All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
November 10, 2006, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, still one power-packed hour to go here on the EIB network on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
And when we go to the phones, you own this show.
Talk about whatever.
Ask about whatever.
Comment about whatever.
800-282-2882.
Telephone number.
Email address rush at EIB net.com.
All right.
Dingy Harry, after meeting with President Bush today, said in response to a reporter's question Do you have an appetite for several investigations in the conduct of this administration as it relates to the Iraq War, war intelligence, Halliburton Katrina?
Dingy Harry's answer, I believe the first order of business when we reorganize after the first of the year is Congressional Oversight.
Let's find out what's going on with the war, the different federal agencies.
This simply has been no oversight, simply has been no oversight.
And I don't want to frighten anybody on investigations.
Congressional oversight's not a negative term.
Answer to the question, yes, and we are going to go pedal to the metal.
We at the first order of business.
New Republic today lays out how it's going to go down when it comes to John Conyers, who will handle impeachment.
But before and before we get to that and the story of from Time Magazine about Germany's top prosecutors seeking criminal prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghrab and at Club Gitmo.
That could snare our merchandising business.
We'll have to watch that one very carefully.
I have a thriving merchandise business down there.
Nevertheless, yes, our Club Gitmo gear.
This will empower and uh uh strengthen the Democrats if the Germans are going to do it.
The Democrats are say, Oh my gosh, if the if the world is looking into this, we can't ignore this.
Uh we must uh by all that's right, uh, conduct our own independent investigation.
They live for this, make no mistake about it.
But I found the um I found a little blurb from Andy McCarthy.
He uh is quoting here from the Wall Street Journal's news pages.
Democrats will face internal divisions as they decide where to focus their investigative muscle.
Liberal Democrats, such as the membership of the activist organization Moveon.org, want the Democrats to investigate the administration's case for the Iraq War and instances of possible corporate misconduct.
Now get this next line.
Wall Street Journal news pages.
By contrast, centrist and conservative Democrats like New York Senator Hillary Clinton, and many of the newly elected lawmakers from Southern and Western states argue that the Democrats should avoid taking too harsh a stance against big business or the Bush administration.
So the Wall Street Journal is painting this.
That yeah, they're gonna be some hardliners, but it's moderates and conservatives like Hillary Clinton who will step in and keep the Democrats from uh destroying destroying themselves.
Uh as Andy wrote to me, Mao Tse tongue was right, it's a permanent campaign for the left.
It's payback, it's get rid of everything everybody they consider an enemy, not just defeat them.
Whack them.
Just destroy them.
And that's what the purpose of all this oversight will be.
And an exclusive to Time magazine, just days after his resignation.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Boy, we just had a poll today from Afghanistan.
Think things are going swimming.
Swimmingly there now.
That's because Rumsfeld's gone.
I forgot.
New legal documents to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former CIA Director George Tennett, and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Club Gitmo in Cuba.
The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib as well as Mohammed Akatani, a Saudi held at Club Gitmo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker, and a would-be participant in the 9-11 hijackings.
As time first reported in June of 2005, Katani underwent a special interrogation plan personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence.
But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Katani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation, and other controversial interrogation techniques.
Folks, uh, let me spell this out for you.
This is the worldwide left.
This is the international left, doing what it can in conjunction with Democrats in this country, as that will no doubt happen.
Participation and in conjunction with Democrats in this country to do as much damage to this country's ability to prosecute war against our enemies ever again.
That's the purpose of going after Rumsfeld and Gonzales on prisoner abuse and so forth.
They are not going to let this go, no matter how many people we have prosecuted and found guilty and imprisoned or other punishment in this country for those who committed so-called abuses.
It's not good enough.
The American left, with the worldwide left, the internationalist left, is going to do everything it can to see to it that no president in the future has the guts to engage the U.S. military in action around the world for the purposes of defending this country.
I am as serious as I can be.
This is in effect Germany reconstituting their version of Nuremberg.
And note there's not one, not one reference here to pursuing war crimes is committed by our enemy.
The people who behead, murder, torture, in ways you cannot even imagine in ways that could not be mentioned on this program.
Nobody will pursue them.
And we're going to go after Donald Rumsfeld, who has resigned.
And make no mistake, once this gets going, the Democrats in this country will say, hey, we have our own credibility to worry about.
We can't leave this up to the Germans.
We have to, we have to do this ourselves.
We have to have our own independent investigation.
Get ready.
Now from the new republic, Jeffrey Rosen, who is uh one of their legal affairs editors.
The subpoena wars, house arrest.
On the eve of losing the House, the Republican National Committee sent journalists a frantic email.
Who is Representative John Conyers?
The email asked, referring to the man now slated to lead the House Judiciary Committee.
A radical Democrat who would promote an agenda of investigation, obstruction, impeachment, and disarmament.
Now, as far as GOP Bogeymen go, Conyers has some credibility.
During the past two years alone, he has requested investigations of the administration's rendition of suspected terrorists, Condoleezza Rice's possible transgression of the Hatch Act prohibitions against campaigning on the job, and Justice Department attempts to obstruct the hydra headed Jack Abramoff investigation.
Of course, the RNC also pointed to Conyers' proposals for the possible impeachment of President Bush.
But while Republicans paid a nightmare scenario of subpoena mad Democrats, they fail to capture the truly melodramatic conclusion.
Yeah, Democrats will attack hard.
As one staffer told me, writes Mr. Rosen, the memos I've seen suggest that Congress has strong power to investigate Bush.
We'll try to find the best test case, and if we can, it'll show that Republicans are part of a cover-up.
It's a good fight for us.
But Democrats also insist that they will take care to avoid the errors of Clinton-era Republicans who were spoiling for impeachment as soon as they seized the House in 1994.
Restraint, however, may not be enough to prevent a constitutional confrontation that could make Monica Gate look tame.
And that's because any conflict could escalate quickly when the White House, invoking its radical theory of unilateral executive authority, refuses to cooperate with Democratic investigations.
Congress may then hold the White House officials in contempt, setting up legal battles that could make their way to the Supreme Court while paralyzing the government in the process.
One likely spark for this kind of conflagration is a Democrat investigation into the National Security Agency's secret surveillance program.
Here's how a constitutional collision could unfold.
After the new Congress begins in January, Chairman Conyers sends letters to the Justice Department and the White House counsel, demanding secret documents that cast light on the scope and mechanics of the snooping.
The questions might include whether Bush obstructed justice when he denied the security clearances that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility needed to investigate the program.
What happens next?
Well, the U.S. attorney might well ignore the request, leading House Democrats to sue in federal court for an order mandating the prosecution of Gonzalez, as he would be the official ignoring the letters.
The history of congressional investigations suggests that Congress can score political points by challenging a defiant White House, but only when it maintains some sense of proportion.
Regardless who wins this match of constitutional chicken, it may occupy most of Bush's attention until he departs office in January 2009, a moment that the nation by that point will greet with exhaustion and relief.
So there you have it.
Democrats already talking to the New Republic, one of their Bibles, by the way, about how this is going to go down.
Rumsfeld to be charged and prosecuted criminally by the top prosecutor in Germany for war crimes and mistreatment of prisoners.
That will be picked up by the Democrats.
Dinji Harry has admitted today that that will be the first order of business oversight.
Halliburton Katrina, uh, intelligence uh agencies, the White House, uh, and this sort of thing.
But we know how to play this, and the new republic alludes to a lot of it.
Bush they're right about this.
Bush is uh one thing he's been, other than I mean, in addition to steadfast on the war, the one thing he has been, is steadfast and in cement on uh the privacy of uh the goings on in the executive branch.
Uh he has felt that the presidency has been weakened over a number of years, watergate on, uh, and he was bound to build up the privacy, the prestige, and the independence of the executive from just these kinds of things.
It'll be interesting to see if he holds to that or decides to cooperate given the new tone.
My guess is he'll hold fast.
This is something he is just not going to sit by and and uh and willingly let happen.
So the Clinton administration taught us how to do this.
They bought two to three years justifying and delaying and refusing document requests and forcing lawsuits to have the documents produced.
We've seen how this is done.
And then when the witnesses get up there, uh the Clinton administration has provided Mrs. Clinton at the top of the list with the way you do this.
Uh, I don't recall.
Uh remember.
Uh I don't recall that, Senator.
Uh uh, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't ring any bells.
You could even go so far as the famous Josh Steiner, who admitted in such an investigation that he lied to his diary.
If they get some documents from somebody and call that person up, did you write this?
No.
Well, I did, but I lied when I did it.
I really didn't mean it.
I lied to the document.
Just like Mr. Steiner lied to his diary.
I mean, that the way to do this has been established by the Clinton types.
Quick timeout will be back.
Don't go away.
And there's even more on the German prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs.
For those of you in Rio Linda, that would be the people who claim they were tortured, the Iraqis and so forth that were kept in the prisons.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brigadier General Janice Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq.
Karpinski, who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case, has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says in part, quote, it was clear the knowledge and responsibility for what happened at Abu Ghab goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
I have over the course of my 18 plus years behind this, the golden EIB microphone attempted over and over to tell you who these people are.
I don't care where they live, a liberal is a liberal, a leftist is a leftist, they hate this country.
This is an attempt not only to get Rumsfeld, they hate Rumsfeld, and if they can, they will get Bush.
This is an attempt to make sure the United States never again has the guts or the courage to take action against an enemy which has attacked it.
And this is a a circumstance that I have been predicting.
There has been an ongoing effort in this country by Democrats and leftists to sabotage victory over this enemy that we face.
This is the continuation of that.
There is no amount of mollification that can slow them down.
There's no appointment no amount of uh working with them that will change their course.
They look at that just like terrorists look at similar behavior as an act of weakness.
It's a green flag, all full speed ahead.
Uh this is simply outrageous.
It is absolutely outrageous, and make no mistake what the real purpose here is.
This is personal.
It is personally aimed at Rumsfeld, it's personally aimed at Gonzalez, and all the others that'll be named later, it's personally aimed at George W. Bush.
And its intent is to cause fear and panic and reluctance on the part of future presidents to ever again engage in action like this.
Nobody seems to want to prosecute, since since since we're going to look at war crimes, nobody seems interested in what the enemy is doing in that area.
Nobody's pursuing them, they're under any lawsuits file against them.
Uh no prosecutors willing to prosecute them.
Not today.
This is as plain, folks, as your face in a mirror.
It's up to you to see it for what it is.
Rob in New Orleans, your next on Open Line Friday.
Welcome to the program.
How are you doing, Rush?
Fine, sir.
Let me set the stage, you'll look for you.
I'm a Democrat.
I've been listening to you for probably since 89 or 90.
I agree with about 95% of what you say.
But a lot of times I think you're tongue in cheek, so I take it the wrong way.
And what I'm my question is now that the Democrats have taken over and they're going to have this oversight committee.
I want to know if Harry Reid is going to be investigated for his real estate dealings with his two sons in Nevada with alleged organized crime figures.
And if they are, I want to know when the grand jury is going to be convened and and why Nancy Pelosi isn't talking about the culture of corruption in the Democratic Party as well as the culture of corruption in the Republican Party.
As you know, William Jefferson is under investigation by the FBI, and he was caught with a lot of money in his freezer, and he keeps claiming that he's not guilty.
He's running for a re-election, and he has an opponent that also has baggage.
And what I'm going to do is I'm going to vote for Jefferson.
That way, if he gets indicted and he is removed, we can vote another person in.
If we elect the lady that's running the gas team, we got another person that's dishonest getting in there, and we can't get her out.
Well, these are all brilliant questions.
Uh Harry Reed will not be pursued.
That would have been up to the Republicans to do, or local law enforcement in Nevada ain't gonna happen.
Uh Republicans certainly weren't going to do that.
I mean, the Republicans don't do that.
They don't have a stomach for it.
They don't have the uh uh wherewithal.
Uh I don't even I don't even think they're attuned to really how to do it.
Um last attempt at this was Clinton, and that was a constitutional thing.
As to um why doesn't Pelosi talk about the culture of corruption of Democrats say, well, there isn't any.
If the drive-by media is not going to expose it and amplify it and inform people, then it may as well not even exist.
And that that is the bottom line, Rob.
Uh it's it's a question of uh if a tree falls in a forest and nobody's there, does it make a sound?
You could have corrupt Democrats all over the place.
I mean, there was very, very little done on Congressman William Jefferson Democrat uh Louisiana's problems, and all of the stories that did recount the details of the case did so sympathetically.
Way came from a poor background as a sharecropper's kid.
You gotta understand money was everything just trying to take care of his family.
It was very sympathetic.
If the media is not gonna tell people that the Democrats are corrupt, nobody's gonna know it.
To at least eight hundred decibels, ladies and gentlemen, listen to all the words on this program.
Listen to all the syllables.
Not everybody in the international community is happy with the a triumph and the ascension to power of the Democrats.
At least according to the Washington Post.
Uh the Chikoms and the Russians are worried that uh democratic control will bring more harping on human rights and trade.
What a bunch of BS.
Political parties, government leaders, pundit citizens from any countries seized on the return of bipartisan government in the U.S. as a harbinger of welcome change in the Bush administration's policy of using the military, but others expressed concerns about the Democratic Party's agenda promoting trade restrictions and human rights.
Said Boris Grislov, uh speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament, uh, in Moscow.
I hope the policy will be better balanced regarding the use of armed forces outside the U.S., however, there are fears that the Democrats are more prone to apply double standards in human rights.
Some Chinese analysts also said that the Chicoms are worried about potential changes in the way U.S. approaches trade relations, noting because they don't care about human rights.
They tell them whatever you want about human rights and it'll blow you off.
Trade relations are another matter.
Uh they note that Democrats have traditionally been more attuned than Republicans to labor union complaints about the loss of U.S. jobs to low-wage Chinese fellow.
My god, gee, I can't believe this is a story purporting to be critical of the ChICOMs, which praises the Democrats as the party of the little guy.
They have screwed the little guy.
They have destroyed the little guy's potential for fifty years or more with their stupid programs and policies.
Pete in Norwalk, Connecticut, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you doing?
I'm just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Megadiddos from the Joe Mentum State, home of the Kumbaya senatorial race.
Thank you, sir.
Rush, you have no idea what it's like to sit in a uh voting booth and look at Lebam and Ned Lament and Alan Schlussinger as your senatorial picks.
Well, I can imagine, but imagine move on.org today.
Move on.org's candidate was Ned Lament.
And here is new move on.org behind the um the uh subpoenaing and the uh the investigation of the Bush administration by John Conyers.
Who are these people?
They're nobodies.
I know.
It's just beyond belief.
I mean, it's I I look at Ned Lament, and of course, as the resident of Connecticut, I would see him every time I turned around on the TV, and I would just look at him and say, Where did he come from and where was he uh two and a half hours ago?
It's it's beyond belief.
But Rush, the reason I call furtherly firstly truly an honor uh to speak with you, and and I thank God for you and all you do for me and my country and my nation and my family, and uh I I just can't imagine where we would be without you.
And uh I I think about you and your drive by media and a little bit of a reciprocal idea I have about that is some sound by citizens, and I think that's part of our problem.
You got a whole group of people that do nothing but form their ideas on twenty-second sound bites given to them by an extremely uh left wing uh led left press.
Uh, of course, and pictures.
And pictures.
It's beyond belief.
And Russia citizens are so complicated.
I mean, you you really do need to do your homework, and so many people are too lazy to do it.
And what I mentioned to your screener, that the thing that kind of really got me even more down is I was uh I'm in my fifties, and I was speaking to my son and a bunch of his friends about this, and you know, and then they were saying, well, as an example, what a a good senator uh Hillary Clinton was, and I said, Well, really, why?
It says, Well, you know, she's done real well in the Senate.
And I said, Well, can you give me a piece of legislation that that she's passed or has sponsored, or and they looked at me like uh, you know, I had two heads on, and I said, Well, it's it's real they they think she's done well because she is nothing, she's never criticized, she's nothing but praised.
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right.
He's never, never criticized.
There's nothing controversial about Senator Clinton.
There's nothing controversial about Ted Kennedy.
There's nothing controversial about any of the Democrats that the drive-by media covers.
Yeah, and it's it's beyond belief.
And what they don't realize is that maybe this they thought they were voting against the war, but they also brought back to us the same people who gave us things like Title IX, no outcome testing, no print room I mean.
Let's take this.
You know, you're I know I know what you're talking about, but let's let's talk about where the largest news audiences are, even though these audiences have uh we say diminished significantly over the year.
You can talk about CNN and Fox and MSDNC all you want.
But the largest, and just in terms of bodies, the largest audience for broadcaster any news, cable news is ABC, CBS, and NBC combined.
And you're looking at 15, maybe 23, 25 million people a night.
Uh that's way, way down from when they were in the eighty and ninety million people range, but that's still the largest.
Now, who are these people?
Well, I happen to know because I am in broadcasting.
I'm a highly trained broadcast specialist.
I can look at Nielsen numbers and break down the demographics, but uh you don't even need to do that.
Look at the advertisers.
Uh medicines, preparation H, uh Dr. Scholes.
I mean, none of them put these people down, but I mean they're they they have an audience they want to reach.
I'm just telling you that audience is aging.
That audience is made up of seasoned citizens.
Now, I'm not a seasoned citizen.
I've known some in my day.
And as they get older, their concerns become far more personal and far more immediate.
They are especially susceptible to the kind of reporting that you're talking about.
Sound bites, 20-second, 30-second stories, constantly critical of the of the Bush administration, how this institution failed.
Let me ask you if you are a seasoned citizen watching ABC, CBS, or NBC on a daily basis, and that's your because you know, computers are not your thing, and cable, I mean, that's what's you just you watch those networks.
And you come home and you turn it on, and maybe you never leave home in the first place, just comes 6:30, 7 o'clock, turn on the news.
And you watch the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, what are you seeing?
You're seeing a federal agency, as far as you know, totally botched the job of helping people.
Totally botched the job of protecting people.
And who are you depending on when you watch you you're on social security, uh you're you're dependent on government in a number of ways, and you're watching what you are being told is the utter breakdown and failure of a government that doesn't care about the citizens of New Orleans because they're black and they're poor, and doesn't care about the citizens of New Orleans because they're old, and who are you?
Well, you identify with them, and you think, my God, this administration, why don't care about me?
I don't I I guarantee you you are not going to feel encouraged to prolong this administration or the party that the president is in, the Republican Party.
You can you it's a it's an aging population.
I I think this is partly what happened to Rick Santorum.
Rick Santorum standing firm in his principles, talking about his vision for America, the future, freedom, the war, what what serious consequences are out there if we don't stand up to this to an audience.
And I mean, I read that Pennsylvania's the second largest population of elderly people in the country.
Well, I will guarantee you that they're not they don't care 20 years down the road, because especially if their economic circumstances are such, they're it's all personal to them.
And they hear a senator doesn't care about them.
Or they're told of a senator that doesn't care about them.
Meanwhile, the opponent Bob Casey, name recognition of his dad, who was beloved in that state, that helps.
And he doesn't say anything.
So he can be anything he wants day to day.
And of course, the drive by media pretends him as somebody who cares about these people.
San Torm didn't even care about Pennsylvania.
Why San Torum, he's worried about America.
Oh, we think Pennsylvania ought to come first.
I know how this stuff works.
So if you look at the demographic of these newscasts and you wonder folks, I'll never forget what first alerted me and turned me on to this whole uh mode of observation.
We were in one of the frequent debates that we've had on social security in this country, and it was during a presidential campaign or an off-season midterm game, I forget which.
And I got a call from a woman named Carolyn in uh in Grafton, Massachusetts, off the moss turnpike.
And she was livid with me.
Because I was trying to talk seasoned citizens into being concerned about the future for their kids and grandkids as taxes were going up and a number of things, and she was she called here two or three times, mad as she has since passed away, but she was mad as she could be.
She didn't care.
I'm not making it.
We'll go back and get the call if we can remember the date.
I couldn't do it instantly, but she was livid, she admitted she didn't care about her kids and their feet.
It's up to them.
And her grandkids, up to them.
She didn't want tax cuts.
She didn't want tax cuts for anybody.
Because that to her meant less money to her.
And she was, I think, close to 80 at the time.
And that's what alerted me to the this kind of thinking.
Now, this is the greatest generation we're talking about.
And on the one hand, we had the greatest generation portrayed as, man, look at what they went through, look at what they overcame, look at what they set up for their children and grandchildren.
But some of them had nothing but social security at the end of their lives.
And when they heard that some Democrats say the Republicans don't take it away from them, they can't afford to take the risk that the media's wrong.
They have to believe because if it's true.
Right.
It was something that, yeah, it was sold to them as it's theirs.
They paid for it, they had a right to it, and Republicans are going to come along and snatch it away from them to give tax cuts to the rich.
Of course, by that time, poor Carolyn was getting social security benefits paid by four other workers that she never even knew.
I mean, that's she had long since surpassed whatever contributions she and her husband had made.
Doesn't matter.
These are the people now that are watching network news, and these are the people that are influenced.
And when all you've got to do is watch network news one night, and you will see outraged hatred for this administration and this president and the Republican Party.
You will see lies and distortions, but that's all they see.
To them, all these people on the news are still Walter Crankite.
Still have the same degree of trust, still have the same degree of credibility.
I got to run here a little long, well, not quite long.
I want to stop from going long.
So we'll take a break.
We'll be back after this.
I'm sure by now that you've heard of uh Charlie Wrangle's insult to Mississippi.
He was quoted a Thursday article in the New York Times saying Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?
Representative Chip Pickering, a Republican of Mississippi, issued a news release criticizing Wrangle's words and demanded uh an apology.
Uh Wrangle said, Look, I didn't mean to offend anybody.
It's just I love New York so much I can't understand why everyone wouldn't want to live here.
Now, this is a classic.
This is treated as a joke.
Now we I laugh at it too.
Don't miss it, but I'm telling if in if you let you let uh a Republican say this about a southern state, and I'll guarantee you it would be interpreted.
I don't want to live down there with all those black people.
Who wants to live down there with all those black people?
It's exactly and there wouldn't be anything funny about it.
The apology wouldn't be accepted.
Now, Wrangles black, and he probably didn't want to live now.
He I mean obviously.
He doesn't understand why anybody wouldn't want to live in New York.
Uh Tad Cochran.
This is Taylor.
Uh some of the symposium Taylor.
You can tell them I want to live in Mississippi and uh Mississippi and wild elephants and tigers and bears couldn't keep me from living in Mississippi.
Taylor said Hurricane Katrina couldn't keep me from building back here.
So forth.
But you know, it's uh uh sort of like John Kerry.
If uh, you know, education, you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.
If you don't, you get stuck living in Mississippi.
Who are the bigots here?
This is all about an attitude toward the South.
You might say, well, Wrangle has an excuse uh being black and uh and so forth.
Well, look at it who keeps uh look who it is that keeps reminding us.
Look at it who won't let it go, don't realize and don't recognize any progress.
Look, I gotta move on because time is time is uh is uh vanishing Joe in Biloxi, Mississippi, interestingly enough.
Welcome to the program.
Yes, hello, Rush.
Hi.
Thanks for taking a call.
Yeah, you bet.
Make a couple of quick comments and then I want to go listen and learn, okay?
Yeah.
Uh wise caller.
Okay, President Lincoln, great president, no doubt, but he told everyone that the South didn't have the resources or the will of fight back.
The war would last six to eight weeks, and I'm sure he really believed that.
But almost five years and eight hundred thousand Americans dead later, we know the difference, kind of like Iraq.
Yet the Democrats knocked President Bush for not being able to negotiate with these murderers, animals that want to kill all of us and have children, grandchildren.
Yet he couldn't President Lincoln couldn't negotiate with his own fellow Americans out of that war.
So I don't see, please, for two years this has been one of my mind.
How is he considered a great president and Bush not?
And the other thing I had to say on my way home, I heard it on your radio, you addressed first.
See Charlie Wrangle, what he said.
Yep.
That's an insult to me and my family.
And if he had the guts to stand in front of me, I'd like to try to break his jaw just to close that foul hole in his face to keep quiet shut for a few weeks.
And Wangler would say this this proves that you people of Mississippi are just violent savages, and and uh and you can't you you no wonder uh insulted me.
My whole family.
Yeah.
And I like and I really would like his jaw wired shut for a few weeks.
Now I'm going in another room and listen to you on the radio.
I appreciate you taking up the ball.
All right, thanks very much.
Lincoln was not considered a great president until long after his death.
He was assassinated in part because of the Civil War.
Uh but the the comparison of Bush to Lincoln uh is a little bit is a little bit premature here in that sense.
If you if you take a look at them at their similar times in their presidencies, uh uh you you'll you'll find similar reactions that they that they got.
The difference here, the difference here is that uh uh there's not a and Nancy Pelosi admitted it.
This is not even a war.
Victory, and and Mertha has too in the last two days.
Victory's not a strategy.
What's victory?
Nancy Pelosi says not a war.
There's nothing to win here.
This is a situation to be solved.
These people, most of them, voted to join the president in this.
This has been purely political, and I'm to what has taken over is the natural liberal impulse.
America is wrong, America is guilty, America must be punished.
Uh and Bush must be punished.
And I'm telling you so much of this is about the aftermath of Florida 2000, where they stole an election from Gore, and so much of this is about the aftermath of 2004 where they stole the election from Kerry.
I folks, I don't know how to tell you any more than I have.
These people hold grudges, they never forget them.
It's payback time because power is their entitlement, and any time it's taken from them, there's gonna be a price to pay.
It has been stolen uh illegitimately as far as they are concerned.
And uh I uh this this this is nothing to do with the war.
I mean, there's Lincoln's Lincoln did far worse than what Bush has done.
I mean, my gosh, Lincoln put political opponents in jail.
He put he sipped them out of the country.
He took them out of their house.
Call them agitators.
He did all kinds of bush Bush's nothing compared to what Lincoln did.
This is all manufactured from the left and the media about the horrors and the violations of all this in Bush.
This is really, really outrageous what has happened.
But but this is what the American people wanted, so we're gonna get it for the next two years.
All right, folks, that's it for us.
But have a great weekend, will you?
Just have a great weekend.
Remember, the Democrats are back in charge.
▲
Export Selection