All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
October 10, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dawn, I think you should go with the costume that you showed me.
Are you are you gonna go trick-or-treating with that?
Is it a party?
Dawn's in there looking at various Halloween costumes.
Snurdly is making fun of the one she wants to wear, and I think it looks great.
Greetings, my friends, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
Fun frolic and frivolity for all as well as a serious discussion of issues.
Let me ask you a hit phone number, by the way, 800-282-2882, email address rush at EIB net.com.
During the break, Mr. Snerdley approached me and said, Thank you.
This for what?
This was the worst day.
Last night of the day have been the worst.
Every story, every story was just totally negative.
Thank you for reorienting my perspective.
I said, Well, uh, you're more than welcome.
That's how easy it is.
Snerdley is a highly trained observer, and even he falls prey to the media bubble now and then.
And Snerdley said to me, he got so frustrated, he says, When's the last time you have ever seen a Democrat go on a television show and admit they're gonna get skunked?
When's the last time you've ever heard a Democrat go on television and say, Yeah, well, we expect to lose.
We uh expect to lose uh some seats.
We could even lose control.
It could be really bad.
We could lose seven to thirty seats.
The Democrats, media savvy as they are, never appear on television and say, yep, we expect to lose.
Now, Bill Cower just finished his press conference, his weekly press conference with the media, and I didn't hear it yet.
I'll read the transcript later.
Uh coach of the Steelers, but I will guarantee they play the cheap this weekend.
And I will guarantee you that Bill Cower coming off now one in three record to open the season.
I'll guarantee you that Bill Cower didn't tell the media in Pittsburgh last hour that he expects to lose on Sunday to the Cheeps between seven and thirty points.
I'll bet not the Tampa Bay coach.
Just kidding, Brian.
But they don't, this doesn't happen.
Democrats, even when they know they're gonna lose, we're hopeful.
We're hopeful we got time to turn this around.
Whatever.
Republicans, on the other hand, are out there.
Yeah, yeah, it looks pretty bad.
Yeah, this fold of things really hurt.
Oh, yeah, we could lose seven.
See, we could lose 30.
We could lose control of both uh houses.
Republican pollsters go on television, say the same damn thing.
So it's uh uh it it requires uh even uh uh a concerted and double effort from uh from all of you to uh stay bucked up uh when even your quote unquote leaders uh are out there apparently throwing in the towel, which is frankly absurd.
Uh the drive-by's cannot let go of the Foley story.
The Foley story is already starting to fizzle.
The only thing really keeping it alive is Hastert going on television talking about it.
Somebody needs to tell him issue written statements.
If you want to, if you want to assure everybody that anybody who knew anything before X about Foley gets canned, put out a written statement and be done with it.
Uh but it you give him video and you give them a whole day to keep that story alive and so forth.
But this story came too soon in their cycle.
This was uh according to the prowler in the American Spectator.
One of the stories going around Democrat Party circles is that party operatives like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington crew, and American family voices weren't quite ready for prime time with the opposition research materials they had gathered for this election cycle, according to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations.
Quote, I'm hearing the Foley story wasn't supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election.
It was supposed to be the coup de grace, not the first shot.
So why the rush?
Why'd they drop it out there?
Another DNC operative told the American spectator bad polling numbers across the country.
Bush's national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base.
Gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive.
We were seeing bad Democrat numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, even parts of New York, says the operative.
A month before we were looking at launching an offensive against Republicans, who, according to polling, barely had a five-seat majority if the election were to be held at the end of August.
That was doable for Democrats from September 1 to November 7th, but by mid-September, Republicans are back to having held seats for a 15 seat majority.
This is according to Democrat polling.
In the Senate, it looked like a wash.
We held seats in Florida and Nebraska, picked up seats in Pennsylvania, but that was about it.
They were holding in Missouri, possibly within reach in Maryland and Washington.
We were looking at a disaster in the making, said this Democrat operative.
I So how to remedy?
Well, you pull out the bright, shiny things that distract the average American voter away from issues that we know they all care about.
National security, anti-terrorism, and focus on the ugly, Foley, and Iraq.
So exactly what I said to you in the first hour, the Democratic Party cannot afford elections on issues.
You need to ask yourself issues questions in determining whether or not you're going to vote and how you're going to vote.
Now, conventional wisdom had Republicans seeing improving numbers in races across the country throughout the month of September after Congress spent the month of August at home campaigning.
Some Republicans don't disagree that the polls were improving that dramatically.
At any rate, what no one disputes was that the GOP was sensing some wind at its back and reinvigorated base with Bush on the stump, Congress quietly at home, not creating any more messes for the media to hit on.
Now, of course, the Foley story has left a far bigger mess a month out of the election than anyone had expected.
This is something that they attempted to drop ten days out.
Uh they had to go early with it.
They cannot afford elections on issues.
Now, does the Foley story have legs?
Can they make it last through the election?
The odds, I think, are no.
And the main reason is, unless they've got something really, really brand new that nobody knows anything about yet.
All they can do is recycle a bunch of prurient, irrelevant sex details after Foley is already been gone twelve days now.
People's emotional reservoirs are not that large.
And I don't think the American people have the emotional reservoir to continue to care about the Foley mess more than anything else for four more weeks.
But that's the task the Democrats have.
They have to do everything they can to keep this election off of issues.
They have to keep it off of taxes going up.
They have to keep it off of surrendering in the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
They have to keep this election off of things that matter.
The economy.
They have no ideas or issues on any of those issues.
None that they're willing to admit publicly.
Now, if somebody could just get Denny Hashard off television and somebody get a message to these stupid Republicans going on TV predicting their own defeat.
Then this thing will turn around like that overnight.
Offense, offense, offense.
The perspective needs to be what happens if the Democrats lose?
They haven't won a House election since 1992.
What happens if they lose another one?
They've the one they're the ones that have raised the bar to the to the point so high now that they have to win both houses, or it's a loss and a humiliating one to boot.
Quick timeout, audio sound bites next, plus your phone calls.
My question about a naval blockade on North Korea was asked of John Bolton today.
We have his answer after this.
Highly trained broadcast specialist executing assigned host duties flawlessly because I do the assigning.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man behind the golden EIB microphone.
Audio soundbite, Steve Deucey today, talking to our ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Deucey said yesterday I heard on our way home, I heard Rush Limbaugh talking on the radio about how we need a naval blockade so that anything going into our into or out of North Korea, we know exactly what's on there.
Make sure it's not something illegal or something that could uh blow up.
Is that a good idea?
That's something that's important not only for their weapons of mass destruction, but you know, They're counterfeiting American money.
They're engaged in money laundering.
They're engaged in the sale of drugs through diplomatic pouches.
They're doing all kinds of things to get money to support the regime.
That's all the sort of thing we'd like to cut off.
Yes.
Well, Foley says Foley.
See, it even happens to me.
Deucey, no offense, Steve.
I don't think you look like Foley, nor sound like him.
Deucey said, Yeah, but what about a naval blockade?
How likely is that?
Well, we're not at that point yet.
But what we need uh really is further international cooperation with our own proliferation security initiative, which the president created a few years ago, and which has been quite successful in reducing the flow of weapons of mass destruction and materials.
We'd like broader cooperation from China, for example, on that.
That's one of the things we're seeking here.
All right.
Now the couple of news stories here that are quite interesting.
The Chicago Tribune today, uh an analysis piece by Mark Silva of their Washington Bureau, North Korea bested U.S. for years.
Washington now paying price for decades of failed tactics, critics say.
How do we get here?
Thirty-four years of blinking, bending the rules, and groveling, roughly in that order.
If somebody wants to pick on President Clinton or President Bush, they really don't understand how rich the target is, it really goes much further.
Uh the uh folks, uh when you say Washington now paying in price for decades of failed tactics, it wasn't tactics, it's diplomacy.
If anything is on display here, it is that diplomacy doesn't work against people like Kim Jong-il or Mahmood Ahmadinejad, or any other tyrant dictator thug who has mass murderous ambitions.
It just doesn't work.
Why would talking to these people cause them to get rid of what they're doing just because they're enemies want now?
China's a different situation.
And we talked about China yesterday on this program.
In addition to the uh the naval blockade.
Uh there are a number of ways to press China on this.
Now the news today is that the Chinese feel insulted.
The Chinese feel disrespected.
That they weren't they weren't consulted before this test, whatever it was, was detonated, and they're upset.
Now the trains are still running between China and North Korea.
I can't imagine why anybody want to go to go either place, but particularly North Korea, but there are trains going back and forth.
The relations are still underway, but the Chinese are it's being said that the administration of uh President or Premier Hu Xintau is uh is angry and feeling a little disrespected here because the potbellied dog eating dictator uh did not consult him about this.
We made the point yesterday on this program that the way to deal with with the uh with the North Koreans is the Cold War model.
Uh North Korea is a satellite country of China's.
Regardless of what anybody says, it can't survive without China.
Uh you know, China's out there protesting, but uh I mean, this point, but it's it's it's worthless.
Everybody knows that North Korea couldn't get anywhere near a nuclear program without the support of China.
Now you tell that ri region of the world, all right.
You're you remember the equivalent.
We put the uh Pershing missiles in Europe.
What is the equivalent?
The equivalent is you go tell China and you tell the North Koreans we're putting offensive nuclear weapons in Japan.
And we're also going to uh we're gonna have some economic sanctions against you in China.
We'll uh might be harmful to us for a while, but it'll be worse on you.
There's any number of things here that can be done that would not be the same as an actual naval blockade, uh, but they would have uh somewhat similar impact.
But you start telling those nations in that region of the world that we're gonna arm up Japanese with uh offensive nuclear weapons, and you say that we're not putting up with this, we're not putting up with this unholy alliance uh that you have uh that you have established here.
Uh we uh there's no reason in South Korea too.
We'll give some nukes to South Korea.
No reason they shouldn't have this kind of technology, especially if the North does.
Uh it's the rogue states we worry about, folks.
This is you know we had the call yesterday from the guy in Pittsburgh.
And we shouldn't uh why shouldn't the uh Iraq Iranians have nuclear weapons?
They're just they're just people too.
Uh bottom line is we don't care about democracies and freedom-loving people having nukes, they use them as deterrents.
But we do worry about people like Ahmadinejad, who promises to use them, uh, and and uh Kim Jong-il, that is a problem.
If you're unable to draw distinctions between good guys and bad guys, you're in heap big trouble, and many Americans are in heap big trouble.
Seattle Times.
North Korea's fears of a U.S. invasion likely helped spur the apparent testing of a nuclear warhead Monday, according to a University of Washington professor who has spent much of his career studying the Korean peninsula.
That's the lesson they learned from the Iraq War, that as part of the Bush administration's axis of evil, they need to be prepared for a U.S. first strike, said Clark Sorensen, associate professor at the Henry M. Jackson School.
That would be Scoop Jackson of international studies.
Well, let's go to some more audio sound bites on this because I'll bet you we can find some other Americans who think it's Bush's fault for calling them axis of evil members that caused them to ramp up and do nukes.
Yes, it's all Bush's fault.
How easy, how sophomoric and how pedantic it is for these Democrats to simply come out and blame Bush.
They are being frivolous, folks.
The drive-by media, the Democrats are frivolous in this.
They're not being serious.
They are looking at this as merely as everything else they look at, a political issue.
How can we turn this so it hurts Bush?
Rather than the real national security issue that it is.
We have a montage here about Bush, whether he's a cowboy or not.
We have Al Gore, Bill Schneider, Harry Reed, Chris Matthews, David Gregory, Juilliams, Claire Shipman, and Al Gore again.
This montage features sound bites from 1999 to the present.
You know, uh, this uh go it alone uh cowboy type approach.
It's an attitude they don't like, they don't appreciate.
It's the cowboy mentality.
Bring them on.
Cowboy diplomacy.
You cover diplomatic areas.
This too much the cowboy for them.
It may reinforce stereotypes about Bush being a cowboy or see him in the cowboy hat on the ranch, and he's a cowboy.
It was the end of cowboy diplomacy.
The boots and the hat are back on.
I think that the kind of a cowboy go-it-alone attitude.
Okay, now this is all about the the the liberals bashing Bush for not dealing one-on-one with North Korea, but when he acts alone, he's a cowboy.
When they think he went into Iraq unilateral, that's cowboy diplomacy, but they want him to act as a cowboy with North Korea.
So it's not that they care what he does, it's just that whatever he does, they're going to be critical of it.
Yesterday, Eric Sean on the Fox News Channel was on the street, caught up with a North Korean diplomat who said this about President Bush.
U.S. policy is hostile to us.
We have to counter that.
Why I think the administration is uh happy.
Right, okay.
So just like Al Qaeda, just like Iran, just like Hugo Chavez, the North Koreans take their cues from the American left.
A North Korean diplomat says Bush a trigger happy.
Osama bin Laden, Amen Alza Wahiri, Abu Musab al Zakawi, Alibaba Sabadal, whatever.
It doesn't matter who these people are, they repeat Democrat talking points when talking about George W. Bush.
He's a cowboy, he's trigger happy.
U.S. policy is hostile to us.
Yeah, well, there's a reason if it is hostile to you.
It deserves to be.
You people are a murdering bunch of tyrant communists who slaughter and starve your own people.
Now you're attempting to get a nuclear weapon, and we can't afford to take a chance what you might do with it.
Uh, you know, we are we are also extremely uh hostile to criminals in the well, some of us are, liberals like to coddle them.
But we in general are hostile to people who want to harm others who aren't doing anything to them.
We are hostile in the nature of national defense.
And many of us, Mr. Spokesman Ambassador whoever, make no mistake and make no apology for it.
There are definitely hostilities.
In fact, I think my memory is the world hates us right now, Mr. Ambassador.
Are we talking about nuking everybody?
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
That's the golden EIB mic.
Okay.
Happy to have you along, ladies and gentlemen, to the phones we go.
This is Michael San Bernardino, California.
Welcome, sir.
You know, your statement that uh you cannot in any way engage in diplomacy with even with your enemies is precisely why the current crop of Republicans can't be trusted with foreign policy.
Really?
Absolutely.
Really?
Well, your alternative apparently is war all the time.
No.
No, it's not war all the time.
It's war when necessary when we're threatened.
Not all the time.
Well, there's always some degree of the problem is you guys are never for you are anti-war.
You're always opposed to it.
It doesn't work in the face of all the other mechanisms to deal with hostilities that uh that fail constantly and every time they're tried.
I've never said anything like that.
I think the military is not a good thing.
What about 50 years of the how about 50 years of the Israeli-Palestinian problem?
We've really solved that with diplomacy, haven't we?
Well, we we're changing the subject.
No.
I'm not changing you.
No, I just gave you a point you can't refute.
Thanks for calling, see you later.
I'm not putting up with this, folks.
I'm not arguing with lame brains who want to tell me things that are intellectually insulting to me.
I'm just not going to put up with it.
He was going to go on to say that the North Korea problem is Bush's fault.
It's a Bush's creation.
It's a Republican mess.
We all know, ladies and gentlemen.
It was the Clinton administration got us into this mess.
1994, Switzerland, right here, Clinton's North Korea legacy, the path to October 8th.
From the August 06 issue of the limbaugh letter.
1994, Switzerland, North Korea, the United States sign an agreement in which the dog eater, the potbellied dog eater, agreed to abandon his nuclear weapons program in exchange for us helping them build two nuclear power plants.
We've got the pictures of Madeline Albright and the little dog eater toasting each other with champagne.
North Korea's reward for this.
Clinton eased some of the economic sanctions.
Kim Jong-il was rewarded with an official state visit from Madeline Albright, where they toasted each other with champagne.
Uh and uh it all started falling apart, and even Albright admitted on television that the North Koreans tricked him.
You liberals want to say because Bush called them the axes of evil.
Amazing, you know, you liberals, you politically correct cowardly people.
You are more afraid of words than you are nuclear weapons in the hands of communists.
You think that this world is in great peril because Bush went out there and started talking about axes of evil.
But the fact that the North Koreans just tested a nuke doesn't bother you at all.
Not a shred, Jason and Plantation Florida.
Thank you for calling, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Great to have you.
Thanks, Russ.
I really appreciate it.
First of all, thank you for uh for what you do.
I don't agree with everything that you say, but I think it's important that you and all of the liberal and conservative get out there and strip their stuff.
I think it's important for the health of our democracy.
So thank you.
Thank you.
Can I ask you a quick question?
Sure, go ahead.
Sometimes people call and say, I don't agree with everything that you say.
Could you, and I'm not this is I'm not trying to be provocative.
I'm just genuinely curious.
Can you can you name something with me you disagree about?
Sure.
I don't agree that liberals, uh of which I am one, though not a Democrat, uh, are anti-liberty.
To paraphrase you, I know I'm paraphrasing.
Uh I think that it's just for different emphasis.
Um I think that uh Democrats have the idea as a party, as a party, that government it can be useful at solving all kinds of problems.
All right.
I don't have to let's count.
can we can we discuss that for just a second?
Sure, sure.
Would you mind discussing that?
Okay.
Not at all.
Um you disagree with me when I say Democrats are anti-liberty.
Yes.
Okay.
And you think that government liberals.
Liberals are anti-liberty.
Yeah.
Liberals are anti-liberty, yes.
Uh okay, and and and you think that uh government can be useful at solving all kinds of problems.
No.
Democrats think that.
I don't completely agree with that.
I think that government's great at solving big problems.
Well, no, I don't care what I want to know what you disagree with me about.
I w not not I don't care what Democrats think or liberals I want to hear what they don't use.
I think okay, honestly.
I don't I don't agree that liberals are anti-liberty.
I think that liberals like myself love liberty.
I love this country.
I think it's great that you can get out there and say what you want.
I think it's great that the Dixie can get out there and protest President Bush.
Wait a sec.
Wait, wait, hold hold it.
You but you can't.
The director, the head honcho of the Minuteman, was just hooted off the stage at Columbia University.
Liberals do not want to hear people they disagree with.
They will mob them, they will protest them, they will shout them down, they will attempt attempt to get them thrown out of institutions.
They will attempt to get conservative newspapers on college campus shut down.
They are Stalinists.
They are people who don't want to put up with things they disagree with.
It is words that really bug them.
They don't they are not they are not for the free use of public proper or private property.
They will shut you down for using your property that you own in favor of a snail darter or a kangaroo rat.
They are full of restrictions on liberty.
Um I first of all, what happened to the men I don't agree with, I think that's wrong.
And I uh whoever happens to, but the same thing happens to dishics when they've protested the the war in Iraq, and I didn't hear a single conservative commentator saying, Hey, wait, wait, wait, wait, what happened?
What the Dixie chicks Hold on, I'll tell you that.
No, no, no, nobody shut them up.
Wait, no, wait a minute now, Jason.
Seriously, nobody shut them up.
They stopped buying their records and they stopped going to their concerts, but the Dixie chicks were all over the media telling people what a bunch of rotten guy Bush was and how it was unfortunate they were being treated this way, but it was the market that reacted to them.
It wasn't people that they were not uh banned from going into recording studio.
Nobody stood outside a stage door and prevented them from going into their concerts.
They just didn't buy the records, and some radio stations didn't play the records, but the Dixie chicks are not entitled to those things.
You have to earn them.
I agree.
I think you're allowed to say what you have to say and if people want to react a certain way, like including the good guy of the state, that's what they can do.
If it I don't think it's necessarily appropriate in the democracy, that is one of the consequences of having free speech.
The point is I'm backing no, but the the point is I'm backing up what I say.
And I can let's go on to government now.
You think government's good useful for certain things.
Yes, it is.
Uh great great for the military.
Yes, that's constitutional requirement.
Uh but do you know how many lives government has destroyed with the best of intentions?
What?
And that's that's the point I was gonna make.
I happen to agree that the government just thinks it's solving little problems.
Here's my view of government.
I mean probably.
I disagree with liberty.
That characterization, I don't agree with that characterization.
I may ad it may be hard to hear.
It may be tough to deal with, but I mean it's it's inescapable.
Well, I mean, let me tell you something.
You know, if Democrats win control of the Congress, you know what they're gonna do?
They're gonna try to reinstate the fairness doctrine as a means of silencing talk radio.
They don't want to hear it.
They can't compete against us, they can't even nudge us.
They can't even I mean it's it's pathetic their efforts to get liberal talk out there, so their their effort and their action if they get power will be to shut down conservative talk since they can't beat it or compete with it.
They'll do this the the via the fairest fairness doctrine.
They're already trying it out in Seattle, Washington.
Well, I think that sucks.
Well it does, but that's that's anti-liberty.
They are afraid of the free flow of ideas, especially ideas that are not theirs because they know they can't argue them and beat them.
I don't agree.
This is serious stuff, Jason.
I know it's hard because you everybody wants to believe that people are nice people and we all just get along and so forth.
But these people you ought to go read some of these kook fringe leftists on their blogs and find out what a bunch of Stalinist lunatics they are.
I do, I do re I do read.
I thank you myself as well in form as I can.
Um let me tell you one thing I do agree with you on, though.
I I agree that the Democrats for at least since 1994, and probably a decade or more before that, have lacked vision and leadership.
I think they got very comfortable being in charge of Congress for a long time, and they haven't gotten out of it yet.
And I think if they ever do, I think it'll be good for the country because I think when the main parties of the country have real debates about real issues, I think it's better for everyone.
Well, okay, why have they lost their vision?
You say they've lacked vision and leadership.
I I I don't think that's true at all.
I think they can't be honest about their vision.
They haven't lost it.
They know exactly what they want to do.
Dominate your life.
They want the government to get bigger and bigger and bigger so that everybody has to depend on it for some element of their life.
That's what they want.
That's how they derive their power.
That's their vision.
Their vision is socialism.
Their vision is the single-payer health care system.
Mrs. Clinton's still bugged about that.
They want to create a Canadian health care system here.
It is about issues.
They can't be honest about it.
They've got a vision, but it's behind night vision goggles.
And they're not passing any out for the rest of us to use, so those of us who can read the stitches on a fastball are trying to tell the rest of you what they stand for and who they really are.
Uh as for leadership, how can you lead if you can't be honest about what you believe?
They're hamstrung by one thing.
They don't dare be who they are.
You cannot be a leader, and you cannot be inspirational, and you cannot be motivational if you have to deny your reality.
We'll be back in just a second.
During the commercial timeout.
All right.
Ted Turner, ladies and gentlemen, you've probably heard about this by now.
Went to the um press club yesterday, had some things to say.
Let's just take them in order.
Here's we uh what is one, two, three bites, sort of uh um illustrating here about liberals anti-liberty, uh uh they're just odd.
They just they're just odd.
Listen.
During the last war.
You know, what business did it have on the news sets to have the American flag flying in the in the background?
I mean, it was like the news media covered the Iraq war, at least at the beginning of it, almost as like it was a football game.
It was us versus them.
Um versus them, the media what what well who was the us?
Was the media on our side, Ted?
Is that what bothered you?
The media was on our side, you thought because they had American flags.
For you ever heard of ratings, Ted.
Have you looked at CNN's lately?
Have you ever heard of ratings?
But note, folks, there is this institutional discomfort with showing your patriotism if you are a liberal and if you are in the media.
And so what you have to do, you have to redefine patriotism.
Patriotism is now criticizing President Bush.
That's what patriot showing the flag is not patriotism, and it's it's offensive, and liberals don't like it when they have to do that.
Hey, look.
Is it it's not, it's not arguable.
There is a blame America first crowd in this country, it's pretty large.
There is a hate America crowd in this country, and they are all liberals.
How anybody can call here and disagree with anything I say about liberals is befuddling.
I know these people.
I have been studying them my entire productive life, and I know exactly who they are, and this is uh how any of you can call here and tell me that you don't know what I don't know what I'm talking about when I talk about liberals.
Here, let's listen to more of Ted Turner.
Uh after he spoke, he I guess he took some questions, and a reporter said, What what do you think of the fact that well, not you, but but other people have been when they've been when they've criticized the Iraq war, criticized the government, their patriotism has been questioned.
There are a lot of things about this war that disturbed me, and one of them is uh attitude, you know, that was well expressed by our president.
He said it very clearly.
He said, either you're with us or you're against us.
And I had a problem with that because I really hadn't made my mind up yet.
My country's wrong.
If we're torturing prisoners of war or murdering civilians, you know, that's not right, in my opinion.
Ted, he said you're either with us or against us after 9-11 and before the Iraq war started.
What do you mean you hadn't made up your mind?
This is classic.
This is typical.
This is not surprising.
Folks.
Nobody likes war.
Can we be honest?
The generals who plan for it.
Nobody really likes.
I mean, you have some people get into it.
I mean, the people that fight him, some of them, you know, it's their life.
They they love it.
But as a as a as a proposition, nobody wants to be at war all the time.
Nobody likes war.
In fact, one of the most happy moments in any nation's history is when the president announces a war is over that we've won and people are coming home.
That's when the big party is, not when we go to war.
The party's when it's over and we win.
But nobody likes it, but unfortunately, there are hard cold realities out there that responsible people have to face.
And we can't allow frivolous, irresponsible people in positions of power when we are a great nation at risk in a dangerous world.
So there's a there's a bunch of assumptions out there that are just wrong.
Some people love war, can't wait for war, to like to be at war all the time.
Not the case at all.
Uh CBS uh, well, not CBS, but I think he was with CBS.
The moderator of this panel, Jonathan Savant, says, what do you see as the future vision for CNN now that Fox is gaining in market share and popularity?
Brrrr.
LAUGHTER It's not to say Fox is a different animal.
And hey, listen, you know.
The right wares have have every right to have a network of their own, and uh they've got one.
Now, what is he admitting?
The right wingers have the right to have a network, a network of their own, must mean that he's admitting that all the other networks are liberals and leftists.
Now, we all know that's the case, but they to this day deny it.
By the way, what you heard at the beginning of the bite was he was uh emitting uh uh expilation of gas sound effect when asked about Fox News, and the liberals at the National Press Club and the audience absolutely loved it.
Here's Kurt in Chicago.
Thanks for waiting.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Yeah, I wanted to uh elaborate on the uh previous caller when he was talking about North Korea and the framework that was laid out in 1994 was supposed to be an eight-year moratorium on that.
I'd only got so far because when they were labeled the actors of evil by President Bush, we stopped negotiating, we being the U.S., we left the table, we stopped verifying.
And of course, any comp any country is going to resume their nuclear deterrent because they're worried about the country, America that is ignoring treaties, starting to work on small nukes, and they're worried about it.
Can you blame them?
Not that I am with them.
I would never support them.
I support America wholeheartedly.
Wait a second, wait a second.
If wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
If you have to call here and deny that you support North Korea, there must be some question about it.
Nobody even accused you of it.
There has been no allegation made by me or anybody that you support North Korea, and yet you feel the need to point out that you're not supporting North Korea after you give us a bunch of gunk about the timeline.
You know, all these liberals calling in here, Bush did it, acts of evil, those words, those words caused Kim Jong-il to break the agreement that Clinton so brilliantly made.
Madeline Albright's your problem.
She admitted that uh uh they got tricked by Kim John.
The Clinton people got tricked, not the Bush people.
Uh Libs are worried about this, folks.
We're getting inundated with calls from their spin doctors today.
Ha!
Don't go anywhere, folks.
We have a lot of other material to nuke.
The Libs with today.
▲
Export Selection