All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 13, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
November 13, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back, as promised.
I am Rush Limbaugh, highly trained broadcast specialist, a real anchorman of this country, the doctor of democracy, and America's Truth Detector, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
And I know this because a woman on the phone moments ago called me honey.
And I haven't heard that word in 20 years.
And we're back.
800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I don't know how many of you people know about this.
Those of you who are aware, you have a TV set.
You can see this.
But some guy that the authorities are calling a genuine psychotic, is that what they're saying?
Is hold himself up in a little house down in Homestead, Florida.
That's the site of Hurricane Andrew.
And Homestead's about 30 miles south of Miami.
Many of you think Miami is on the southern coast of Florida, and that would put it in the water, but no, Miami is on the lower southeastern coast.
There's plenty of room down there south of it for a city, and Homestead's it.
And this guy appears a cop killer.
So the local authorities down there, the local constabulary, is trying to flush this guy out of this house.
And they're in a standoff with the guy.
Now, they've poured smoke bombs in this guy.
I mean, the smoke coming out of this house does not look to be survivable, tolerable.
And yet the guy apparently is still in there.
And I'm watching this, and I'm thinking, how inept.
I mean, this is not how you do this.
I was thinking about, you people of Philadelphia will remember this.
The Honorable Mayor William B. Goode, I think it was his middle name, or middle initial, William B. Goode.
Bill Good.
I mean, they had problems in an urban neighborhood in Philadelphia.
There were rampant crime and drugs, hostages, and so forth.
And hell, he just blew up the block.
Blew up the whole block and took names and dealt with the mess later, but he solved a problem.
Janet Reno sent in the tanks and the flamethrowers at Waco at the Branch Davidian compound.
And, you know, answered questions later, but took care of the problem.
Evian Gonzalez, ATF FBI in there as though they were going to war just to kidnap, what, an eight-year-old kid and send him back to Cuba.
In the meantime, we're messing around with smoke bombs down in Homestead, Florida.
It's amazing how some people in this country refuse to learn.
If you want to get something done, blow up the block, blow up the house, you know, answer questions about it later.
You got a real problem.
Janet Reno has offered guidance in this.
Sometimes you just get tired, folks, of ineffective law enforcement.
Anyway, 800-282-2882, if you'd like to be on the program in Houston, we have this New York Times date line.
Just a few months ago, House Republicans and representatives of the energy industry were poised to rewrite a quarter century of national energy policy and open the seas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling, which environmentalist wackos had fervently resisted.
But Tuesday's Democrat victory in midterm elections has changed the legislative landscape, obliterating the chances that anything close to the aggressive drilling bill passed by the House will be enacted for years to come.
Now, if I have read it once, I've read it.
I have heard it.
I'm exhausted hearing it.
How the Democrats want to work toward energy independence.
The Democrats bellyaching and mining and whining and moaning about how we're too dependent and too closely tied to the Saudis and to Venezuela and all of our enemies from whom we get oil.
And besides, they say that working toward energy independence is a way of staying out of this nasty war on terror.
Well, here's a chance to do just that.
Develop our own energy, more of it in this country.
And they walk away.
They would rather put us all on bicycles and public transportation and whine about global warming than actually solve a problem.
They run around, they talk about how they're all just fed up that we're so energy dependent.
And when something comes along, like and war, any number of examples like that I can give you.
No, we must go alternative fuels, Mr. Lindbar.
Alternative fuels is the only answer.
More oil would only lead to more global warming and more pollutant.
And if something that we just can't put, and yet they demand all this energy independence.
I just this the biggest bunch of hypocrites.
Rocky Mountain News, a column by John Andrews.
Whatever happened to investigative journalism?
As a young White House staffer in 1974, I saw it bring down a president.
In the past, our lazy journalistic watchdogs couldn't even sniff out the main story between two would-be governors.
Granted, Bill Ritter's victory over Bob Beaupre was so broad and deep that no great difference ultimately resulted from the October storm over plea bargains and leaks.
Still, that episode is worth reviewing not as a rehash of the campaign, but as a case study in media attitudes.
You remember the endless stories about a federal agent with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement who allegedly gave the Beaupre campaign information on a criminal alien who had benefited from a plea bargain allowed by Ritter when he was DA.
The media compliantly played up the Democrats' attack on his Republican opponent for using the information in an ad, and they had a field day with the FBI leak investigation.
The point of this column, I'm not going to sit here and read the whole thing to you, is he talks about how crimes committed by illegal aliens fail to stir the media.
They don't care about it.
Anything that would advance the right side of the illegal alien issue, they will remain silent on.
The vast majority of the people in this country want immigration laws enforced.
They are not racists.
They are not nativists.
They are not bigots.
But it is the agenda of the drive-by media to make it look that way.
Anytime you attack an illegal, and illegals are committing crimes all over the place.
The latest big one was this murder of an aspiring young actress in New York.
Illegal alien, 19 years old, living in some basement hovel provided by his employer with other illegals.
And just he strangled this babe when she got mad at him about something and then it was in her house, in her apartment.
Yeah, it was a noise.
The noise coming out of her pain.
He didn't like the noise.
So he went in there and slapped her and hit her and she died.
He tried to make it look like she'd committed suicide by making it look like she had hanged herself.
And the New York Post was dutifully outraged about this, but the crimes that take place in this country, it's sort of like a crime committed by a Democrat.
You have to read to the 40th paragraph to find what party.
Let me find the story.
There's a story in here.
I hope I kept it.
About some guy in Atlantic City.
I think his name is Levy.
Stick with me, folks.
Wouldn't you know it's on the bottom?
Oh, and here's this.
FBI intensifies Menendez' rental probe.
Authorities have stepped up an investigation of U.S. Senate Bob Menendez' relationship with a federally funded nonprofit organization just days after his hard-fought election victory, according to a senior government official.
Now they step up.
After the election, the FBI gets in gear to go after this guy after the election.
Typical.
Atlantic City Mayor Levy admits he was never a green beret.
Made claim as city lifeguard and in campaign pamphlets.
Mayor Bob Levy has knowingly misrepresented his military record to family, friends, reporters, and the public for decades.
I read that paragraph and I said, I wonder what party this guy's a member of.
I guess I already know his party's not identified in the first paragraph.
And lo and behold, go for the actual story.
Maybe be in the second paragraph is not there.
Maybe be in the third paragraph is not there.
Maybe his party ID would be in the 10th paragraph, wasn't there?
It wasn't until the 40th paragraph of the story that the word Democrat appears next to the name of Atlantic City Mayor Bob Levy.
And it didn't do so to specifically identify Levy as a Democrat.
It mentioned that Democrats rallied around Levy's campaign.
The only time he's identified as a Democrat is in a reporter's quoting of a newspaper ad.
Sometimes the bias is just comicable.
It's the same thing with illegal aliens.
I guarantee you, when you see reports of various crime in heavy, illegal alien-populated states, you just know.
You're going to see one of two things.
The names are going to be, well, the names will give it away in some cases.
But they never identify the illegals.
It's just something they are not concerned about and try to hide, just as they try to hide the identity of Democrats as Democrats may get caught up in scandal.
I got to run, take a quick break.
We'll be back and continue in just a moment.
Okay, well, we are back.
I'm just going through the audio soundbite roster here, folks.
This is what I want to...
McCain, dingy Harry.
I got Levin, Pelosi, Pelosi, Pelosi, Lieberman, Obama, Obama, Obama, and idiot Bill Maher.
Well, we'll get to some of these in the meantime.
Nancy in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
I'm glad you called a welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
I had some perhaps suggestion for you, which might be met with a little more success than reaching out to Senator Reed and Representative Pelosi.
And I think that is, I have, I'm a college graduate.
I'm 50 in my 50s.
And I have quite a few college graduate friends that probably would never consider listening to you because they have an image of you as this, I'm going to steal some words from your screener, which was bombastic ideologue.
But that was the point that I was making.
Those are the kindest things they say about you.
I hope I didn't get anyone in trouble.
But anyway, I think that they truly do rely completely on the mainstream media.
And to tell you the truth, if I've heard one person say it, I've heard a dozen in the last six months say that they get their news from the Jon Stewart show, That if you were perhaps reaching out a little more toward this group that I believe would benefit from some of the information that you impart if you imparted it in a slightly less.
Let me see if I get this.
By bombastic, many people define that word in their own individual way, and sometimes it's not accurate.
What do you mean by bombastic?
I know my loyal screener provided the word for you.
What does it mean to you?
What it means is that side of you that comes across every once in a while that might be go along with, let's say, Senator Allen saying macaca, which I can't tell you how much that wasn't.
That wasn't bombastic.
Bombastic is self-promoting, braggadocious, pompous.
There's a number of things to it.
And I think what you're saying is that what I've encountered among the same people you're talking about is they're just made uncomfortable by somebody like me who's so sure of himself.
No.
Because it makes them uncomfortable because nobody's supposed to be that sure of themselves because they're not.
And it just makes them nervous.
No, no, no.
I really don't agree with that.
I think that it is more.
And what do I know?
I think it's more the pasty white guy that just turns this group of people off.
Well, you know something?
This is a problem, Nancy, because I'm not those things.
So how can I not be what I not am?
I think that sometimes maybe when you're getting your show prep together, you might want to.
Okay, let me just say, do you have any regrets about having gone about your response to the, oh, what's his name, actor, Michael Fox ad, the way you did?
Nope.
Well, just from the point of view of I think you made a perfectly great point that he was entering the arena of political.
Yes, and I said this countless times, but that's not what was reported.
I can't do anything.
Look at that.
But I have to get into it.
I heard it firsthand, and it turned me off because you got off on, I think, what maybe came across as the insulting.
You sometimes go about it so that you even take a listener in the direction of you're more focused on maybe the insult than you are the message.
Oh, now I'm real.
You have wounded me to the heart on this one.
Because my intent is not to insult people.
That's easy.
That doesn't take any talent to insult people.
I mean, there have been people who have tried to make careers out of that, radio and television, all over it, and they've been successful, but it's not hard to do.
It doesn't take any talent.
The Michael J. Fox commercial offended me.
Am I not supposed to sit out here and be insulted over things when the things I believe in, the people I believe in, are being attacked?
How come it's only I, El Rushball, capable of insulting?
That commercial was an insult.
That commercial was a pack of lies.
I don't regret anything I said about it.
I haven't taken, the only thing I did I got wrong was I said he didn't medicate or was acting.
Turns out he, because of what he said in his book, turns out he said he over-medicated before he did the ad.
So I apologize for being wrong about that when he said that.
But I don't want to rehash that.
See, the people who you're talking about did not hear me say that.
They would not even take time to listen.
They bought the way it was misreported in the press.
We now have media outlets admitting that they looped the Dittocam video to make it look like what it wasn't and to make it look worse, and they hammered it for two and a half weeks.
You know, my mistake, if anything, is relying on people to be independent thinkers.
You know, I am of the impression, I'm wrong about this.
I was of the impression that after this number of years of the mainstream media and its tactics being exposed, that people will question what they see on television rather than just wantonly, randomly, automatically accepting it.
And I'm wrong about that.
They accept whatever they see.
I, on the other hand, believe none of what I hear and half of what I see until I can confirm it myself.
I watch drive-by media.
I read the New York Times, The Washington Post with skepticism galore.
I'm under the impression most people do that as well.
At any rate, I appreciate the reshape the call, Nancy, but all that really has nothing to do with reaching out to Speaker to be Pelosi and Harry Reid.
You know, the leadership of the conservative movement has ascended to me.
I mean, it's silly to deny this.
It's silly to pretend I'm just a radio guy because I am the leader of the conservative movement.
And as such, there are times when we leaders have to rise above principle.
And in this instance, I would be curious to know what Pelosi and Reed, if I could get a meeting with them, think we as conservatives could do to lessen the strife and the bombast that you are talking about.
Maybe they can help with this.
If they're serious about wanting to work together to make this a better country and so forth, do I not owe it to people to explore all possibilities in this regard?
Here is Christy in East Lansing, Michigan.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I've been listening to you since I was 11 years old, and I've honestly never heard you talk about compromising with the Democrats.
I half don't believe you.
But if you really mean what you're saying, let me just tell you, I just finished working on the DeVos for Governor campaign here in Michigan, and I witnessed firsthand how all liberalism needs to succeed is for conservatives to be able to do it.
Wait, just a second here.
I don't mean to interrupt you.
I haven't said anything about compromising with them.
I just said maybe it's time for a meeting to find out what they think.
I didn't say anything about compromising here.
I just may happen, doubt it, but see, this is how this stuff gets misunderstood.
I did not say that I'm going to compromise with them.
Well, I mean, if you take your new theory to the next level, saying that maybe you're creating more liberals by fighting liberalism, then perhaps we are more moderates.
No, no, no.
Creating more moderates.
I'm the one over the years who has tried to point out who moderates are.
And I feel horrible that by being honest, it might have made them mad and sent them over voting for Democrats and liberals.
Christy, I've interrupted you here, and I've got to take a break.
Can you hang on for just a few more minutes so we can continue the conversation after our Profit Center timeout?
Sure.
Great.
I look forward to that.
We'll be back here in just a second.
Don't go away.
From the largest free educational institution in the free or oppressed worlds, the distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Back to Christy in East Lansing, Michigan.
Thank you for your patience.
It's all yours now.
Well, as you were saying before the break, you know, that you're creating more moderates.
I would contend, actually, that moderates are moderates.
I mean, if you're the type of person that doesn't want to upset either side, then that's who you are.
But if you are going to stand up for what you believe in, I just think, as you were saying before the election, I think that a lot of conservatives were really upset that Republicans weren't doing everything that they wanted them to do.
I honestly think it's more of a vote of vengeance in a way than anything else.
Well, as I said to that caller, there's all kinds of reasons and theories.
There are all kinds of theories as to why the Republicans lost, and there's probably truth to a lot of them.
What you just said, lack of conservatism being at the forefront in their campaign and in their governance, not referencing the bedrock conservative principles.
And how could they?
I mean, how do you stand for small government when you just voted for the biggest government we've ever had?
True.
You know, and why'd they do that?
Because they had to go along with their president who introduced a new entitlement.
You know, there were a lot of things that came to a boil in this election.
I think Iraq is something you cannot take out of the equation here for the reasons that I've mentioned.
The way it's been covered has soured many people on it.
They think it's not winnable.
It was made to look like no progress and no plan exists for progress or anything of the sort.
And people don't like being uncomfortable in these, especially in this country.
We have so much affluence that people don't want.
In fact, I think one of the reasons to explain why the economy, which was so good and is so good, didn't mean anything in this election, not just because of Iraq, but I actually think that Americans have become so accustomed to opportunity and prosperity that they expect it.
A good roaring economy is the norm, and nobody should get credit for that.
That's just what should be.
That's what the expectation is.
It's only when the economy goes south or when the drive-by media lies about how good the economy is to make people worried about it that they react to it anymore.
But a big economic comeback like this didn't count for anything.
Go figure.
I know.
Well, Rush, I would just encourage you to just keep doing what you do best and create more conservatives.
I know that the results of this election were extremely discouraging, especially here in Michigan.
Our economy is the worst in the nation, and we're not.
Look who you elected!
Yeah.
Look who you elected.
Absolutely.
Not you, but I mean the state.
Absolutely.
It was the wrong choice.
And, you know, being a part of Dick DeVos's campaign, there was not a better candidate for this job, not a better man to do it.
And it was extremely disappointing.
But I really do think that it was a vote of vengeance on the part of conservatives and a very, very sore mistake.
Well, hang in there because it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, in terms of things that affect your attitude.
But it is going to get better.
It will get better.
But Rush, you've got to hang in there and help us do it.
We can't have you compromising or anything.
You can't do it.
Stay strong for us.
Well, you know, here's my question about that.
If everybody else can do it and get plaudits and so forth, why can I never compromise?
The president can compromise.
Rove can compromise.
Individual Republicans and candidates can compromise.
Why can't I?
Well, like you said, you are the conservative voice, and there are times where compromise is a good thing.
But I think when it comes to compromising your core beliefs and values, compromise is a very, very negative word.
I didn't say anything about that.
See, that's the fear that you have when you heard me say that I was thinking about reaching out to Reid and Pelosi just to find out how they think we could all work.
I'm going to take them at their word.
want a better country.
They want this and that.
Meet with them, find out what they think I could do.
Be interesting to hear their take on conservatism and what they think.
Well, I know what it is, but I would love for them to say it to me.
We'll see.
I don't expect this to happen.
I'm just folks, I'm just sharing my thoughts with you here today.
I am opening up, as it were.
Michelle in Utah on a cell phone.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hi, Rash.
Thank you for taking my call.
And I want to say that we're big fans of yours, my husband and I.
We drive back and forth between our two homes, one in Washington State and one in Colorado.
And I told my husband, I've got to get on this cell phone and call.
He said, you'll never get through, Michelle.
And I got through on the fourth time.
So thank you so much.
I'm glad you made it.
Thanks.
I'm glad you tried.
Thanks.
And I've proven him wrong, so that's even great.
But I just wanted to tell you that you don't need to bother to talk to Reed Pelosi.
You don't need to bother to get anything out of them except to know that their bipartisanship is nothing.
It's a sham.
I think most people on the right know that.
I think most people on the left know that.
And I was telling your screener that we caught John Kasich's show Saturday, and he happened to have, sorry, I'm a little nervous.
He happened to have Susan Estrich on, who basically said exactly what the Democrats are going to do.
They're going to go through all these hearings and try to use this code word oversight to go after Bush and everything that has happened in the last six years.
She called it, I think, I'm quoting her right, Democrats Gone Wild.
And I'm going to say that.
Yes, well, she has no exclusive on that.
I predicted this last week.
Well, more than likely she took it from you.
No, I didn't mean that.
I'm just thinking I've just, I read what Harry Reid said.
I heard what he said.
I heard what Henry Waxman said.
He's got so many areas to investigate.
It's like Christmas morning.
He doesn't know which one to pick first.
There's no question that they're going to do that.
I wouldn't be surprised if they called me to testify about something.
And this disguise that they're putting on on bipartisanship.
I think their hate will show through.
I think the rage that they've had against this president, the administration, the people across the aisle, I think it'll come through loud and clear.
And let me tell you, I've only been a conservative since the year 2000.
So I know what I'm talking about.
Democrats, liberals, it's not just necessarily a dislike for the other side.
Let me ask you a question.
I don't mean to interrupt here, but I always fear cell phone dropouts.
And I want to get this question before that happens, if it does.
You say that the people, American people, will see the hatred and rage of the Democrats.
Well, how come they haven't seen it the last six years?
Because it's been on full display.
Well, you mean because of the way the election tilted?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Now, I guess what you would say, well, they're going to really see it once these hearings start.
They're going to see the venom.
They're going to see the hatred.
But you have to understand the drive-by media is going to portray this as something other than what it is.
It'll look like hate, but it's going to be portrayed as finally justice coming to this administration.
Justice being done for this country.
We're going to find out who lied, who died because of it, all of these things.
And so the rage and hatred is going to appear to be justified as the drive-bys cover it.
I think you're exactly right, of course.
Well, usually so.
We could do a little for ourselves, too, by hopefully getting some leadership in both houses.
And do you, I know you remember this.
I know you do.
Tom Daschell, the continuous press conferences that he had, and the media ran to him every time something came up.
We need, you know, every time they bring something up, we need somebody, our leadership, pounding this to the press.
Well, here's the thing about that, Michelle.
For the last of 94, 12 years, the leader of the House of Representatives has been a Republican.
For many of these years, the leaders of the Senate have been Republicans.
But if you landed here from Mars and turned on the TV, you would think that for the last four years, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have run Congress.
The Republicans have these press conferences.
They just don't get covered.
And when they are covered, it's this way.
Reed or Pelosi will have a press conference and they'll say whatever they say and a media will run over to Bill Frist or Tom DeLair, whoever it was.
What do you think about what the Democrats just said?
If the Republicans cannot come off as leaders and winners when they're running the place, how in the world are they going to do that when they're not running the place?
See, the media template is Democrats in power.
That's the natural order of things.
So when they weren't in power, the focus was, how do we get them back in power and who are these crooks that are denying them power?
So the Republicans are always going to be suspects.
The Democrats are always going to be the deserving.
They're always going to be the justified.
And the Republicans are always going to be the SOBs that are standing in the way of normalcy.
And the way to overcome this is somebody like me in office, although it's not going to be me because I'm not going to put up with a pay cut, but somebody like me who will tell the press what they really think.
Now, you see what happens to me when I do it.
And that's why they aren't going to do it because they're not going to take that kind of heat.
They get votes, and I don't.
You know, I'm not on any ballot.
But they are.
It's like what's happening in this immigration thing right now.
If you look at these immigration directly, let's just take a look at J.D. Hayworth.
Now, his race is still open.
There's still some uncounted ballots out there.
But it's being reported that he lost.
And they're saying that J.D. law.
And what did he do?
His lead issue was illegal immigration in Arizona.
And he wrote a book about it.
And he was really focused on the whole issue of illegal immigration.
Okay, so he loses.
In their spin, he's already lost even though it's still open.
And what are they saying?
J.D. Hayworth, member freshman class.
He was 94.
I think he was a freshman classmate in 94.
J.D. Hayworth rejected after 12 years for xenophobia, racism, nativism, bigotry.
So what do other Republicans see, Michelle?
Other Republicans see what they are saying about J.D. Hayworth, who took a stand on an issue he feels passionately about.
And the reaction is, oh my gosh, I don't want that said about me.
I don't want them saying about me what they're saying about J.D.
And so they clam up on the issue.
Drive-by media has a tremendous amount of power.
They do not use it responsibly, but they are what they are.
And that's part and parcel of why Republicans do not speak up.
It's part and parcel why our punditry, our own conservative punditry inside the Miltway is pretty muted when it comes to conservatives because everybody wants to get along.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
All right, now here's an interesting couple of soundbites.
The first one, well, both of them are about independence and their attitudes.
It's Senator McCain on Meet the Press with Russert.
Russia says, let me show you the exit poll, Senator, from the past Tuesday.
War in Iraq, do you approve it?
Voters, 43 approve, 57 disapprove.
Now, look at independent voters, Senator.
35 approve.
65% disapprove.
65% of independents disapprove of the war.
You can't be elected president without those independent voters.
And two to one, they're saying they disapprove of the war.
What say you, Senator McCain?
I believe that a withdrawal or a date for withdrawal will lead to chaos in the region.
And most military experts think the same thing.
I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops.
Now, if you want to give up on Iraq, then fine and take the consequences.
I think there will be chaos in the region.
If we have the will to win, we will do what's necessary to win.
But I'm not interested in seeing a scene of the roof of the American embassy in Saigon multiplied a thousandfold.
Well, get ready for it, Senator, because the leaks coming out of the Iraq study group clearly indicate that winning is not even on the table as an option.
How to get out is an option.
We're even going to seek the help of Iran and Syria.
I suggested earlier today, why stop there?
Ask the North Koreans for their assistance in this problem.
Maybe even Hugo Chavez.
There's a proposal in this leak anyway that we're even going to promise the Iranians that we won't attack them from Iraq, which I found odd because how can we attack from Iraq if we're going to redeploy to Okinawa?
But now here McCain, see, here McCain is clearly putting himself on the opposite side of the fence from the independents, from the moderates.
What does that tell you?
What does it mean, ladies and gentlemen?
There is a reason for he did this on purpose.
He's answering the question.
He's being consistent with his answer.
He's always said we need more troops.
Sounds to me like Senator McCain wants us to believe he really wants to win, even though he did say, if you want to give up on Iraq, then fine and take the consequences.
But anyway, the next question was: well, bottom line for John McCain is: if there's no consensus to send more troops to Iraq and, quote, win, then rather than delay withdrawal for a year and let others die, bring troops home.
I certainly wouldn't support a proposal that leads to eventual defeat, that I am convinced that would lead to eventual defeat.
And look, if you talk to most military experts, we're in a critical and crucial time.
We're either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.
Senator, I hate to tell you, but right now, what military experts think doesn't matter.
Everything being done here on the war in Iraq is being done because of the election results on Tuesday.
And so in this case, it is the exit poll information from people who voted on Tuesday that is now in charge of Iraq policy, not military experts.
Nobody else.
That's how I read it.
Here is Will in San Jose.
Will, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Yeah, about the Iraq study group.
If we're going to be negotiating with Iran and Syria, aren't the Iranians and the Syrians going to want something in return?
Like, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like the, aren't they going to want the Israelis to give up Jerusalem and once, yeah, that's a good point.
Once we bring them into the talks, they can demand anything, and they can be serious about it.
They can have throwaways in the negotiations.
They can do what they can to gum it up.
But see, the interesting thing, and I mentioned this at the top of the program, for the first time.
Now, maybe I've missed this, but for the first time I read today in this story about the Iraq study group that contains the leaks of what their group is going to recommend or planning to recommend, it clearly states the Iranians are worried about a precipitous withdrawal.
They are worried even after last week claiming solidarity with the Democrats over their election victory and what that would mean for our policy, all of a sudden now Iranian intelligence professionals are worried that we might get out of there too soon and cause because they're worried about Iraqi insurgents getting even for what the Iranians' contribution to the insurgency has been and attacking Iran.
That's something that I had not heard.
Have you heard that before?
That Iran was worried about us getting out of there early?
Totally, totally surprising to me.
I wish I had more time to elaborate because there's lots of stuff to say, but I don't.
And that's it, folks.
Another week of broadcast excellence off to a rousing start.
Look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection