, Anderson.
And they're sitting there wondering why these guys are so openly anti-Semitic.
Why?
Now, you compare this to the treatment Mel Gibson got.
These guys are fascinated by Hassan Masrava.
And Anderson Cooper in the previous bite talking to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fascinated.
Don't you understand?
Don't you want to understand?
It's deeply offensive to so many people that you say the Holocaust never happened.
He's got something here going on about this.
No condemnation of these people, just an interesting fascination with anti-Semites and people that want to wipe Israel off the map.
Fascinating.
You know, just interesting.
And a curiosity about why are they so open about it?
I tell you what, I'm just, I'm through.
Am I going to accept the absolute PR spin and drivel that the best and brightest we've got, the most curious, the most knowledgeable, the most educated, the most informed people who are the drive-by media, they're the most dense, closed-minded, uninformed, I don't know about their educations, but uninformed people we have in professional positions in this country.
Still lots to do on the EIB network and Rush Limbaugh today.
Talent on loan from God.
Gonna try to get as many of your phone calls in in the remainder of the program as we can.
We move on to audio soundbite number six now.
Eric Sean of Fox News ambushed Hugo Chavez in a UN hallway and gets him to repeat Democrat talking points about Hurricane Katrina.
Sean says, why does he hate America?
He'd replied that he doesn't hate America.
Chavez did.
Then he adds this.
As Abraham Lincoln said, democracy, the government of the people, for the people, and by the people, and not of a mafia looking for money as al-Capon.
Worse even than Al-Capon.
Those who are governing the United States today are mafia, genocidal murderers.
They don't care about the life of any country, not even the lives of your people.
Look what happened with Katrina.
So for you, President Bush, it's like the mafia.
Someone a mafia.
They are a mafia.
Yeah, so Charlie Wrangel, Bush just didn't care.
It's a death sentence being black in America.
Look at Hurricane Katrina.
And here is Hugo Chavez mouthing a Democrat talking point.
Bush wanted people to die after Hurricane Katrina.
Didn't care, may have even caused it.
This is a sentiment that echoes Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad in an interview said he was all distressed about the 40 or so million people without health care coverage in the United States.
Look, folks, there is no question.
These guys are getting talking points directly or indirectly, probably indirectly from the Democrat Party.
They watch CNN International.
They watch BBC.
They know what these guys are saying about Bush.
You can't tell me that this does not give them inspiration to say the same things, motivation, opportunity.
You can't say that this doesn't happen.
Remember Harry Reid to a high school civics class recently, within the past year, on George W. Bush.
This man's father's a wonderful human being.
I think this guy is a loser.
You can't, if you're upset at these guys, where is your outrage over Americans saying essentially the same things?
Because these guys are latecomers to the party.
I mentioned at the top of the program that Brian Brand Ross, the chief investigative correspondent for ABC, was on the O'Reilly factor last night.
He said that all of his CIA sources, a portion of whom opposed controversial interrogation methods on legal or moral grounds, agreed that those methods worked to break all 14 high-value al-Qaeda leaders in custody at Club Gitmo.
In some cases, al-Qaeda members and plots were revealed saving lives.
In addition, ladies and gentlemen, it was revealed that Ramzi bin al-Shib was crying like a three-year-old.
Now, this is going to make it tough for John McCain and Lindsey Graham and Warner.
And I still maintain to you that it is not the White House caving on whatever deal is being negotiated.
Even MSNBC earlier today, discussions on whether or not McCain's position is hurting him and his presidential perspirations for the 2008 presidential election.
So the media buzz is not that the White House has caved.
If the White House had truly caved, they'd be singing victory chants for Senator McCain.
Now they're worried whether or not his efforts have actually provided a new source of concern and a new element of self-inflicted harm for the great senator from Arizona.
Let's go to the audio sound bites.
O'Reilly says the CIA broke 14 top al-Qaeda leaders.
This is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shib, Zubaya, all these people, all 14 coerced.
The worst thing that they did to them, waterboarding.
14 high-value leaders they've kept in secret prisons, and they have used these coercive techniques.
That is the most harshest of the treatments.
And that's where a man is put upside down.
They put a cellophane or a cloth over his mouth.
They pour water.
It gives the impression that the person is drowning.
Now, some people liken it to a mock execution.
It is very tough to withstand.
When the CIA officers who are trained in these interrogations go through it themselves, some of them couldn't last more than 35, 40 seconds.
Well, a key element there is that we go through it.
Nobody dies in this, by the way.
They always stop short of that.
But we train our own operatives and agents to undergo this because it happens.
Next question.
You say the guy who held out the long was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind.
How long did he last?
About two and a half minutes, according to our CIA sources.
20, 30 seconds is the most most people can take of this technique.
It's that harsh.
And the next question, according to your report, Ramzi bin al-Shib one broke down and started sobbing.
It was just too tough.
Some of these guys are not that tough.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was very tough.
They actually threatened to do something to his children who were captured in the course of picking him up.
And he reportedly said, that's okay.
They'll see Allah sooner.
Question: So, in all 14 cases, coerced interrogation methods being debated in the Senate right now were used in all 14 cases.
According to your report, they gave it up.
The opposition, Human Rights Watch, ACLU, they say it's garbage.
In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the information was very valuable, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al-Qaeda in this country and in Europe, and at one particular plot which would involve an airline attack on the tallest building in Los Angeles known as the Library Tower.
It's clear in several cases with Khalid Sheikh Mohav, with people that absolutely beyond a doubt are terrorists, terrorist masterminds, it does seem to have an effect.
And that's just the bottom line.
Certainly, if you interrupt a plot to bomb a tower in Los Angeles, you've saved lives.
It has worked.
It has thwarted plots.
That's Brian Ross, ABC News, on the O'Reilly factor last night.
And so what you have here is the testament.
This guy's got his CIA sources.
He claims that some of them are not even people that agree with the techniques.
But he admits, hey, if you interrupted a plot to bomb a tower in Los Angeles, you saved lives.
The techniques worked.
MSNBC is reporting that there has now been an agreement reached between McCain, Warner, and Graham with the White House on the tribunal legislation.
They're reporting it as breaking news now.
I don't know what the details of this are, but it's just mark my words.
This is not a cave by the White House, particularly after this report last night on the O'Reilly factor.
We'll have a brief break here.
Be back after this.
Hugo Chavez repeated the devil comment in Harlem today as well, ladies and gentlemen.
And this from what is this, some radioiowa.com.
Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat, today defended Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's United States speech, United Nations speech, in which Chavez called President Bush the devil.
Harkin said the comments were incendiary, then went on to say, let me put it this way.
I can understand the frustration and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies.
Harkin continued what has been a frequent criticism of the president's foreign policy.
He said Bush came to office saying he wanted a new humility in foreign policy and reaching out to other countries.
But Harkin says Bush's actual policy has been heavy-handed.
Harkin says the anger against Bush is generated from the Iraq war, which Harkin says was unnecessary.
We tend to forget that a few days after 9-11, thousands, thousands of Iranians marched in a candlelight procession in Tehran in support of the U.S. Every Muslim country was basically on our side.
Just think in five years, President Bush has squandered all of that.
Well, here's another blithering idiot.
Muslim countries were not.
You know how many people were cheering around the world?
Senator Harkin, do you forget that video?
How many people were cheering around the world?
How many people said it was about time we got ours?
This is irresponsible.
And now to come out and say, let me put it this way, I can understand the frustration, the anger of certain people around the world because of Bush's policies.
I told you I knew it.
I hate to be, and I told you so, but I predicted yesterday this is what we were going to hear from some Democrats.
We've heard it from two that I know of now: Bill Delahunt in Massachusetts and Tom Harkin.
It's Bush's fault.
He's destroyed our prestige.
In other words, Chavez is justified in calling Bush the devil because Harkin thinks he's justified in holding similar sentiments.
Mike in Toledo, welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program with us.
Rush, thanks for taking my call.
I was originally going to say, which I started to, it's been an hour.
Congressman Wrangell made the statement that I just want to give him credit for defending the right.
You got your radio.
Mike, have you got your radio on out there?
I'm sorry.
The point I want to make, you're taking sound bites and you're making information.
And you're telling people to listen to only you, and you can assure people that you're going to give them 100% accurate information.
Don't listen to drive-by media.
People don't listen to it for three to five days.
They feel better.
But I tell people, I think you need to get your news.
You have a civic responsibility to get it from more than one source and as many sources as possible, because how else do you know if you're getting accurate information?
If you let me use an example, in the spring of 2004, John Kerry was in Toledo speaking to a UAW hall full of people.
A woman got up at the end of the meeting and said, Mr. Kerry, this war is all about Halliburton and oil.
And George Bush is in Iraq killing innocent women and children and babies.
And John Kerry paused and he said, Ma'am, I don't agree with you.
I don't think this war is all about Halliburton and oil.
And I have to disagree with you.
George Bush is not intentionally killing innocent women and children and babies in Iraq.
The very next day I turn your radio on, I turn my radio on, and at the beginning of your show, you say John Kerry is speaking to a union hall full of people yesterday, and a woman gets up and says, George Bush is killing innocent children and babies and women in Iraq.
And John Kerry sort of agreed with her.
The point I want to make, I mean, you're not.
You mentioned before.
You have.
Wait a sec.
You've made your point.
I don't remember that for a moment, but I'm going to tell you, I do not.
I do not take you as a news source.
You do not qualify as a news source.
You qualify as a person who has a grievance.
And I know why you have the grievance is because I'm right, and it's embarrassing to you.
You dare accuse me of using soundbites?
What?
I've got the actual words Charlie Wrangell used.
I'm not making the information out there, Mike.
I'm passing on to you what Democrats say.
That is what I do.
And with our soundbites, I use their own words.
You cannot accuse me of not going out and checking sources.
I'm going to the horse's, the donkey's mouth on this for every soundbite that I play.
And I'm not making these guys say this.
And I'm not sending them the script and saying, please, would you say this for my radio show so that guys in Toledo will get upset?
Now, this is pretty specious of you to accuse me of making things up and reporting false information and not checking my sources when I am letting you hear the actual words spoken by these people.
I know it's hard to take Don or Mike.
I know it's hard to listen to your heroes be humiliated and shown for what they are.
Somebody has to do it.
And the fact that the drive-by media won't do it leaves a vacuum for megastars like me to do it.
And I am happy to fill that vacuum.
I'm surprised at how easy it is, though.
There's a whole world of news out there and information they ignore.
The marketplace has seen to it that that news is no longer ignored.
So I don't know if what you're saying about the Kerry situation is correct because I don't remember it.
I'll check it, but you're not the final authority and you're not the source.
Not on this program.
This is Chris in Salt Lake City.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
I appreciate it.
Yes, you better.
I'd heard you condemn Democrats for not speaking out and condemning what both Chavez and Afadinejan had said.
But I was wondering if you could tell me what Republican senators have condemned what he said, because you even had John Bolton that wouldn't comment on the situation because it was so ridiculous.
And I tend to think it's probably the same with Democrats.
They feel it's so obvious and ridiculous.
Why condemn it?
But can you tell me what Republican senators have spoken out of?
What an absolute pathetic defense and very typical of a liberal.
Rather than defend your guys, you have to do what you guys always do, and that's turn around and smear the opponent.
So you don't have an answer for my question is what you're telling me.
I just answered your question.
What Republican has condemned what Chavez and Akmadinejan has said?
What Republican senator, can you tell me?
No.
They're not the ones that should have to condemn it.
They disagree with it already.
Wait, so do Democrats.
They don't need to come out and condemn it.
Well, but the Democrats are...
One Republican senator, you can tell me...
Democrats are coming out and supporting him.
No, Tom Harkin has come out and supported him.
Bill Delahunt's come out and supported him.
Wrangle with a tepid defense.
You've heard the sound bites today.
Everything that's been said has been prior to what the comments Chavez and Akmadinejan had made.
You can't tell me there's not one Republican senator that condemned what they said.
No, but that's why they come in.
The point is, that's not the point.
Because the Republicans don't have to condemn it because nobody associates Republicans with the comments.
Republicans aren't out there ripping America to shreds.
They're not out there ripping the president to shreds.
They're not out there blaming Americans.
They're not out there invested in American defeat.
The Democrats are.
The Democrats have a political responsibility to distance themselves from this because it sounds too close to the things they're saying.
John Bolton and the others are saying, and the administration people are saying, it doesn't warrant a response.
It's beneath him.
A lot of Republicans have come out.
I don't know, senators specifically, a lot of Republicans have come out and said it's beneath the dignity of a foreign leader to come here and say these kinds of things.
The Denver, the Republicans are not going to come out and say what I'm saying that this sounds awfully familiar.
Why, we've heard this before.
Sounds like little things the Democrats are saying.
They're not going to say that for reasons I don't understand.
They're just not that combative, but I am.
Jason in Elkton, Maryland.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, how you doing, Rush?
Good.
Mega Walmart shopper Republican dittos from Maryland.
Thank you, sir.
My take on Chavez is a little bit different, maybe in the way that I'm seeing it from a, I guess, perspective of watching the Democrats sort of promote social programs throughout the years, gimme's, if you will.
And here's Chavez out there in Harlem with a big gimme to all these poor folks.
And I think the Democrats are kind of secretly going, wow, this is great.
He's sort of promoting what we've been telling the people that we can give them for years.
That's your take?
That is, well, I guess along with other things, but that's one of the things I noticed that I think maybe the Democrats are not speaking out too much about this guy because he represents what they believe in, which is socialism.
Well, that's, I think, yeah, okay, if you want to put it that way, there is a, but there are a whole lot of reasons why they're not speaking out.
One, they're afraid of angering their base.
Number two is that I think they just as soon distance themselves from this guy as quickly as possible.
Charles Wrangel is from Harlem, where Chavez spoke, and even he confirms your suspicion.
He praised Chavez for giving away this oil and said the United States could take a lesson from it.
So you have a point.
I guess in the final analysis, Chavez is not considered an enemy by these guys on the Democrat side.
Whether it's in an ideological kindredship or whatever, remember, these people are liberals first, and the enemy of all liberals, leftists, and socialists is George W. Bush.
By the way, Mr. Snurdley doing some research in there.
Rick Santorum has come out and said some things about Chavez.
Among them, Chavez's recent remarks at the U.N., referring to President Bush as the devil, demonstrate how seriously deranged, misguided, and dangerous he is.
His comment that the U.S. is the greatest threat lurking over our planet is similarly ridiculous.
So there is some condemnation from at least one Republican senator, Rick Santorum.
I got to go.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
You leftists amuse me out there.
You know.
You know I got you today and all weekend.
You can't handle it.
All right.
I had a soundbite here, and I was not going to use it, but now I've decided to use it.
I just got a blurb here from the New Republic blog, Martin Peretz, the owner and publisher of the magazine, Liberal magazine, Martin Parrott's big supporter of Al Gore.
So maybe you read my post in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, which was the first place you could have read that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was meeting with select members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Well, how select?
Even former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who will run after anybody, refused to attend.
The guest list was the B list.
What with Martin, Indic, Brent, Scowcroft, and Maurice Greenberg being about as distinguished as they come, which is not very.
Did the attendees learn anything?
Well, let's find out because we have a soundbite from, let's see, Robin Wright, the diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post, who attended the big CFR dinner for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Diane Sawyer interviewed her this morning and said, I want to hear about your dinner last night with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, dinner with President Ahmadinejad.
I mean, it's already a startling sentence there.
He said that Chavez is his trenchmate, his warrior, and all of this.
What did you learn about this one of the world's greatest adversaries last night, Robin?
It was a polite dinner, but it was often very bizarre.
There were moments when he would, with someone who was familiar and survived the Holocaust and trying to deny that it happened, saying that we needed more studies to confirm and we needed evidence, what was wrong with impartial studies of what happened.
He was very firm and hardline on Iran's nuclear program.
There was no compromising at all.
This was an outreach, but there was certainly no attempt to try to bring Americans on board.
What is that all about?
You want to be liked by this guy?
You go to dinner with him and you want to like him?
They tried to talk him into believing the Holocaust happened, and he wouldn't believe it.
They really want to like this guy.
If you just get him to stop this Holocaust stuff, but there wasn't any outreach.
Here we are.
See, this is the thing.
A bunch of liberals get together with this guy, have dinner.
They think that if only they were in power, why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be reasoned with.
Because they are right, and they could convince him that we are good people and that he could like us.
But no, he was unmoved.
He was rigid.
He would not compromise at all.
And so, Ms. Rice is granting your hands.
Really, really hard line.
There was no attempt to try to bring Americans on board.
I don't understand.
I just don't understand.
In this little dinner party, this little sound bite, you'll learn everything you need to know about the left.
They can go to dinner with this guy, think they can talk to him, convince him the Holocaust happened.
Convince him we mean him no harm.
If he'd just reach out to us, we like you, Mahmoud, and we want you to be our friend.
And we want to have good relations with you.
And Mahmoud says, yeah, well, give me an independent study.
And I'm not compromising on a nuclear plan.
Who the hell are you?
And so they walked out of dinner, no doubt, perplexed and probably hurt.
Feelings were no doubt hurt.
Took it very personally, why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected them.
And this is, yeah, that's right.
This is just how we parody how negotiations would go.
Well, okay, would you say you at least believe the Holocaust?
Nope.
Well, how about, could you give us something on a nuclear friend?
Nope.
That's a perfectly fine program.
We're not going to have a budget.
Well, how about, how about, could you at least give us some sign you'll reach out to us?
Nope.
Nope.
I am who I am.
And you are dead someday.
No, no, Mahmoud, that's not necessary.
That's really not necessary.
We can be friends.
Oh, man.
What a gold mine of information today's program has been.
Unbelievable.
Jason, Salt Lake City, you're next, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Your timing couldn't be better, as usual.
I watched the entire Anderson Cooper interview last night of him getting completely shellacked by Ahmedinejad.
But what struck me is that after the interview, Anderson puts up some data about what a formidable enemy Iraq would be if If the United States were to come into confrontation with them, he put up stats about their standing military, their reserve, their tanks, blah,
So, what they're trying to do now is it seems because they can't seem to come to grips with the fact that the guy wants to just kill us, that now they have to paint him as a formidable enemy, a formidable foe, a noble foe that we need to take seriously.
Well, it seems to me that in all of this great research and all of this stuff that they're trying to uncover about the benefits of Iran, they're ignoring the fact that as our famous President Clinton said on Larry King, their best day would be the day, the day before they came up in a war against the United States.
Because last time I checked, the United States had a pretty formidable military as well.
Let me stop here only because of time.
This is no different than the way the liberals tell us each of our enemies exists.
They're all going to kick a butt.
Every enemy we've got is better than we are.
Saddam's army, far more committed, used to desert combat.
Our kids can't handle it.
Need 50,000 buddy bags.
That's all this was last night.
This is just, I didn't see it, but my guess is that Anderson Cooper was trying to warn us not to challenge these people militarily.
They are ready for it, and they are so committed.
And it would result in a horrible loss of American life.
We just can't compete with these people.
That's standard liberal approach.
Every time the war drums start banging in their heads.
Back in a second, we'll be right back.
Well, President Clinton says that George Bush should talk to the mullahs in Iran.