All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
September 26, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, I got cookie working on it right now.
Hamid Karzai in a joint press conference with President Bush going on even now.
Hamid Karzai, who's the president of Afghanistan, a man, by the way, with whom I have met personally for hours with Mary Madeline on a trip to Afghanistan, just, I mean, he just took it to these brain-dead reporters in the White House Press Corps.
And we're working on the soundbite now.
President Bush is doing a pretty good job of taking it to him, too, and giving them lessons.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you back with us here on the one and only EIB network.
Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist here behind the Golden EIB microphone.
Karzai, I didn't hear the question.
I hit the audio late.
I didn't hear the question, but he was reacting as though the question was stupid.
He said, terrorism was here long before 9-11.
Terrorism was happening and you were being killed all over the world long before 9-11.
Then he went into a vivid description of what happened at the World Trade Center.
Do you forget people jumping off the 70th floor, the 80th floor where the planes hit?
Who did that?
Who did that?
The only way you can get them is to go get them.
Are you just going to wait for them to come back?
It was a follow-up question to the National Intelligence Estimate, this leak that says we're creating more terrorists.
Bush answered first, and then Karzai got involved in it.
The National Intelligence Estimate, we're going to get into today.
Folks, it's a typical campaign era election season trick.
It is a partial leak of a document.
There are some who have seen more than what has been leaked.
And of course, the sum is far greater than just the one leak.
And now there's a call for everybody to, hey, declassify this, Mr. President.
He did say he's going to.
Because earlier today, he said he wasn't going to, and I kind of cringed, but I'm glad he's going to declassify it now.
And when that happens, because I've got a little bit of information here on what's in it, we'll get to that in due course.
When that happens, it once again is going to be a profound embarrassment to the New York Times, the drive-by media, and these rabid-dog Democrats who just lap this stuff up and jump on it before they start thinking about any of these things.
He called it a political leak geared to election year, and he's going to declassify the whole thing.
So that's good.
That's going to happen.
People mentioned things to me yesterday, and I've not been concerned about it.
I know a lot of people are, but I'm not.
To me, it's just a standard old page from the Democrat playbook, Bush creating terrorists.
And it isn't going to work.
These things that haven't worked in the past, why all of a sudden are they going to work now?
They really haven't worked.
Well, look at his approval numbers in the 30s.
Look at the numbers now as we go into the election.
If this stuff worked, his approval numbers would still be there.
This is all, folks, you have to understand how much of all this polling data and everything else is manufactured news that reflects the extreme bias of the newsrooms, the producers, editors, and reporters in the drive-by media.
By the way, Charlie Wrangell says, hey, if I'm a Speaker of the House, or if I'm chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, I'm going to get us out of a rock because I'm in charge of the purse strings and I'll defund the war.
That's in the Hill newspaper today.
People say Democrats don't have an agenda.
They do.
Impeach Bush, impeach Cheney, get Rumsfeld to resign, then pull out of Iraq, then raise taxes, then do what they can do to ease, increase the number of abortions, socialize health care, and then impeach Bush.
I put impeach Bush down three times in my list of 10 things here on the Democrat agenda.
And this is just too much.
There's a story in USA Today that is actually an AP story.
It's just laughable.
Folks, it's not worth getting all upset about.
Americans look for political manipulation as gasoline prices plunge.
Political manipulation.
There is no mystery or manipulation behind the recent fall in gas prices, analysts say, but try telling that to many motorists.
Almost half of Americans believe the plunge at the pump has more to do with politics and the November elections than economics.
Retired farmer Jim Moore of Lexington, Illinois, rattled off a tank full of reasons why pump prices may be falling, including the end of the summer travel season and the fact that no major hurricanes have disrupted the Gulf of Mexico output.
But I think the big important reason is Republicans want to get elected, Moore said.
He's 66, while filling up at $2.17 a gallon.
They think getting the prices down is going to help him get more re-incumbents, incumbents re-elected.
According to a new Gallup poll, 42% of respondents agreed with the statement that the Bush administration deliberately manipulated the price of gasoline so that it would decrease before this fall's elections.
53% of those surveyed did not believe the theory.
5% said, what?
What are you talking about?
Not surprising, almost two-thirds of those who suspect Bush intervened to bring down energy prices are registered Democrats.
They're totally nuts.
And I think the nuts have now infected the drive-by meet.
Where do they find these people?
How do they do it?
How does Gallup go out and find the world's dumbest people to talk to?
I'll tell you, maybe they did steal my kook test.
And they give all these poll respondents my kook test to see if they qualify for crying out.
How many months ago was it these same people were whining, moaning, and complaining about the price going up?
I didn't see any stories back then about Democrats.
Gallup bulls, the surveying Democrats, who say, yeah, I think the price going up, that's a trick.
The Bush administration is, I mean, well, wait a minute.
Take it back.
Take it back.
There were stories that thought that Bush was colluding with the oil companies with Cheney and Halliburton.
Now the price is going down.
By the way, the world oil prices is still below $60.
I'll tell you what.
If you kooks out there want a conspiracy theory, let me give you a believable one.
I just think this.
Oh, hey, make my day every day.
Here's a...
Here's a believable conspiracy.
The Saudis are flooding the market because they know that if Democrats are elected, the United States is going to pull out of the Middle East and they're going to be overthrown by bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.
That's a legitimate fear they've got.
So the Saudis are flooding the market to make sure.
No, they can flood the market.
The Saudis are nowhere near their top production.
OPEC is a unit, maybe.
And of course, how does this square with Hugo Chavez?
Hugo Chavez would have to be part of this conspiracy too.
And Hugo Chavez is the newest honorary Democrat.
But for all these prices to be coming down, Hugo Chavez would have to be part of this conspiracy to lower prices for the November election.
You people on the left, I tell you, we've always had coups.
We in talk radio, we hosts, have always been kooks at call.
They usually believe in psychics or Area 51, UFOs, that sort of thing.
I mean, fake moon landings.
But you people take the cake.
I mean, I've been in this business since 1967, and I have never encountered the daily march to utter madness and insanity that I am seeing on the American left.
And I've never seen this kind of desperation.
This national intelligence has to be waiting.
You see how this thing boomerangs on these people.
It is going to be like a slingshot between their buttocks, folks.
I am telling you, they're going to be walking around leaking like they need some depends or something.
They are so full of it that they're going to have the whole thing a little popped.
I'm still amazed.
Did they actually try to do a story about people being mad that gas prices are falling?
Anyway, the Clinton story won't go away, but you'll note here I didn't say anything about it here in the first segment.
But my name keeps popping up here.
Came out of the mouth of the raging Cajun James Carville today.
Brian first told me, but yeah, you were mentioned on a today show.
I said, who?
He said, Carville.
So what did he say?
Oh, it just, it just, Brian, your reporting skills need to.
Once again, he criticized me for having something to do with the path to 9-11.
All right.
And Condi Rice, as you know, has come back and just fired back.
And now, you know, the libs are saying, man, this is so unseemly.
So unseemly of Ms. Rice and the administration to respond to this.
This is so, you know, good, it's not really conclusive, but it's a great example of what's happened to journalism.
Here you have a reporter, Chris Wallace, who asked the sitting president a very mild, tepid question.
Normally, when this happens, and there's controversy that results from it, normally what happens is the drive-bys circle the wagons around one of their own.
But not now.
The drive-bys are circling the wagons around Bill Clinton and talking about how horrible and unprofessional Chris Wallace behaved.
Not a, yeah, as a former president, not a sitting president, thank goodness.
But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, it's fascinating to watch as journalism continues, despite what I say about it, to reveal itself for what and who it and they really are.
Back with more.
After this, don't go away.
Talent on loan from God, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man here at 800-282-2882.
I just can't get over this.
All these Democrats running around, yeah, Clinton gave these Democrats a roadmap.
He showed them how to put some spine back in their backs.
He showed them how to go out and fight back and how to not take it.
Anybody care to examine the lies told by Mr. Clinton?
They don't matter.
You know, as far as the kooks are concerned, what Clinton said doesn't matter how he said it is what matters.
The content is irrelevant.
The fact that he got there and wagged that finger, that what is it, a six-inch finger in Chris Wallace's face.
What it looked like that to me.
I mean, I thought I was watching a horror movie when I looked at it on the internet web.
You know, the quality's not all that good.
Looked like a combination of Frankenstein and Dracula.
Anyway, they don't care about the content or the substance of the truth.
They just liked the fact that Clinton was getting back in some reporter's face about this.
So the substance doesn't matter to them, but it will and does to others.
Anyway, we'll get to all that in due course.
We have the Hamid Karzai bite.
Here's the question from some infobabe named Jennifer.
Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions, like you know what I mean, of the national intelligence estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world.
Why have you continued to say, Mr. President, that the Iraq war, as you know what I mean, made this country safer?
Terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11.
The president mentioned some examples of it.
These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.
They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.
We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt.
You are a witness in New York.
Do you?
Do we forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them?
Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?
Who did that?
And where are they now?
And how do we fight them?
How do we get rid of them other than going after them?
Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?
That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated.
Extremism, their allies, terrorists, and the like.
Brilliant answer, Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, making the White House Press Corps, and particularly this journalist look like an absolute idiot, uninformed, ignorant, broad, in there simply following along with the standard agenda of the day, which is the NIE leak, which was nothing more than the advancement of an agenda.
The Democrats and people inside the administration, as I said yesterday, the really troubling thing about it is that there are people in the intelligence community more concerned with bringing down the policy and the president than they are with bringing down the enemy.
Now, as I listen to Democrats talk about this, I would love to hear the same kind of passion for our real enemy that the Democrats are able to muster for George W. Bush and members of his administration.
But this goes right.
You people remember 9-11?
Do you remember that it happened?
This answer was in response to the question about the whole notion that America going into Iraq after terrorists has made more terrorists and has made the world less safe.
And Karzai said, what the hell are you supposed to do?
You're supposed to wait for them to come back and kill you again and hope you kill them when they come to you?
You have to go after them.
Yeah, how do you have to get rid of them?
And how do you do that other than going after them?
Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?
Prior to this, Bush had said it is naive, it is naive as it can be to assume that an aggressive offense, going on offense, is somehow destructive policy.
World's upside down with these leftists.
But again, it's not compelling stuff.
It serves the kook base that already believes this garbage.
Aside from that, it's not persuasive.
And it's old.
It's just a new way of printing the old page in the playbook.
Bush-creating terrorists.
And Karzai is answering, what?
You think there weren't any terrorists before 9-11?
You think there weren't any terrorists before this happened?
Where have you been?
It was really fabulous.
Now, the leak itself, the national intelligence estimate, I was alerted to a website today called In From the Cold.
And well, it's actually not the website, former spook.blogspot.com.
And the poster here is a guy named Spook86, the pseudonym of a former member of the U.S. intelligence community.
During a 20-year career in military intelligence, he served as an analyst, operations planner, flight commander, briefer, nuclear targeteer, and air crew member, among other positions.
He's now retired, maintains extensive contacts within the U.S. intelligence community, and he has basically written this.
Yesterday, we noted that the mainstream media, along with their fellow travelers in the Intel community, had apparently cherry-picked information from a recent NIE, making their case that the Bush administration's war on terror had actually made the problem worse.
In closing, we observed that if the NIE was that biased, it represented a grave disservice to both the community and the nation.
Thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster that the New York Times and the Washington Post would have us believe.
According to members of the Intel community who've seen the document, the NIE is actually fair and balanced, to coin a phrase, noting both successes and failures in the war on terror and identifying potential points of failure for the jihadists.
The quotes printed below, taken directly from the document and provided to me, this blogger, provide the other side of the estimate and its more balanced assessment of where we stand in the war on terror.
In one of the early paragraphs, the estimate notes progress in the struggle against terrorism, stating the U.S.-led efforts have seriously damaged al-Qaeda leadership and disrupted its operations.
Didn't see that in the New York Times article?
Nope, you didn't.
How about this statement?
Which in part reflects the impact of increased pressure on the terrorists.
Quote, a large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing.
However, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy, and are becoming more diffuse.
Doesn't sound much like Al-Qaeda's pre-9-11 game plan.
The report also notes the importance of the war in Iraq as a make-or-break point for the terrorists.
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight.
This is, I'm reading to you from the NIE, elements of it that never made the New York Times because the leaks were not the whole story.
They served an agenda.
There's a lot more to share with you here from people who have seen a portion of the whole thing, which the president has now said he will declassify, and then it'll all blow up in their face.
We'll be right back.
Stay with us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
El Rushbo, showing how it's done.
You're on the EIB network.
So the president now forced to release the entire national intelligence estimate, which dates to this past April, this past spring.
He's got to do it for several reasons.
One, he's got to get the truth out so that the lie from the New York Times doesn't become the reality.
He has to demonstrate to the public how partisan, irresponsible the media are.
He has to do this to defeat the Democrats who embrace these partisan leaks.
And this is the thing that I really want to focus on.
They embrace these partisan leaks.
All it has to do is appear in the New York Times, and they just embrace it.
We also have to declassify the document in order to let our troops know that their mission is vital.
And everybody hates leaks out there, but more than that, false leaks that seem to damage the war effort, and that is their purpose.
And it's getting to the point, you know, I've been, as you know, frustrated and just literally fed up with this ongoing cacophony of anti-Americanism from people inside this country.
I've had it with these people.
I'm no longer interested in being tolerant and understanding and talking about the First Amendment.
Yeah, they can say what they want.
We don't have to sit here and act like it makes any sense or credence or that we have to give it any kind of respect.
Because I do not respect anti-Americanism, and I don't care who it comes from, Yogo Chavez, honorary Democrat, or anybody else in this country who's warped.
So we need to point out that the Democrat leadership, the Democrat Party leadership, embraces these traitors in our government, and that's who these leakers are.
They are traitors.
They are engineering or attempting to the defeat of the United States military in the war on terror.
And these Democrats and the leadership embrace these traitors.
We need to point this out.
They believe that they will win an election embracing these traitors.
Think about that.
They believe by embracing the traitors, accepting one leak, that they can win an election.
They don't care who they have to associate with in order to do that.
But, I mean, it's just, it is absurd.
Snurdley said to me, you know, this is going to blow up in their face when you hear and see the whole document when it's released and declassified in total.
And he said, you know what the Democrats are going to say?
They're going to say it was another Rove trick, that Rove engineered the partial leak, got all these Democrats all fired up, and then set up for the ultimate embarrassment.
I said, well, you know, I keep hearing this from these kooks for two or three years now.
Everything that's gone wrong for them has been a Rove plot.
The bin Laden tape before Kerry's election, well, the election in November of 2004, I don't care.
You name it, everything they claim is a Rove plot.
Bill Burkett, Dan Rather gotten sandbagged.
That was a Rove plot.
Well, if they think that Rove is plotting all these things, don't you think that it's about time?
Don't they have enough experience to look at one of these leaks and say, you know, before we embrace this, baby, we better stop and think.
What else might be in this report?
And who might really be responsible for the leak?
Did Rove do this?
Because it's getting a little late in the game to keep blaming everything that ends up bloodying your own nose when you open a door in it yourself on Karl Rove.
Now, back to this post by Spook86, who has seen the document.
He says, thankfully, the actual NIE is not the harbinger of disaster the Times and Washington Post would have us believe.
According to members of the Intel community, you've seen it.
It is actually fair and balanced, noting both successors or successes and failures.
A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing.
However, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy, and are becoming more diffuse.
The report also notes the importance of the war in Iraq as a maker breakpoint for the terrorists.
Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves to have failed, we judge that fewer will carry on the fight, which is called a ripple effect.
More support for the defeating of the enemy on his home turf in the report.
Stop and think about this.
The leak, the sole element of this estimate is that, oh my God, policy is totally wrong.
We're creating more terrorists.
We're creating an unsafe world.
We've just botched this.
And yet, within this report itself is more support for defeating the enemy on his home turf.
Quote, threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to U.S. success or failure in Iraq, unquote.
Well, now, right there, that is from the very report, the national intelligence estimate that you've all heard since Sunday says that we've botched it, that going into Iraq has made us less safe, has created more terrorists.
Right in the report, it says threats to the U.S. are intrinsically linked to the U.S. success or failure in Iraq.
Well, now, the fact is that President Bush and his administration officials have made this argument many times.
It's been consistently dismissed by the experts at the Washington Post and the New York Times and elsewhere in the Democrat Party.
But the whole estimate says something, well, not the whole, but parts of it clearly contradict the lone little bit that has been leaked.
Finally, well, two more things.
Some indication that the growing jihad may be pursuing the wrong course, quote, from the estimate itself.
There is evidence that the violent tactics are backfiring.
Their greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution, Sharia law, is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims, which seems to contradict drive-by media accounts of a jihadist tsunami with ever-increasing support in the global Islamic community.
And that figures, too, every time we have an enemy, the drive-by media in this country and the Democrats portray this enemy as huge, unified, committed, and unbeatable.
And so they have portrayed the militant Islamic community as well.
The estimate also affirms the wisdom of sowing democracy in the Middle East.
Quote, progress toward pluralism and more responsive political systems in the Muslim world will eliminate many of the grievances that jihadists exploit.
Isn't that the central theme of our strategery in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Pluralism, responsive political systems?
So the point is, folks, that this national intelligence estimate, the leak, the element of it that was leaked to the New York Times, nowhere near the whole story, that leak, that little element served an agenda, moved it forward.
Once again, over-eager Democrats embraced the whole thing because it was in the New York Times and that's their Bible.
And once again, when the whole thing gets leaked, and we will see to it that it gets reported.
Some of you say, well, drive-by media will ignore it when the whole thing comes out.
Maybe, who cares?
Fact is, they're going to be righteously embarrassed.
They may not portray it, but they will be.
And I do hope they blame Rove.
I do hope somebody runs around.
It'll happen on the blogs.
It'll happen in her Cook blog sites.
Rove set them up again.
Damn it.
What are we going to learn?
They're going to say.
Hilarious.
All right.
Two soundbites, President Bush from the press conference today with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzaid or Karzai.
We'll start with number 17 here.
The question again from this bimbo reporter, Jennifer.
Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the national intelligence estimate, you know what I mean, in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer, you know what I mean?
Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake.
I strongly disagree.
I think it's naive.
We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th.
We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.
We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the coal.
We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
My judgment is if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse because they have ambitions.
Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement.
In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement.
They've used all kinds of excuses.
This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland.
We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense.
We're not going to let you stupid idiots in the press corps who come off as less informed than an average first grader stop us either.
President then continued and added this.
I think it's a bad habit for our government to declassify every time there's a leak because it means it's going to be hard to get good product out of our analysts.
Those of you who have been around here long enough know what I'm talking about.
Once again, there's a leak out of our government coming right down the stretch in this campaign, you know, to create confusion in the minds of the American people.
In my judgment, it's why they leaked it.
I told the DNI to declassify this document.
You can read it for yourself.
We'll stop all the speculation, all the politics, about somebody saying something about Iraq, you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy.
And so John Negropani, the DNI, is going to declassify the document as quickly as possible.
He declassified the key judgments for you to read yourself.
Hubba, hubba, hubba.
I tell you, every time they think they got this guy hemmed in in a corner, they just end up being so profoundly embarrassed and just just going to fit the bill, folks.
I mean, nothing in the post-Labor Day scenario has played out the way they thought.
Gasoline prices are going down so much they got to do stories featuring dumb idiots in America who actually believe it's a conspiracy to help Republicans get elected.
People who benefit from the lower prices who were earlier outraged of the higher prices now think there's something suspicious about it.
By the way, I think Bill Schneider got this started on CNN.
I got a note here in a Friday report for the Situation Room.
Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices had been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections.
He ominously asked the drop in prices may last a couple of months long enough to get through the election.
Could that be what the oil companies want?
I don't know whether he got it started, but he didn't have to get it started because this is the kind of thing that warped, perverted, depraved liberals constantly believe when things don't go their way.
I want to finish with the Karzai soundbite again because it's just too powerful.
Again, this reporter, Jennifer, asked me the same question, even after hearing that the NIE in April that fueled terror growth, why have you continued to say the Iraq war has made the country safer?
Terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11.
The president mentioned some examples of it.
These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.
They came to America on September 11, but they were attacking you before September 11 in other parts of the world.
We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt.
You are a witness in New York.
Do you?
Do we forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them?
Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?
Who did that?
And where are they now?
And how do we fight them?
How do we get rid of them other than going after them?
Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?
That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated.
Extremism, their allies, terrorists, and the like.
And the cutting edge of societal evolution, Rush Limbaugh, living legend in the EIB network.
By the way, for those of you out there who think I'm still upset at dawn for refusing to go get me a cigar last week, I just went and got a cigar myself.
And I get everything myself for myself anyway, so it's no big deal.
I'm used to it a lifetime of it.
And Bach, I got the last one out of the box.
So I took the empty box into her during the break.
I said, you want this?
I mean, it's a nice box.
It has my name etched in it, burned in there.
In fact, well, the lid's not there, but that's where the name is.
I said, you can keep your jewelry in it or whatever you want.
She said, no, no, thanks.
Non-Interestinio cigar boxes.
Well, I'll just leave it here in case you change your mind.
Look at this, folks.
Who is this?
Associated Press.
Democrats line up lawyers.
Republicans say the opposition is exaggerating flaws in previous elections.
Democrats are openly lining up Election Day teams of lawyers across the country to fight what they allege could be GOP efforts to suppress votes.
Same story two years ago.
Same story four years ago.
Same story six years ago.
This is such BS.
They threaten this every election, just like they threaten to register gazillions of new teenagers and illegal immigrants.
And it hasn't helped them one bit in winning elections.
The Republicans do this.
They have an equal number of lawyers out there and polling volunteers to watch the process.
I just can't.
Nothing new.
Nothing new.
Intimidation tactics, quickly, a phone call, Frank in Del Rand, New Jersey.
Welcome program.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you for taking my call, Rush.
Yeah.
I don't know.
It's so obvious that the problem with the encouraging the terrorists is the rhetoric of the media and the liberal Democrats.
Exactly.
So obviously I can't understand.
Exactly right.
Here is this stupid leak saying it's Bush making us less safe.
It's Bush encouraging the terrorists.
It's the rhetoric of the Democrats who are engaged in sabotaging victory who give them strength, inspiration, and motivation.
They're the ones that run down the mission, run down the troops, impugn the troops while saying they support the troops.
You are exactly right.
If we want to get into the point-the-finger game and blame anybody for emboldening terrorists, you'd have to say the Democrats are doing the best job of it.
In fact, Victor Davis Hanson has a fascinating column today, and I forget the website that it is from, but somebody is writing a book or has done an interview or is writing an article about bin Laden and Zawahiri in their cave.
Maybe they're writing a book.
Wait till you hear what the complaints about America are from Zawahiri and his al-Qaeda associates in the caves in Pakistan.
That coming up.
Stay with us.
Still lots to go on the program today.
Reaction from Democrats to Clinton on Fox News Sunday.
It's amazing to hear what bin Laden and Zawahiri think of America and the latest al-Qaeda reader.
Sit tight.
Watch straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection