All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 17, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
October 17, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, my good friends.
America's real anchorman, the Doctor of Democracy, and America's Truth Detector here behind the golden EIB microphone, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Again, Vice President Cheney on with us at 1.33 this afternoon.
That's Eastern time, so a little less than a half hour from now.
I want to go back to Jessica in Cincinnati, who is chiding me for chiding disaffected Republican voters.
And I just, let's start at the beginning here, Jessica, so we have a little bit more time because I want to make sure that I understand what your concern is, okay?
Okay.
You think that my comments in recent days, imploring Republicans not to turn over control of the House to Democrats because of who the Democrats are and what the policy implications of the change would mean is somehow chiding them.
What would you rather I do?
Would you rather that I say, you know, if you're not going to vote for Republican, if you're mad at Republicans, then by gosh, I think you should go ahead and vote your conscience and you should make sure that you send those guys a message.
No, and I'll be very clear.
I agree with you that any alternative, liberal alternative, is not acceptable.
And perception is reality, Rush.
And the perception, to me at least, is, you know, when you talk about there are Republicans out there that think you deserve to lose.
There are Republicans that say, oh, that'll teach them a lesson, da-da-da-da.
And to a lot of us, that infers that, you know, we're just complete idiots.
When a lot of us, I mean, we're good, politically engaged, and politically active conservatives.
Okay, so what are you going to do?
You've just said that you understand the consequences of the Libs winning this thing.
What are you going to do?
Well, I'm going to vote.
I would never not vote.
Well, I know.
What are you going to do?
Don't tell me what you're not going to do.
Tell me, what are you going to do?
Well, I'm going to vote.
I'm going to vote the Republican ticket.
All I'm saying is there are people out there, good, active conservatives, who actually believe that their only alternative to effect change within the Conservative Party is to not vote.
And that's very sad.
But that's not completely their fault.
Well, I'm not assigning blame or anything to this.
I could play this a different way.
And by the way, I know you're right.
I know that there are a lot of people.
I've been checking some Republican blogs, and some of the statements I have been making have been posted on these blogs, and the people reading the blogs comment.
And last night I was a little struck by some of the anger I read, if it was indeed Republicans posting these comments, and I'll assume that it was.
I was reading things like, well, you know what?
I'm voting principal.
I'm standing on principle.
And they have violated their principles and their promises.
And I think they need to be taught a lesson.
And there's no question there is a huge amount of anger and rage out there.
I just don't know how representative these blog comments are of the Republican voting base in Toto.
But I know there's some anger out there.
But maybe I ought to play it a different way then.
Maybe instead of chiding them, maybe I ought to tell them they're right.
Maybe I ought to say, yeah, you know, I think we do need a change of power and what I think we do need to lose the war on terror.
And I think we need our taxes raised so that we all learn a lesson.
Well, I think we need better alternatives.
And you know what I'm saying?
Well, we, you know, everybody needs a beach house, too.
Reality is reality.
Well, what I'm saying is, you know, what are our, sorry, what are our alternatives to effect change then?
If people say, you know what, if I vote for so-and-so, he's just going to think that I love the job he's doing and nothing's going to change.
And I think you brought this point up yesterday, which is, you know, things may not get better with certain candidates, but they can get a lot worse.
I think the best way to answer your question is that I don't believe votes take place in a vacuum.
And I don't think elections take place in a vacuum.
And I don't know that the purpose of a vote is to teach lessons.
I mean, people can vote for whatever reason they want.
I'm talking about myself personally.
I take a look at the circumstances that exist.
In fact, if you look at the House of Representatives, which seems to be the focal point, I could make a pretty good case that these guys don't deserve nearly the anger that has been directed at them.
Let me give you one example.
We have a Republican president, George W. Bush, who's a fine man, who is a tremendous president when it comes to fighting the war on terror, but he's not conservative.
He is certainly not a conservative.
He's conservative on some things, but he's not conservative on others.
He is not leading a movement.
He is a Republican president, and that's fine.
I mean, it is what it is.
I can lament that all day long.
It's not going to change anything.
But here's how that, here's the ramifications in the House.
In the House, you have a bunch of really true blue conservatives who disagree with the president profoundly on something as important as immigration.
The president sided with Democrats and John McCain on immigration in the Senate.
What are the House Republicans supposed to do?
The House Republicans who are conservative are sort of hamstrung.
If they go against their president, then it's going to weaken the party overall.
It is going to lead to all kinds of problems in the president and the Congress working together on those things they do agree on.
Take a look at spending.
The Republican House is getting all kinds of grief for all this out-of-control spending when they're supposed to be the small government, limited government party.
Well, yeah, if you look at the outlays and the expenditures and the budget increases, and you know that all spending bills originate in the House, you'd have to say the Republicans in the House have violated their promise and their principles.
But who's in the White House?
Who was it that invited Ted Kennedy up to write the education bill that increased spending by something like $700 billion?
What are the House Republicans supposed to do?
Go against their own president?
It would have been much easier for these guys to be conservative as they were elected to be were there a Democrat in the White House or were there a Republican conservative leading a movement in the White House?
But that's not the case.
So the Republicans in the House are getting the brunt of the blame for some things not their fault.
They're not innocent of everything and they didn't do everything right.
But you can make the case that they have not been as free to be who they are because there's no singular elected conservative leader in Washington right now.
Now, whose fault is that?
I don't know who do you assign blame for that to.
That would be very difficult.
I mean, you can't, you know, elected George W. Bush as opposed to both John Kerry and Al Gore.
And in both instances, that was the far preferential move and decision on the part of Republicans and other voters to make.
But you just don't always get what you want.
Look at immigration.
At the end of the day, the House of Representatives, the Republicans, did go against the president on immigration, and they came up with a bill.
Look what they forced.
They have forced offense.
And there are people still fighting this.
They can't get very far in the Senate with these things.
The Senate shuts down a lot of conservative Republican initiatives in the House in the first place.
Another thing that the House Republicans did that is a negative to them is that they agreed to this stupid rule that the Democrats do not have for themselves that says if their leadership, any of their leadership, is indicted, they have to step down from the leadership, bye-bye, the enforcer, Mr. DeLay, who kept that place running and who kept it as conservative as he could, given all the obstacles out there.
The Democrats don't have such a rule.
Why do Republicans do it?
Because they wanted to show the liberals they could be fair and nice when they were in the leadership and so forth.
I mean, they shoot themselves in the foot in a lot of ways, but they are not the disaster that everybody is making them out to be.
And the reason people think that they are a disaster is because of this never-ending, incessant media coverage that the House Republicans are loathed by their own party, that they have, and this is why I went on my rant yesterday about the Christian conservatives ought to understand better than anybody media bias 101.
They ought to understand how they're being targeted to split the party and to cause Democrats to win.
Now, when you have this balance, you've got the scale of justice here.
And on one hand, you want to punish Republicans who have not governed as they promised during their campaigns, and you want to teach them a lesson.
And in the process, you want to get new conservative leadership that's going to be really conservative, but you never know who the president's going to be at the time you get this conservative lead.
On the other hand, you've got the Democrats who are going to win and who are going to do certain things.
And we know they're going to do certain things.
They're going to just basically write off the war on terror.
They're going to cut and run in Iraq, which will create a new cesspool and breeding ground of terrorists in what will become a stateless area of the Middle East.
They're going to try to roll back every tax cut that has led to this economy that's bordering on a $12,000 Dow low unemployment.
They're going to do everything they can to wreck the progress that has been made.
So those are the decisions.
Do you want to teach your guys a lesson in the hopes of getting real conservative leadership, or you want to, and in the process, elevate the Democrats to power?
In which case, you have to then ask yourself, when will be the next chance to win back the House with these model conservatives who are going to finally do it right?
Is it going to be another 40 years?
Are the Democrats going to learn to hold out of the House for another 40 years if we surrender control of it?
So that's why I don't know.
I've never understood how there is virtue in losing.
You know, you take one step forward and two steps back and think you're making progress is something that has always escaped me.
So if it sounds like I'm chiding people, I'm sorry, I'm not.
I'm trying to, shall we say, broaden horizons and the view they see through their anger at certain elected officials.
And that's as best I can explain it.
Well, my only point, Rush, is that the apathy out here was born out of true frustration.
And I just wanted you to maybe have a bit of empathy for that.
Okay.
Well, I appreciate that.
Apathy.
Now you're using apathy.
Now that apathy, so people aren't going to vote.
That's the operating theory here.
They're so angry they won't vote.
Not voting for your guy is the same thing as voting for the other guy.
I mean, that's even sillier.
That is even sillier.
Now I'm going to be accused of chiding even more.
To sit out to teach people a lesson.
You know what?
I think I'll retire for six months.
You know what I'll do?
I will go off the air for six months to teach you and this audience how fortunate you are to have me.
Back in just a second.
Stay with me.
Hi, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
My voice sounds hoarse today.
It does.
I had a rough night last night, folks.
I was awakened with bodily discomfort.
I'm not going to bore you with descriptions.
I had bodily discomfort at 4 o'clock, and I was unable to get back to sleep till 7.
And I said, normally I'm up by this.
I'm going to get another hour of sleep.
And it was 8 o'clock before I knew it.
And it was just an uncomfortable evening.
And so I'm not at full speed here today.
Brain cells are working fine, just fighting through a little fatigue.
Look, let me try one more thing on this theory that I am agitating the apathetic voters.
There's voter apathy, and I am chiding those who are apathetic by somehow impugning their motives.
Let me try to make it simple.
Try looking at it this way.
Some of them, this might actually not be the right way to go with some of you, but try looking at it in the context of good versus evil.
I am not, contrary to what some of you might be thinking, I am not of the opinion that Republicans and all conservatives are angels and never do anything wrong and are clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.
But I damn well know this, that most of the elected Democrats, particularly their leadership and the drive-by media, certainly pale in comparison on the good versus evil scale.
There's far more to worry about with those people than our guys.
There are exceptions out there, Joe Lieberman and some others.
You look at this decision.
What?
Yeah, McCain, the example of a Democrat that's not, you know, that fits the mold of what I'm talking about here.
You look at this Lynn Stewart decision.
Look at the effort to create the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
Look at the effort to undercut this nation's ability to achieve victory in the war on terror.
Look at the party which is doing its best to sabotage this nation's effort to find any terrorist and find out about any plot any terrorist might have that involves this country.
Look at how they've tried to shut down the Foreign Surveillance Act by describing it in a lying fashion as domestic spying.
I mean, this list that I have here, I could go for probably hours with it.
You look at what's happened to public education.
I don't know if you people are keeping track.
Do you know how much molestation of students is going on by teachers out there?
I mean, it's incomprehensible.
We joke here.
Where was this when I was in school?
But it's a serious thing when you've got in North Carolina alone, 200 teachers have been disciplined.
I've got the story here.
200 teachers, and I'll find the story.
Let me see if I can.
It's buried somewhere here in the stack.
I can't keep everything on the top.
But I mean, it's stunning.
You have this, I'm telling you, folks, this global warming business is an absolute abomination.
It is an attack on capitalism.
It is an attack on the United States of America.
It's being led by prominent Democrats.
Take a look at the daily agenda of the drive-by media.
Take a look at how every day the demonization of all Christians takes place in this country.
You can make jokes.
You can impugn.
You can do anything you want.
Say anything you want about Christians and Catholics in this country, and nothing was ever, all everybody does is laugh about it.
But you try that with any other religion and see what happens.
We have a world full of terrorists who have been very open and honest about their desire to wipe us out.
We've got the Iranian nuclear situation, which the Libs don't want to take seriously.
The North Korean situation, and all they want to do is blame Bush for everything that happens.
They're not concerned with the substance of any issue.
Everything to them is nothing but political and how they can benefit from it.
Now, the list goes on and on and on.
Now, regardless what you think about the ineptitude of Republicans, and isn't that the problem?
Isn't that many of you think they're incompetent or that they're gutless?
They get to Washington and they somehow grow linguine for a spine and they cave to the mainstream pressure and the Democrat pressure of Washington because they sound great when they come back home and campaign.
They get up there and they just turn into a bunch of cowards.
Well, that's probably more the grievance that people have against them than anything else.
But when you compare that to what I think is the potential for really rotten things to happen in this country, I will take those who are far from perfect over the evil any day of the week.
Joe in San Francisco, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Good morning.
Hello.
Hi.
Good morning, Rush, a longtime listener back to Sacramento days.
Thank you.
I just want to thank you for everything you do.
And EIB Network, it also gives me a shot of penicillin in the arm out here on the Least.
Appreciate that.
I'd just like to mention two very important points on this election coming up, as well as the judges.
I think we should also stop and think about the economy.
And I think someone in the Republican Party needs right today to stand in front of the chart of the Dow and point that it's going close to 1,200.
It's going up three and four times.
It's getting close to a record high.
Now, you and I both remember Mr. Dasho standing in front of that chart telling us how many senators and congressmen we'd lose for every 100 points it went down.
That was Gephardt.
That was Dick Gephardt.
The Democrats were laughing and cheering a stock market plunge.
Every 100 points equal a new seat in the House for them.
Well, okay.
Well, why doesn't some Republican get up there right now and say, if we're close to 12,000, that's 2,000 points.
Maybe.
That's one of the things.
You know, you've called at the right time, and you called the right guy, and you called the right show, because after the next break, I have Vice President Cheney on, and one of the things I'm going to ask him about is the economy and how they are going to use it in the last two and a half, three weeks of the campaign.
Joe, good idea.
Thanks much.
We'll be back.
We'll continue right after this with the Vice President.
And welcome back to the EIB Network.
And as promised, we have with us for the next few minutes Vice President Dick Cheney.
Once again, Mr. Vice President, a thrill and an honor to have you with us, sir.
Well, good afternoon, Rush.
All right.
First thing, we just had a call.
Leads me into my first question for you about the economy.
Caller was frustrated that the party at large doesn't seem to be getting the news out about how good the economy is.
And indeed, the economic statistics are fabulous.
Unemployment, middle-class wage growth, Dow Jones Industrial Average flirting with 12,000.
Yet we're told that people don't feel this economy is good.
Why do you think that is if it's true?
And how do you all plan to use the economy in the next three weeks of the campaign?
Well, I think, first of all, you're absolutely right, Rush.
The economy is very good.
Been involved in a lot of campaigns going back nearly 40 years, and I'm hard put to find a time when things were as good as they are now for the party from our perspective.
And you've cited all the data.
We've got over 6.6 million jobs we've added in a little over three years now.
Home ownership's at an all-time record high, stock markets at a high.
Everything's really kicking along in great shape.
The deficit was hard sometimes to drive that point through to the public.
And I think a lot of the press coverage focuses on specific problems.
Gasoline prices go up, and everybody gets upset and takes that as sort of a lead indicator for the economy.
But now gasoline prices are coming down.
Natural gas prices are coming down.
Heating bills are going to be lower this winter.
So I think it just takes time for it to sink in.
Well, it's interesting.
The gas price run-up was hailed as a failure of the Bush administration's economic policy.
Now that gas prices are coming down, the focus seems to be on what is it you all are doing to manipulate the market before the election.
Also, I wanted to mention to you that the deficit's been cut in half three years early.
It really is stunning news, but it's a large drive-by media megaphone to overcome.
Is there a coordinated effort within all these candidates that are running for re-election to stress the economy?
Well, we're trying.
I've got two major subjects I address when I'm out on the road.
One is to talk about tax policy and what that's done for our economy, and the other is to focus on the global war on terror.
President, you know, last week when we had the good news on the deficit as we closed out the fiscal year, was out publicly talking specifically about that point, trying to take advantage of the opportunity to get the idea across to everybody that we did hit our target three years early in terms of deficit reduction.
But again, that was primarily as a result of our tax policy and the fact that we've supported pro-growth policies and it has generated more economic activity and more jobs and ultimately more revenue for the federal government.
When you're out there, are you encountering any apathy?
Are you encountering engaged excitement?
What's the mood you're running in?
I know you're speaking to mostly Republican audience.
How do you assess them?
Sure.
Well, I did yesterday, for example.
I was down in Louisville, Kentucky for Congressman Jeff Davis, who's a great member, by the way, I think, get re-elected.
I also stopped at Fort Campbell to thank members of the 101st Airborne for all their good work they've been doing in the Middle East.
But the mood that I find in terms of the people I'm talking with is very positive.
Now, of course, I'm probably not going to see a lot of Democrats coming to a Republican fundraiser, so I don't want to misread the situation.
But I think I find a far more positive attitude out there than one would be led to believe just by reading the national press.
Do you get frustrated when you see Republicans speculating on how many House seats they're going to lose?
Well, I think it's a natural, normal situation at this stage, but I really think We're going to do reasonably well.
And I think we'll hold the Senate.
And I also think we got a good shot at holding the House.
And I've done 114 campaigns so far this cycle.
I've been all over the country, seen all kinds of candidates in all kinds of races.
But I think the key will be who goes to the polls on Election Day.
And certainly it's always tough when you're in the midterm of your second presidential term in office historically.
Those are the most difficult elections for the incumbents in the White House.
But I think the basic fundamental facts, in terms of national security, in terms of five years of defeating the terrorists in their efforts to try to launch another attack against the United States, I think the overall health of the economy, I think the progress we're making in all those areas all argues that, in fact, when the American people have to make a choice between us and the Democrats, I think they'll come down on the side of supporting the president and Republican candidates.
The war, Iraq, national security, war on terror, it's all combined into one issue now as far as the election is concerned.
And when you but I saw the president last night say that acknowledges that there's some frustration on the part of the American people regarding Iraq because we all want to win, and we can't declare victory yet.
The president signed the Military Detainee Act today, the Tribunal Act, and it's clear to me anyway that you and the White House are not changing policy on this at all, that the operating policy here is victory.
Is the perception that victory is possible strong enough?
Is that possibility being laid out in strong enough terms for the American people?
Are they think it's possible?
Are they beginning to doubt that it can happen?
Well, I think there's some natural level of concern out there because, in fact, it wasn't over instantaneously.
It's been a little over three years now since we went into Iraq.
So I don't think it's surprising that people are concerned.
On the other hand, this government's only been in office about five months, five or six months now.
They're off to a good start.
It is difficult, no question about it.
But we've now got over 300,000 Iraqis trained and equipped as part of their security forces.
They've had three national elections with higher turnout than we have here in the United States.
If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well.
It's still very, very difficult, very tough.
Nobody should underestimate the extent to which we're engaged there with this as sort of at present the major front in the war on terror.
That's what Osama bin Laden says.
And he's right.
It's very important that we prevail there.
But we're engaged really on a global basis.
We're very active in Afghanistan.
We've got continuing activities in Pakistan.
We've captured and killed more al-Qaeda in Pakistan probably than any place else.
We're active working with the Saudis and many others in that part of the world.
So it's a major conflict.
It's going to run for a long time, and everybody needs to understand that.
And the campaign I look on as an opportunity to remind everybody what's at stake here.
And in this particular instance, it's especially important to point out to people that terrorists can't beat us in a stand-up fight.
They can only win if we lose our will.
And they're betting we will.
They're betting we don't have the stomach for the fight.
And I don't think that's true.
And I think faced with that basic fundamental choice, I think the American people understand that it's having gone on offense, having gotten aggressive, going after the terrorists, closing those training camps in Afghanistan and working to take down regimes like Saddam Hussein and to stand-up democracies in their place, as well as tough measures here at home.
It's what's kept us safe for five years, and it's the reason why there hasn't been another attack like 9-11 on the U.S.
Well, there's no question the American people respond to leadership in times like this.
And it's Let me put it to you this way.
I was reading something today, a writer, remember, who was speculating on increased terrorist attacks in Iraq, attempting to demoralize the American people as we get up to the election.
And when I read that, it made sense to me.
And I interpreted this as that the terrorists are actually involved and want to involve themselves in our electoral process, which must mean they want to change.
Now, I know you can't comment politically on the point that I make, but do you expect and is there preparation for it?
One of the things I read was that there's been noted plots to actually try to blow up the green zone.
One was aborted and discovered recently, but some major attacks being planned for right up until the election, which could be devastating if they happen in terms of the American people's morale.
Sure.
Well, I think there's no question but what this is a sophisticated crew who understand the impact on public opinion.
And as I say, I think they say as much.
What they're banking on, they hark back to Somalia in 93 or Beirut in 1983 when after Americans were killed, our response was to withdraw our forces.
So I think they're very sensitive to that kind of thing.
And as I say, they clearly don't have the military capability to defeat us, but they believe they can break our will.
And so you look at something like our elections here, and I think they're probably, I don't have any proof, but I think they're probably very sensitive to that.
We saw what they did in Spain a few years ago, remember?
Aznar supported us very aggressively.
And shortly before the elections in Spain, they launched an attack on trains that set off several bombs and killed a bunch of people shortly before the election.
And I think probably did have that impact.
There was a story in the Washington Post yesterday or earlier in the week that the reporter was amazed that the President and Karl Rove remain, quote, inexplicably upbeat, unquote, about the outcome of the elections.
And there is no plan for if Republicans lose the House and or the Senate.
Can you tell us why the upbeat attitude in the White House?
Well, because we're out there working hard in connection with this campaign because I think we feel like we've got some great candidates.
I've got great confidence in Carl and Ken Melman up at the RNC.
These are two of the best in the business in terms of understanding this process.
And I think our candidates are well financed.
We're doing everything humanly possible to succeed in this election.
And, of course, we track polls as everybody else does, too.
But I think it's easy to sit in Washington and sort of absorb the vibes coming from the national media.
But that doesn't represent necessarily what's going on out there around the country.
And when you get out on the ground talking with real people about real problems, their hopes and desires for their families and for the nation, as well as their appreciation for what we've been able to accomplish over the last six years.
One final positive feeling.
One final question.
You guys are fighting so hard to defeat the terrorists in and around this country and around the world.
Do you have any reaction to the lenient sentence that Lynn Stewart received yesterday in New York?
Well, I was surprised.
Of course, it's not for me to substitute my judgment for a judge, but I think, of course, the prosecution had asked for a much stiffer sentence.
And this was somebody who has been supposedly convicted or pled guilty to being a key intermediary for a major terrorist.
And, you know, that's significant.
I think we need to make certain that when we find somebody who is indeed in bed with the terrorists, that they are appropriately brought to justice.
Mr. Vice President, thanks very much for your time.
I know you gave us a couple minutes extra than you had on your schedule.
I appreciate it.
And we look forward to the next time.
Best to you.
Well, Rush, you've got a great show, as always, and it was good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Vice President Dick Cheney will be back.
We'll continue in your moments.
Please stay with us.
Okay, thanks again to Vice President Dick Cheney.
A note for the drive-by media.
We're going to get the transcript and put it up on the homepage at rushlimbaugh.com so you can misquote from it accurately as soon as we can.
Back to the phones.
Jay in Seattle.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, thanks, Rush, for taking my call.
I really appreciate it.
I wanted to get your insight because I think one of the things that is never talked about here is if the Democrats were to take back the House and take back the Senate, and God forbid, take back the White House, and we were into a complete withdrawal out of Iraq, what countries do you think would fall first?
Would it be Jordan?
Would it be Kuwait?
Would it be Egypt?
Would it be Saudi Arabia next?
Would it be Lebanon?
We know they have a presence already in offices in downtown Damascus.
We know they have a presence in Palestine.
We know they started in Pakistan and then moved into Afghanistan.
We kicked them out.
The Democrats use that against us and say, well, you pulled troops out of Afghanistan and you moved them over to Iraq and now they're back.
And now we've got John Kerry saying that we need to deploy troops back into Somalia.
I guess that's what we should call Blackhawk up.
You know, I just wanted to get your opinion.
I'm not asking you to read tea leaves here, but how do you think this would pan out?
Well, the first thing that I would say in response to your question is that if the Democrats do wrest full control of the government by 2008, and when they're inaugurated in 2009, totally reverse the existing strategy on the war on terror and the war on Iraq, then I would suggest that Iraq deserves to lose and deserves to be run over and whatever else happens out there.
I mean, I'm going to take the same philosophy that I'm hearing now from recalcitrant voters who are upset, think the Republicans deserve to lose.
I think everybody deserves to lose.
I think the Iraqis deserve to lose.
I think the terrorists deserve to win.
I think the Democrats deserve to win.
I think the good guys have just totally botched this, and they need to be taught a lesson.
And I think we need a couple more hits on the United States in terms of terrorism to wake us up, too.
I'm just going to take this philosophy, and I'm going to apply it to virtually everything, and I'm going to see how well it resonates out there.
To deal with your question seriously, the first thing that happened is that Iraq would become the epicenter of the al-Qaeda terrorist movement.
It would become a seething cauldron.
It would become a toxic soup of terrorism.
Afghanistan would be the next to fall, and it would be a joint situation.
John Kerry, in the meantime, would be Blackhawk backing back into Somalia.
But at the first sign of trouble, we would blackhawk down again and get out.
Right.
In the meantime, we would be talking to our allies, the French and the Germans, and by that time, the North Koreans, to figure out what it is we could do jointly to contain this spread of terrorism rather than wipe it out.
Because make no mistake, with Democrats in power, there will be no effort made to defeat anybody.
There will be no effort made to stop the acquisition of nuclear weapons by anybody because what right do we have to say that when we have a nuke, other nations can't.
So the policy will become containment, appeasement.
The Democrats and liberals will use what they think is the force of their good nature and their powerful intellect to negotiate with these people on a policy of containment and appeasement, which will result in our being laughed at across the world by our enemies, and their march will continue inexorably until a breaking point is reached and we are forced to take the action that everybody is decrying and blaming America for taking as we speak.
So it'd just be delaying the obvious.
There's one thing to answer your question in full candor.
And this whole question came up at a dinner party I went to not long ago.
There were many people frustrated that the education system in this country is not taught American history.
Just aren't enough people who understand our history and understand what it has taken to ensure our freedom for 200 plus years.
Somebody said, that may be, but in real times of crisis, the American people will respond to leadership.
And I agree with that.
But will we have people at that point in history who are capable of the right kind of leadership to defend and protect the United States?
And that's my worry about Democrats.
And I'm basing it simply, folks, on what I've heard them say the past three years and their whole history, by the way.
Back in just a second.
Okay, two hours down, one to go in today's excursion into broadcast excellence.
Lots still ahead.
▲
Export Selection