All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:53
September 28, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you, H.R., I appreciate that.
Greetings.
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist, making this look really easy, which means a lot of people think they can do it.
Such is the case with greatness.
Looking forward to chatting with you on the program today, 800-282-288-2, if you would like to join us.
Email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Mr. Snerdley helped me with my memory here.
When uh when George Allen uh made his famous macaca comment.
Uh, on what page did the Washington Post run that story?
It's a front page, right?
Uh and and uh like for six days in a row or something like that.
I mean, front page big time, and then and then uh this this latest Bruhaha, his supposedly uh uttered racial epithets uh out there, uh such distinguished eyewitnesses uh sorry, such distinguished hearsay witnesses as Larry Sabateau, have gone on television and say, oh yeah, yeah, you did that all the time.
Allen has denied it.
James Webb has admitted it.
That story hasn't been written.
So I'm reading the Washington Post today.
And I go through the A section and I didn't find the story I was looking for.
I was told there was a big story about this involving Webb.
So I said, Well, it's obviously a Webb and Allen campaign.
That's important to Washington Post.
I thought I would look at the front page.
And uh I didn't see it on the front page, so well, maybe I'm missing it.
So I looked again for it, I didn't see it on the front page, I didn't see it anywhere in the A section.
On the front page of the B section, however, I did find the story, Web denies ever using word as epithet.
Senate candidate James Webb on Wednesday, sought to explain remarks he had made a day earlier in which he refused to say whether he had used the in-word, but he insisted he has never used it as a racial epithet aimed at anyone.
He told the Richmond Times dispatch on Tuesday, I don't think that there's anyone who grew up around the South that hasn't had the word pass through their lips at one time in their life.
I mean, if you read Fields of Fire, that word, a lot of other words are in the book.
Fields of Fire is a novel that Webb wrote about the Vietnam War.
Spokeswoman Christian Denny Todd said that Webb, an author and former Marine, didn't want to make any blanket statements that he has never ever uttered the word.
Jim is not used the word directed at another person.
He never used it himself as a racial slur.
Well may not be the case.
Webb's comments to the Richmond Times dispatch prompted the Allen campaign to direct a reporter to a man named Dan Craig, C R A G, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said that Webb used the word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at U.S. C in the early 60s.
Uh Webb later transferred to the Naval Academy.
Uh Dan Craig, 67 years old, lives in Fairfax County, Virginia, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts in Los Angeles, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks in Watts to scare them.
Yes, uh uh Dan Craig uh said that Jim Webb told him that they would hop into their cars, they'd go down to Watts with these buddies of his.
They would take the rifles down there, they would they would, they would uh they would use the N-word, the epithets, they'd point the rifles at him, they'd pull the triggers and drive off laughing.
One night, some guys caught him and uh and beat them, and that was the end of that.
Craig said that Webb told him the Watts story during a 1983 interview for a Vietnam veterans magazine.
Craig, who described himself as a Republican who would vote for Allen, did not include the story in his article.
He provided a transcript of the interview, though, but the transcript does not contain the ROTC story, said he still remembers the exchange vividly more than 20 years later.
Now, Craig's a former Army Sergeant Major, described himself as a longtime friend of Webb's, who worked for him when he was assistant secretary of defense under President Reagan.
Craig said he approached the Allen campaign through a friend after hearing Webb's answer to the Times dispatch reporter's question about using the N-word.
The fact is he has.
He used it in my presence, Craig said.
Now this has got far more weight to it than anything Larry Saboteau is out there saying.
I don't think he's a racist any more than George Allen is, but he's not frank in admitting that he grew up in a culture where that was common and he used it.
Now, as I say, the post did run the story, but it's on page B1.
It's uh not only not on page A1, it's not in the A section whatsoever.
Yes, uh, Mr. Snerdley.
Question from the program observer here, folks.
Well.
Right.
Pointing.
I know that.
I was just gonna say that, pointing fake guns at people, rifles, going into their neighborhood, riding around terrorizing them, is far worse than using the word, the N-word or macaca.
Uh and who was it?
Call Chris Wallace a monkey the other day.
You know, that can get you in trouble too.
Somebody called Chris Wallace, some Clinton person called Chris Wallace a monkey.
Uh some TV.
I don't remember who it was.
Um I mean, the the th the point is, you know, here's something it's not even stated.
I uh maybe it has been earlier.
But you know, it reminded me of this.
Webb was the Secretary of the Navy for Reagan.
Now look what the Democrats have to do to try to win this Senate seat.
They have to go out and get a guy who is ostensibly a conservative and is all of a sudden calling himself a Democrat now in order to beat George Allen.
Uh it's one of these little mentioned factoids of this campaign.
They haven't gone out and found a real Rybald, good old fashioned anti-war lib uh to run against George Allen, which is what their kook base would uh would like.
But uh at any rate, this is just it it's it's ridiculous.
And I don't we'll see what kind of life this gets.
We'll we'll see if anybody is interested in doing this story.
The fact it's on B1 of the Washington Post, I will predict to you means that none of the other broadcast media will care about it.
Because by putting it on P1, uh you you automatically uh uh cancel it out.
So it's uh it's uh, you know, sort of a fringe story.
Besides all that, folks, the damage they think has been done.
They're not interested in finding out who's used the N-word.
They're not interested.
The drive-by media, the Washington Post, not interested in that.
The Democrats not interested in that.
All they're interested in doing is damaging, smearing, and they think they've done that.
As I said yesterday, they've gone way overboard and way over the top on this.
And this story, we will make sure this story gets out.
It is not on page B1 here at the EIB network.
This is a fascinating little story in the New York Times that the headline Mystery of Methane Levels in 90s seems solved.
For years, scientists have been trying to figure out why the atmospheric concentration of methane, a heat-trapping gas, stopped increasing in the early 90s after tripling during the preceding 200 years.
Some scientists and environmental groups said that the change could be a sign of success in efforts to stem emissions of methane, a gas that they say contributes to global warming.
The uh uh included stanching pipeline leaks and capturing methane from landfills and so forth.
But now a new study by an international research team supports the suspicions of some experts that the leveling off was probably temporary and caused by a downturn in emissions from industry, most likely related to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its economy.
But after 1999, emissions from industry and other human activities began rising again, particularly amongst the Chicoms, according to the study, which will be published today in the journal Nature.
Inez Fung, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California Berkeley said the study was a convincing portrait of shifts in human and natural contributions to the methane mix in the atmosphere.
All right, can I translate this for you?
What they're really saying here is that we had a drop in atmospheric methane when the Soviet Union went kaput.
Now, who caused that?
Ronald Reagan helped stop greenhouse gases in the 90s by depleting the communists, defeating them and whacking them and wiping them out.
Ronald Reagan, fighting for the environment while slaying the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War.
Back in just a second.
Well, the Senate is gonna vote on the detainee bill, a terror bill, uh four o'clock this afternoon, if they are on time.
Think they defeated the Spectre Amendment.
I'm not sure.
Check that out.
Spectre amendment was up for up for grabs this uh this morning, and uh uh wanted to grant habeas corpus to the uh enemy combatants, and and even Vice President Graham stood up, not with my vote, you're not.
You are not doing that with my vote, which kind of surprised me.
I sounded like he was a little off the reservation there based on his uh previous position on this.
Would you like to hear how the Democrats are analyzing their um uh strategy on this?
The New York Times has the uh has the story by Adam DeGurney.
The headline here dispute on intelligence report disrupts Republicans' game plan.
The dispute over a newly disclosed NIE estimate is threatened a pre-election script in which the White House had sought to put Democrats on the defensive on the national security, as the White House saw it.
This was to have been the week in which Republicans seized the advantage by pushing two anti-terrorism bills through Congress over the objections of recalcitrant Democrats, but instead.
On Wednesday, for the second day in a row, Democrats seized on the intelligence report as confirmation of their case that the Iraq war has in fact compounded the global terrorism threat.
Now, they have to lie through their teeth to do it, but they got their willing accomplices in the media to do it, and so they're pretending that what was declassified never got declassified.
One sentence in three paragraphs buttresses their point, and the other stuff buttresses the administration's point, and so that it's like it never happened now.
Republican leaders criticize the 160 House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, who voted against a measure sought by the president to change the conditions for trying and questioning terrorism suspects.
Now, here's how the Democrats figure this out.
The Democrats, and it's in this story, and I'm I'm I'm just I'm just gonna synthesize this for you.
The Democrats think that they will not be hurt by voting against the detainee bill because they didn't block it.
Their thinking is since they let the bill come up for a vote and didn't block it, and then voted against it, that they won't be hurt.
They further spin that they have maneuvered the Republicans into talking about Iraq, which the Democrats think is a winner for them because of the national intelligence estimate.
Now, when you factor in how stupid the Democrats think most people are, it doesn't seem to me that the most people, in the view of the Democrats, gonna have the brains to figure all this out.
But this this spin of theirs actually is no, we're not gonna be hurt by voting against this.
160 did.
160 Democrats vote against this.
We've played you the sound bites of Nancy Pelosi and Pat Lahey and their and their and their story uh about this and their analysis?
My gosh.
It's dangerous.
Uh so they think they can get away without being hurt by voting against it, and that they've maneuvered the Republicans into being hurt by talking about Iraq because they think that everybody believes the national intelligence estimate is that Bush has created all this terrorists, uh, terrorism and terrorists, and has made it worse.
Now, just how strong is the anti-war left out there?
Get this.
About 100 protesters protesting the Iraq war marched past the Capitol carrying mock coffins on Wednesday.
They laid down in front of doorways at a House office building.
Twenty-six of these people were arrested.
Many of them covered themselves with uh themselves with sheets designed to make them resemble dead bodies.
This is just a reenactment of the uh uh Great Global Peace March for nuclear disarmament.
They marched across the country, they got to Washington, they went to a bunch of buildings, and they staged a die-in.
And they just they painted themselves red and so forth, and a signal was given at a predetermined time.
They all just collapse as though they'd just been zapped with a nuke.
Steps of the energy department and so forth.
Still going back to the old playbook.
But Packy Whelan, 63, Northampton, Massachusetts.
I had to bring my body down here to say no.
60s retread.
But here's the interesting thing.
Protest was organized by declaration of peace, a coalition of about 500 groups that has organized war protests around the country during the past week.
Really, a declaration of peace, a coalition of about 500 groups was able to assemble 100 aging ancient dinosaur protesters.
What the hell kind of turnout is that?
500 groups and you generate 100 people to go do your die-in.
Jimmy Carter, former president, said yesterday, major policy changes are needed.
Because the Iraq war has divided the nation almost as much as Vietnam.
So there's no doubt that our country is in much more danger now from terrorism than it would have been if we would have done what we should have done and stayed in Afghanistan.
I think he's one of the worst secretaries of defense we've ever had, said the worst former president of Donald Rumsfeld.
Almost every decision he's made has aggravated his military subordinates and has also proved to be a mistake.
You want to review your time in office, sir.
Jimmy Carter.
Let's go to the audio sound bites now.
Remember this is sort of like a limbaugh echo.
Remember uh yesterday.
Uh ladies and gentlemen, hang on a minute.
I just had something printed.
I mean, I can hear it printing.
Well, there's only 150 pages here, and they look like that.
All right, well, what what hang on just a second?
This is all gibberish.
This is all gibberish.
This is all binary code.
You've printed code, not a story.
You idiot.
What are you doing in there?
You totally interrupted a radio show for a bunch of gibberish and garbage.
I am not gonna see get that smirk off your f- stop laughing at me.
I'm just practicing uh public outbursts, ladies and gentlemen.
Dean at Yale University says it's a very healthy thing to do since the Clinton uh outburst on Fox News Sunday.
It's still printing your gibberish, Snergly.
Look at this.
Look at it, look at it.
What are you printing me?
It's an AP story.
Well, I've got guaranteed it's in it's in co no, it's not in one page.
It is still printing.
It's probably gonna go through 300 pages.
It's not, it's not an apple problem, Brian.
My computer never crashes like yours do in there all the time.
All right, where was I?
Oh, yes.
Audio sound by time.
You people remembered yesterday, I pointed out very cleverly when it comes to the NIE that uh the Democrats seem to be cherry-picking the intelligence, massaging it says their own benefit.
Well, everything they accuse the Bush administration of doing on weapons of mass destruction and all these uh uh intelligence bits that justify the Iraq War, Democrats doing the same thing.
Well, lo and behold, listen to this from this morning on CNN.
Are you cherry picking?
And if so, doesn't this put pressure on those analysts one way or another to deliver a certain sort of answer?
Let's hope we're past that.
Uh, we've had a very, very bad season uh for intelligence analysis.
Uh, what I'm hoping for is that the whole document can be sent up to Congress so we can see all the qualifiers, all the dissents and so forth.
I want it to be a good document.
I have reason to believe that our intelligence community is doing better.
Our sources are better, our analysis is better, but if we keep this stuff under lock and key because it doesn't suit uh the White House version of what it wants to say about Iraq, I think that that is harmful uh to the morale and the intelligence community.
Oh, ho.
That's Jane Harmon, by the way, who is uh the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, accusing the Bush administration of cherry picking the document.
Uh it is it is turning it around.
Miles O'Brien correctly says, Are you guys cherry picking this?
No, but the Bush administration is.
They're cherry-picking it with what they choose to release.
But we know what it really says in there.
Blah, blah, blah.
Here's what Snerdley was trying to print.
Um, and I what's the Yeah, I can't.
I'm trying to figure out what the source is.
Um.
Anyway, Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq is reporting 4,000 foreign insurgents are dead.
It was unclear why the group would advertise its losses, but martyrdom is revered among Islamic fundamentalists, could be used as a recruiting tool.
A new audio message posted on a website today.
More than 4,000 foreign insurgents, i.e.
terrorists, have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
I know why it did it.
The Democrats are going to criticize Bush for being unnecessarily bloody.
Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq reporting 4,000 foreign insurgents dead, terrorists, what have you.
Nobody can figure out why they're releasing this information.
Uh, other than perhaps martyrdom is a big deal and it could be a recruitment tool.
How sick is that?
Come die and go to heaven in the 72 verticals, but these are people that do consider their own deaths a victory.
Um I can't wait for this news to reach Democrats.
Wow.
Wow, because that's more deaths than we've had uh over there.
And the Democrats, if they're consistent, will we say that the president is uh this is excessive use of force.
I mean, there's no there's no need for this.
It's random killing.
I mean, this is absurd, and and we we gotta stop this.
This news is gonna make them even freak out more.
Oh, no, because they're trying to protect these people in prison.
Um, well, I know.
I mean, we're in and we're in violation of Nancy Pelosi's golden rule.
We've killed more of them than they've killed of us.
He can't have that in a war.
As far as Democrats are concerned, I mean, that's that's just unnecessarily brutal, bloodthirsty, and and it's indiscriminate.
We're just killing people for the hell of it.
That's just it's it's unf it's just it's not.
We are sacrificing American values by killing more of the enemy in a war than they are killing of us.
If the Democrats are consistent, this is what they will have to say.
And make no mistake, at somewhere some Democrat, may not be an elected Democrat, don't know, but when this story hits, there will be some anti-Bush uh resonance to it.
Here, listen to Chuck Schumer.
He was on Capitol Hill yesterday hold a press conference.
Just listen to this.
Are you going to stand by the nonpartisan, non-political intelligence estimates that came out of 16 agencies?
Or are you going to be a rubber stamp for George Bush?
And when he says black is white, you go, indeed it is.
Senator Schumer, this is the same bunch of agencies that you accused of cherry picking and massaging, and having nothing right about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Uh, you raised all kinds of questions about the lack of credibility.
It was either Cheney was able to go over there and tell him to write what he wanted to hear, or that Bush went through it and only picked out what he liked and ignored all the rest.
But regardless, this same 16 agencies you have maligned and impugned ever since 2004, 2003, actually.
Now all of a sudden they are infallible.
They are the Pope.
And they still think they can get away with all of this and not be uh called on it.
Now, here is as though they still run the media and that there is no answer to what they say.
Here is an interesting story in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Um headline, experts say an Iraq pull out not enough to stop jihadists, both staying and leaving, seeing as problematic.
Well, what a great bunch of options we got.
Experts.
Experts say an Iraq pull out is not enough to stop jihad.
Who is saying that pulling out will stop them?
Who is saying this?
They're not saying that.
They're not saying if we pull out that the jihadists will stop.
They're just saying we gotta pull out because we're Democrats and we don't fight.
We're Democrats, nothing Is worth fighting for, we're gonna pull out.
Now they are saying if we pull out, then it's not gonna make them it'd be as mad at us, but it doesn't say anything about the fact that it will that pulling out will stop them.
They do believe that if we can just show them we mean them no harm, that they might not try to harm us.
We pull out, they are going to follow us.
I mean, this is this headline is beyond bizarre.
Experts say an Iraq pull out not enough to stop jihadists, both staying and leaving, seen as problematic.
Well can you imagine your average San Franciscan getting up and reading this headline and thinking it's probably brilliant?
Let's see what the story says here.
Calling on the Bush administration again to withdraw troops from Iraq, Democrat warmakers and critics of the war have seized on the bleak findings of a partially declassified intelligence report that concluded the war is helping cultivate new supporters for Islamist militants across the globe.
How about uh I'm I'm not I'm not even we we've we've diced and sliced this I don't know how many times.
But experts on terrorism warn that extricating the U.S. from the increasingly unpopular war will not be enough to stop the jihadists.
Uh here's an expert.
Syed Haznat, an expert on terrorism at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
It was a great mistake to go to Iraq, but a sudden withdrawal would both greatly damage the U.S. and affect the cycle of international extremism.
So we're screwed, folks.
If we pull out of there it's as though some people think you can define victory by pulling out.
It's like in World War II.
You know, if we would have just not even attacked Hitler, we could have won.
We could have won.
We could have beat the Japanese if we just wouldn't have attacked.
Yeah, because if we pull out of Iraq, why the jihadists will stop, we will we will achieve victory if we pull up.
Not guaranteed that'll happen, so we can't do that, but there are problems if we stay and problems if we leave.
We are screwed, folks, according to the experts.
We are totally screwed.
There is literally nothing we can do.
Everything we have done has resulted in abysmal, dramatic failure from which there is no escape or extrication.
We have gotten a royal shaft.
We are up the creek without the paddle.
We're in an elevator going to the top floor of a building that never stops.
The roots of international Islamic militancy.
They roots.
I swear, it's why I love this show.
Who wrote this story?
Anna Annabadkin went out and found these these experts, and she probably won a pull it's it for this.
The nuances of this story, I mean, you have to dig deep to understand the unique brilliance and insight of our experts who have laid before us our options.
Well, we can't pull out of there because that may not be enough to stop the jihadists.
Think about this.
Can we visualize this?
Let's hypothetically say that the president says today, uh, we're leaving Iraq Sunday at noon.
Because I want to watch football on interrupted.
So we're leaving Iraq Sunday at noon, and the jihadists no, no, we want to win.
No.
I mean, this is absurd.
We pull out of there and the jihadists say, no, no, no, no, don't pull out.
We're just we're gonna stop if you pull out.
We're gonna stop terrorism, and we're gonna stop, we're gonna stop fighting the war, and we're gonna stop taking over Baghdad.
Don't pull out, because if you do, we'll stop.
Can you imagine Mokhtada Muki al-Sadr?
And uh and the new Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq protesting if Bush announced we're leaving.
Well, that's what the story says.
May not be enough to stop the jihadists.
Well, they'd probably you guys pull out of here and we might stop.
The roots of international Islamic militancy go far deeper than the U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Excuse me.
Uh Story getting even more complicated.
The roots of international Islamic militancy go far deeper than the U.S. military presence in Iraq, and their goal uh extends beyond forcing out U.S. troops, experts say.
How did that get past the editor?
They've just told us here that we are hopelessly mired.
We can't pull out of there because that won't stop the child.
But if we stay or leave, we got problems.
You'll excuse, folks, I get giddy when I'm when I'm encountered with with just sheer stupidity.
I laugh at it.
I don't I don't have any sympathy for it.
I don't wring my hands.
Oh, isn't it so unfortunate they're so dumb?
I just I'm sorry, Lab.
No, we're not supposed to laugh at people's weaknesses, but in this case, can't help it.
The roots of international Islamic militancy go far deeper than the U.S. military presence in Iraq and their goals.
The Middleton Islamists, their goals extend beyond forcing uh U.S. troops out of uh Iraq.
Duh!
Really?
Your first clue?
When did your experts figure this out?
Why did it take you at the San Francisco Chronicle a bunch of experts to tell you this?
At the same time, most experts agree with the National Intelligence Estimate.
That leaving Iraq in turmoil would embolden Islamic terrorists, giving them a foothold in a victory.
Really?
Really?
If we pull out, they would win?
That's news.
The predicament in the United States faces right now is that we are basically bogged down in the shifting sand of Iraq, and the longer we stay, the more we provide ammo for the jihadist leaders, said Fawaz Gurges, a visiting scholar at the University of Cairo, and the author of Journey of the Jihad.
But if we retreat from Iraq, the militants will be empowered.
So, as I say, folks, it's it's over.
We're doomed.
Screwed.
We uh shafted ourselves.
It's hopeless.
Nothing we can do.
Pulling out doesn't accomplish anything.
Staying doesn't accomplish now.
The one thing that the story does not calculate is if we stay and win.
All right, returning to the Washington Post.
I'm trying to count up the um this editorial uh is a warning to the Democrats to shut up about withdrawing from Iraq.
And I'm trying to how many is this now?
There have been uh this may be the fourth one that I can remember that the uh Washington Post is warning the Democrats on this.
Uh the headline of this is uh a good estimate.
President Bush's release of an intelligence assessment of global terrorism ought to enlighten the campaign debate.
The report also poses problems for Democratic leaders such as Pelosi and John Kerry, who say the solution in Iraq is an early withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The report supports Mr. Bush's contention that Iraq is now a central front in the war on terrorism.
It says perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere, while defeat would mean that fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
The U.S. mission in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been largely aimed at those goals in one of the Muslim world's most important countries.
It should be little wondered that the effort, like U.S. promotion of democracy in Lebanon and within the Palestinian authority has provoked an extreme backlash.
Were it to retreat altogether from the Middle East, the U.S. could probably reduce the number of Islamic extremist recruits in the next five years, yet any careful reader of the intelligence estimate will find it hard to conclude that the war can be won that way.
Here we go again.
We win by pulling out.
And the Washington Post says no, we don't.
Let me translate this for you.
This is a note to Democrats.
Stop calling for withdrawal.
That this national intelligence estimate report puts the focus on Pelosi and Kerry and laments cut-and-run policy, which goes against the very report they were highlighting.
Uh the the the uh the lone outpost of sanity here in the uh in the drive-by media, and it's a warning shot to the Democrats.
You guys you got this all wrong.
You think by calling for an immediate pull out or a pull out in 2008, which is what somebody in the Democratic Party said the other day, uh, is a winner.
It isn't.
And based on this report, the Washington Post is saying don't lie to yourselves about what's in this report.
The Democrats aren't listening, of uh, of course.
But uh nevertheless, they're trying to help him out there.
Uh Joel Lieberman has a 10-point lead over Ned Lament among likely Connecticut voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll uh released today.
49 to 39 over lament, five percent plan on voting for Republican.
The Quinnipiact poll showed that Lieberman has higher favorability ratings among likely voters, 51% to laments 31%.
Well Lament has slightly higher favorability numbers among Democrats, 47 to 43.
Lieberman far out distances his challenger among likely Republicans and unaffiliated voters.
Glenn in San Francisco, I'm glad you called, sir.
Great to have you on the program.
Uh yes, Megot Ditto's here from the front line.
Yes.
I just want to comment on the recent admission of Clinton in national TV that the Democratic policies are failures.
Because after all, he said he tried five, six, seven years and he failed.
He failed at his policy, Pelosi's policy, fine policy, their failed policies.
He's admitted.
Why don't they listen to him and give up this policy of the t treating terrorists like uh common criminals and police actions instead of what they are.
Well, you know, that would have been an interesting headline in the New York Times.
Uh Clinton admits policy on terrorism failed.
Uh the Wall Street Journal would have run it that way.
The New York Times would not have.
And that's the thing.
It's Clinton admits Osama policy, big zero.
Clinton admits Osama policy failure.
Of course, you have to remember how the liberals take this and how they analyze this, uh, Glenn.
Uh it's not that Clinton failed.
It's that he tried.
He would never work harder on anything, Glenn.
Getting been like he tried, but Bush didn't even try.
They didn't even try.
The first eight months they didn't even try.
At least I tried.
At least I tried, but I failed.
I failed, but I tried.
But that's a funny thing.
When they say Bush didn't try for someone who didn't try, Use, Kuse is dead, uh, all these other guys we captured uh uh.
Well, well, when did Hussein die?
Oh, the kids, the kids, those uh those miscreant ne'er do wells, yeah.
And Zowie is dead, we got uh, you know, uh Hussein captures.
So for someone who who didn't even try to do that.
Yeah, but this is before this before 9-11.
Uh the Liberals are talking about 9-11.
The eight months that Bush was in office, he didn't even try.
That's what they say.
He didn't even try.
Clinton tried.
And Clinton failed, but he tried.
Uh you know, that's that's that's the legacy.
I think if if we're looking for a legacy for Bill Clinton, I tried.
I really tried.
I failed, but I tried.
Uh this is sort of like a it goes back to your childhood.
You know, when you're young, uh your parents, if you have good teachers, you had good parents, they urge you expand the effort, son.
Give it all you got.
That's all you can do.
Do the best you can.
Try, try, try.
And that's, you know, that's good education.
That that's uh that that's good motivation.
But at some point, trying doesn't count.
Uh Seattle Seahawks tried.
They lost in the Super Bowl.
Uh they don't give the trophy to the people that try the hardest when you get down to brass tax.
But Clinton, knowing he didn't succeed in anything, wants all these gold stars for trying.
Because he tried.
I tried, so I never worked harder on anything in my life with tax cuts and killing those saddlebags.
I just couldn't do it.
George Tennett wouldn't do it.
New York Times headline, New Hope for Democrats in bid for Senate.
I'll explain this to you when we come back.
▲
Export Selection