All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:01
November 27, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, and welcome back, folks.
Nice to have you with us.
We move on.
The Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am Rush Limbaugh, your highly trained broadcast specialist, serving humanity simply by being here.
Telephone number, we'll get to your call shortly, 800-282-2882.
The email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Story in the Chicago Tribune today.
It's actually, it's out of Skowhegan, Maine.
Two teenage boys have been charged.
This is a story that ran today.
Charged with setting off two homemade bombs inside a Walmart filled with holiday shoppers.
Hundreds of customers were evacuated from the store when the acid bombs detonated Saturday afternoon.
At least eight people were treated for irritation to their eyes and throat or ringing in their ears.
Investigators said they had identified the boys after showing security camera photos to teenagers at a McDonald's.
The suspects, both 15, were charged with criminal use of explosives and released early Sunday to their parents.
This is not an isolated incident.
There is a blog called Virum Serum that has assembled a list of other bomb threats against Walmarts nationwide, and it's a pretty long list.
Bomb threat at a Branson, Missouri Walmart, at a Mansfield, Ohio Walmart, Eden, North Carolina, Walmart, Morgantown, Morganton, North Carolina, Walmart, Paris, Tennessee, and Hobart, Tennessee, or Hobart, Indiana, Walmarts, Casper, Wyoming, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
This is on the same day as one in Hillsboro, North Carolina.
A bomb threat at the Neosho, Missouri Walmart on October 27th.
Then there's one in Quebec, three more in the Quebec area.
Waynesboro, Virginia, Tuscaloosa, Florida, Coco, Florida, Carbondale, Illinois, Christianburg, Virginia, Gallup, New Mexico.
These go back to 2005.
And there's a story here about a Walmart employee accused of making bomb threats against seven other stores.
The police suspect that he had help.
Now, there doesn't appear to be any evidence yet that these two boys may have been Walmart haters, but I got to tell you something, folks.
Words mean things, and words have effect.
They can cause effect.
I'm not saying that the people that did this are not responsible for what they did, but why the hatred of Walmart?
Who's creating that?
Who's up there ginning up all this hatred and animosity for Walmart?
And you'd have to say it's our old buddies in the Democrat Party.
By the way, I saw, where was this?
Was this Ruth Marcus or somewhere?
A story over the weekend.
I was reading the news all weekend long while I had 48 family members in town for Thanksgiving, and they were here for five and six days.
So I was in and out of the library, all day, library for those of you in Riolinda, throughout the whole day.
And I didn't really start concentrating and focusing on things until yesterday.
And I started reading a bunch of things, and I don't remember which it is, where I read it.
But apparently, the Democrats are just fit to be tied over the fact that the president and people like me refer to them as the Democrat Party rather than the Democratic Party.
And they are all upset.
And I think it was Ruth Marcus or somebody.
Why would you purposely refer to people in a way they don't want to be referred to?
Why would you purposely insult them?
If they have asked to be called the Democratic Party, why would you persist in calling them the Democrat Party?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, they are not the Democratic Party.
I mean, I know what they're trying to accomplish here.
They're attempting to kill two birds with one stone by having the Titler Party have Democrat as a root word.
But Democratic itself is a word that conveys action and conveys philosophy and conveys behavior, all of these things, and versus the Republican Party, you wouldn't call them the Republicanic Party or the Republicanism Party.
It's the Republican Party.
And they are the Democrat Party.
We don't call them the Democratics.
When we talk about them, we call them the Democrats.
They are the Democrat Party.
I don't care what they want to be called.
We're going to get it right.
You know, just because somebody wants to be called something, I mean, it's not as though it's a name and you want to be called by your given.
Who was it that did this?
Well, actually, there have been a lot of people who have asked to have like P. Diddy from Sean Combs to Puff Daddy or what have you.
That's a different thing.
But they are not the Democratic Party in the sense that only they are Democratic and have all of the circumstances that that definition connotes.
They are the Democrat.
Why are they so upset about that?
Why are they so upset about being called a Democrat?
But they are Democrats.
And it was funny to read this because Ruth Marcus, I think it was Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post.
I could have been somebody else, was really upset at the Republicans for not respecting the wishes of the Democratics to be called the Democratic Party.
We're either going to call them the Democratics and the Democratic Party or the Democrats and the Democrat Party.
I even get emails.
Sometimes I slip up and I refer to them as a Democratic Party because people have for most of their lives.
It was Ruth Marcus.
Yeah, one syllable of civility too much to ask.
I knew it was Ruth Marcus.
I knew it was.
But I get emails from people, angry emails, if I refer to the Democrats as the Democratic Party.
Is it really fair for one party to have a title or a name that implies they are a certain kind of people at the exclusion of all other political parties?
And that's why they want this to be utilized in that means in that way because it implies something of a state something about them that it doesn't state about the Republicans.
Anyway, here's a headline, the Associated Press, Democrat pledges array of investigations.
It doesn't say Democratic.
It's about one guy.
It's about John Dingell.
The incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is promising an array of oversight investigations that could provoke sharp disagreement with Republicans in the White House.
Representative John Dingell, Democrat Michigan, promised that Democrats swept to power in the November 7th elections would govern in the middle next year.
But the veteran lawmaker has a reputation as one who has never avoided a fight, and he didn't back away from that reputation on Sunday.
Among the investigations, he said he wants the committee to undertake the new Medicare drug benefit.
Lots and lots of scandals there, he said, without citing specifics.
They're going to run into trouble on that because the bottom line is that that program is surprising a lot of people.
It's working.
It is making drugs available to seniors at prices lower than anybody thought would happen.
80% of the people participating in the program love it.
And they're going to have to be real careful here about monkeying around with this.
They're going to investigate Halliburton, ladies and gentlemen, spending on government contractors in Iraq.
And they're going to look into Cheney's energy task force, even though every court that heard the case has cleared it and said it was up and up and that Congress didn't have a right to know what was going on in there anyway because of separation of powers.
A review of food and drug safety.
Charles Wrangel said Democrats don't want to fight with President Bush and want to prove they can govern.
What these guys are going to try to do is hide their liberalism until 08.
They're going to try to make it look like they're not liberals.
They're going to try to make it look like they're just moderates and independents and run the mill, but they want to, because they don't want to screw anything up for 2008, but they're not going to be able to help themselves.
Once Conyers gets going, once Maxine Waters gets going, once Dingell gets going, these people are not going to be able to help themselves at all when it comes to hiding their liberalism.
Now, Dick Morris and his wife have a column.
It's pretty interesting.
Basically says that the Democrats are not going to be able to accomplish anything.
The only thing they'll be able to do is to harass the administration.
They won't be able to accomplish anything because they don't have big enough majorities.
In the Senate, you have to have 60 votes for anything to happen.
The Democrats have 51.
In the House, by the time the Democrats, his point is the Democrats, and this is true, by the way, the Democratic Party is not unified.
The Democrats, see, I screwed up.
I said the Democratic, the Democrat Party is not unified.
It's a bunch of little coalitions.
You have the Progressive Caucus.
You have the Black Caucus.
You have the Blue Dog Democrat caucus.
You have all these caucuses.
So let's say Nancy Pelosi wants to come up with a piece of legislation that says build a highway from here to Baghdad.
By the time it goes through all those caucuses and the black caucus gets whatever pork and earmarks in it they want and the progressive caucus gets whatever they want out of it, which has nothing to do with the original intent of the bill.
Oh, you want to build a highway to Baghdad?
Fine.
Well, I need $100 per person for the constituents in my district or you don't get my vote.
Don't tell me there aren't going to be any more earmarks.
That's another BS pile of malaria.
No more earmarks, no more pork?
You really think there's not going to be any more pork?
No more lobbyists?
I know.
No more lobbyists.
No more earmarks.
No more pork.
Well, believe it if you want.
I myself, ladies and gentlemen, didn't fall off the turnip.
I haven't fallen off the turnip truck, period, much less yesterday.
Anyway, by the time any piece of legislation is introduced, and let's say it's clear-cut, let's say it's very simple.
You just want to, let's say, cut taxes by a measly 5%.
Just cut taxes.
Well, by the time that goes through all these various Democrat caucus groups, they're going to have to ladle that original piece of legislation up with a bunch of liberalism.
And by the time it goes before the full House for a vote, it isn't going to have a chance.
This is Morris's theory.
And he says this is that Clinton encountered this.
He said Clinton encountered it, and Clinton had to basically get what he got done working with Republicans.
In fact, Jim Rutenberg in the New York Times, it's amazing the kind of news you get after the election.
Jim Rutenberg, writing in the New York Times today, says that it was Bill Clinton working with Republicans that gave us a balanced budget and welfare reform, that he couldn't get anything done with the Democrats because they're the same constitution then, even though they were in the minority, as they are now.
Before you can get anything done, you've got to satisfy every one of their caucus groups in the whole Democrat House.
And by the time that's done, the original bill has been lost.
And it looks like such an abomination that the whole House won't vote for it.
And if they do, it's going to get shattered to smithereens in the Senate because nobody's going to get 60 votes for anything over there.
So his point is that don't expect massive legislative changes out of the House because it's not possible.
Plus, you got Bush up there with the threat to veto things.
But all they can do is harass.
So in the sense that they're going to say, well, we're not going to be liberal, we're going to not going to investigate.
Well, we're not going to have earmarks.
No, we're not going to do no more pork barrel and no more lobbyists.
They're not going to be able to get any of that done.
And they're going to be so bored and disappointed not being able to get anything done legislatively, they'll have no choice but then to run their investigations just to give themselves something to do.
And I do expect them to go to town with this and be unable to restrain themselves.
Quick timeout.
We'll continue right after this.
By the way, the American Spectator reporting today that Henry Waxman is, and he's head of the government oversight or government reform committee, and he's out there saying, my gosh, there's so much to investigate here.
I don't know where to start first.
I mean, I can't, it's going to be Christmas morning for me for the next two years.
He is working now with Crewe, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
This is the group that pushed the whole Mark Foley scandal onto the penis-loving Brian Ross at ABCNews.com, a little blog site there, and all those instant messages and so forth.
Going to actually hire Waxman is going to hire some of Crewe's outside legal counsel to work on his committee.
Well, the only reason Crewe exists, ladies and gentlemen, is to force as many Republicans out of office on ethics and other related scandals as possible.
So when the Democrats said, oh, we're going to govern in a member, oh, we like winning elections.
No, we're going to stick to the mainstream.
We're not going to go to the extremes.
Waxman didn't get the memo.
If he did, he threw it up, ripped it up, threw it in the trash.
He's going out and hiring lawyers that work for this far-left group, Crewe, to help him run his committee.
Delta Jefferson, Louisiana, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you.
Pleasure's mine.
I just came from early voting, and my choices were William Jefferson or Trust Fund Baby, Ms. Carter.
Yeah, this is the runoff here for Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat, Louisiana.
Correct.
Well, I decided after much debate with myself to vote for William Jefferson.
And here's my reasoning.
I thought if I vote for him, he can't get anything done, and they will probably indict him, and he might have to resign.
But the Carter woman they might give, you know, positions to, I think Jefferson, they'll just ignore.
Well, they asked Jefferson to resign the Ways and Means Committee, and he said he was not going to resign it.
But they did make him resign, didn't they?
Did they pull him off the committee?
Okay, maybe they pulled him off the committee and just asked him to resign the House.
He refused to resign the House.
Yes, he refused to resign in the House.
Well, but with the Michael Richards thing, you never know what might happen now with Jefferson being re-elevated back to the committee sobody can prove they're not racist.
I hope not.
But anyway, what do you think of my reasoning?
I only find one flaw in your reasoning.
Jefferson's not going to be indicted.
You don't think so?
No, he's not going to be indicted.
Nothing's going to happen.
Nothing's going to happen to him.
He's a Democrat.
He's a Democrat.
Nothing's going to happen to him.
If he was going to be indicted, he was going to be indicted a long time ago.
They know what's going on.
Hell the Republicans saved him.
The Republicans, Denny Hastert and the boys under the Separation of Powers Charter, basically told a Justice, hey, get the hell out of the house.
You can't see his files.
Give him back to some special master.
I don't think he's going to be indicted.
I don't think he's going to get any trouble at all.
Oh, I hope not.
And one of the reasons why is the Republicans aren't going to push it.
They're going to just lee be mayor so it's one wasted seat.
Well, I mean, wasted.
In whose eyes wasted?
Yours?
Well, I mean, it was.
As far as the Democrat's concern, it's a Democrat sitting in a seat, and that means it's not wasted.
That's it.
And if they go to bat and save the guy, then he's going to owe them.
Not that he would be off the reservation anyway, but.
Well, she, Miss Carter, she already owes them.
Her father was a lawyer for the tobacco suit and made millions.
Billions.
Yes.
Maybe individually millions.
She was a trust fund baby, but she pretends to be, you know, lowly and of the people.
So I'm not sure.
She's had a lot of role models there to learn from.
Kennedy family on down.
That's the truth.
No, really.
I'll be stunned if William Jefferson is indicted.
And even if he's indicted, he won't go.
No.
He won't leave the house.
He won't leave.
I know that.
I know that.
So it's a very dismal situation.
I also had to vote early because my polling place is a welfare food stamp office.
Well, that means you go vote a bunch of times.
So you could go vote for William Jefferson again?
Again?
Or you could vote.
Sure.
And I could get my dead husband to go vote for you.
Did you have to show a photo ID to go in there and vote?
Yes.
You did?
You do have to show a photo ID.
Really, really?
Really surprised.
Well, you might have a little trouble with that, but it can be overcome.
I mean, it's Louisiana.
Yeah, there's always a way.
There's always a way, especially where that polling place is.
Just take some food.
You know, just take some canned goods in there, and every time you go, and I guarantee you, they'll let you vote.
And welcome back, EIB Network and El Rushboe's serving humanity.
Democrats.
Well, as a pretty Democrat spokesman on TV, you just don't see those often.
And I did a double take.
Moderately so.
Moderately so.
Democrats poised to take control of Congress say that they will work to implement the unfinished business the 9-11 Commission recommended to better protect America from terrorists.
Okay, that's wonderful.
But get the next line.
But it won't be easy.
Much of what the Commission proposed has been accomplished.
Really?
I don't remember hearing about that in the campaign from the Democrats.
were saying just the opposite.
Okay, so it won't be easy.
Much of what the 9-11 Commission proposed has been accomplished, at least in some measure.
And many other proposals won't get through because they're either too expensive or they face stiff political opposition.
By the way, the headline to this piece is 9-11 Commission idea is not easy to enact.
So, okay, let's lower expectations now after the election.
Now that it's up to the Democrats to do this, let's lower the expectations.
I will be patiently awaiting the Jersey girls to suddenly appear on the scene after they hear about this and start asking questions, what do you mean it isn't going to be easy?
What do you mean it might be too political?
What do you mean lower expectations?
Let's just see if the Jersey girls express unhappiness now with the idea that, hey, you know, we may not really be able to do all of these things the 9-11 Commission said.
Whereas before the election, we hadn't done any of them.
We haven't done nearly enough of them because the Bush administration wanted no part of it, blah, With the Democrats eyeing the 2008 presidential election, and by the way, guess who's already in Iowa talking to advisors, setting up his exploratory, Barack Obama.
Barack Obama.
I have the story here in one of my numerous stacks.
We'll get to it.
That's exactly right.
Barack Obama talking to advisors in Iowa about how to do it, if to do it, whether to do it, when to do it, and all of that.
Anyway, the Democrats are eyeing the 2008 presidential election, eager to show they're strong on security issues.
Yet the analysts say that there are no still lingering proposals that can easily be enacted into law.
James Carafano, Homeland Security Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said, I don't think there's a lot more there.
I think we're done.
Oh, we're done.
I know James Carafano.
He's credible.
Don't misunderstand me.
Where was all this before the election?
By the way, not that I care about what the 9-11 Commission said, because I'm in these blue-ribbon panels.
Well, why should we do what they say?
It's the same thing now with the Baker Committee.
Okay, we're going to have this blue-ribbon panel, the Iraq Study Group.
Why would we do what they say?
You know, one of the reasons for this is because it takes elected officials off the hook.
Folks, you need to be really wary of these blue-ribbon committees, whether it be on base closures or anything else.
Take a look at who was on the 9-11 Commission.
You had a bunch of people on the Democratic side who were to make sure the Clinton administration didn't get blamed for anything.
Richard Benveniste, Jamie Gurellik.
And then aside from them, it was old Democrat-elected officials, a governor here, a congressman there, a senator over there.
On the Republican side, it was ex-elected people.
They're not accountable to anybody anymore.
So they can come in, make whatever recommendations they want, such as which bases to close on that commission, and they never have to face the voters.
In the meanwhile, the elected officials get to punt on these hard choices, and therefore they face no accountability either, because when they go back to the district campaign, hey, what are we doing here about base quota?
Well, how come you closed the base?
I've got nothing to do with it.
That was the blue ribbon base closure committee.
Tried to influence them all I could, but it was out of my hands.
Yeah, well, we elected you, you schlub.
We didn't elect some blue ribbon committee.
So why, like the Iraq study group.
Now, you got some fine people on there, Vernon Jordan, but he's a rainmaker.
Vernon Jordan gets hired by firms to bring money into the firm.
Sandra Dale Connor, Supreme Court justice, fine and dandy.
She's on the Iraq study group.
What does she know about winning or getting out of Iraq more than anybody else might?
We have the military, but for some reason we can't listen to these guys.
We have the president.
He's botched it.
We can't listen to him.
We've got the Democrats in Congress cut and run, but all of a sudden, no, get everybody off the hook now with the Baker Committee.
It's gutless.
It's just totally, totally gutless.
So now we have the 9-11 Commission report.
And before the election, everybody was telling us it had been totally ignored and the country wasn't safe.
We weren't investigating the ports.
We were Kerry running around saying our ports are still vulnerable.
Now all of a sudden we're hearing, hey, we've done it all.
There's really not a whole bunch more we can do.
So it's time now for the drive-by media to lower everybody's expectations so that with the Democrats in power, no blame accrues to them in the event something happens.
We already know these vulnerabilities exist and we can't wait till 2008 to deal with them, said Representative Benny Thompson, a Mississippi Democratic, who is in line to become chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
A year and a half after issuing the recommendations, the Commission reconvened and announced that many of its recommendations had not been adequately addressed, but everybody else is saying, oh, yes, they have.
Shut up.
One of the most difficult but important remaining recommendations from the committee is for stepping up safeguards on loose nuclear materials that could be used by terrorists.
House Democrats pledged to fully fund those efforts, but they haven't said how much that'll cost.
And congressional researchers have concluded that political and technical obstacles stand in the way of eliminating weapons of mass destruction.
So we can't do that.
We can't eliminate weapons of mass destruction.
Too much money, too many political obstacles.
If the Russians want to get their polonium-210 spray mist into the country via the ports and start planting little nuclear bombs inside people and they die of radiation, we can't stop it.
It costs too much money.
And so Democrats before the election, do you remember?
Bush hasn't made us safer.
We're no safer.
Now, the elements recommended by the commission to make us safer can't be done anyway.
The commission recommended that the Homeland Security Department intensify its efforts to identify, track, and appropriately screen potentially dangerous cargo at the ports.
So Congress passed two major port security bills since the September 11th attacks, but Democrats complained that neither provided enough money.
Now the House Democrats say that they will set deadlines to screen 100% of cargo containers that enter ports and install radiation monitors at all ports of entry.
The shipping industry and many Republicans argue that inspecting every container would shut down global shipping overnight.
Well, good, because Democrats are out to destroy corporate business and so forth.
Democrats, because that means you just got to depend on government more and more.
Let's see.
Benny Thompson said he wants to tighten security for mass transit and railroads.
Another 9-11 Commission recommendation wants to bring spending for mass transit and rail security more on a par with what is spent on security for air travel.
Now, one problem for congressional Democrats in fulfilling their promise is that some of the Commission's recommendations to change foreign policy, they actually suggested this.
The 9-11 Commission suggested presenting a better U.S. image to the Islamic world.
They also suggested that we support Pakistan and that we reform Saudi Arabia.
The 9-11, the Blue Ribbon Panel, made those suggestions.
The problem is that improving the U.S. image, this is what it says here.
This is an AP story.
Who wrote this?
Leslie Miller.
A problem for the Democrats in enhancing our image around the world is that these things don't fall under the purview of Congress.
Well, make it.
Nancy Pelosi can create a new committee, the Committee on U.S. Image, and put a bunch of ⁇ I'd say the Democrats have done a great job, by the way, of creating a U.S. image of cut and run, turn tail and run, linguine spine.
I think they've done a great job in creating an image of the U.S. around the world exactly as they wanted to.
Back in just a second.
Yeah, here it is, the Des Moines Register yesterday.
Obama, Barack Obama talks with top advisors in Iowa.
The Illinois senator gets filled in on the caucus leadoff state as he weighs a 2008 presidential bid.
So I guess it'll be interesting to watch that shakeout.
Let's see.
Here's Michael Vick.
Michael Vick here, you know, he flipped the fans at the Georgia Dome yesterday off after the game.
They had lost to the New Orleans Saints.
And he said, that's not what I'm about.
That's not what the Atlanta Falcons are about in a statement.
I simply lost my cool in the heat of the moment.
I apologize.
I look forward to putting this incident behind me.
It's not what I'm about.
You did it, but it's not what you're about.
Do you think this is the first time that Michael Vick might have flipped anybody off?
Well, it must be because he says that's not what he's about.
As I know, I think the freight train was rolling a freight train of frustration, was just chugging along right through his body and found its way to his fingers and he had no hope.
He had no control and no fingers just went up and then some words came out of his mouth.
But that's not who he is.
Wants to put the incident behind me, requests privacy.
Well, he didn't request privacy, but that will come.
A couple stories today on happiness, ladies and gentlemen.
One of them here from the Associated Press, researchers seek routes to happier life.
And then there's another story.
This story, I think, comes out every Christmas.
Actually, there's two stories that come out every Christmas.
One is how all the 12 Days of Christmas are more expensive than ever before.
I mean, they must just have that, you know, in a time release file.
And right after Thanksgiving, sometime after Thanksgiving, in the next two weeks, we get a story on how if you went out and bought all the things in the song 12 Days of Christmas, it would cost you more this year than it did last year.
Which that's not news.
Nobody buys that stuff anyway anymore.
A partridge and a pear tree, give me a break.
And then the other story is money doesn't equal happiness.
Or does it?
New research indicates that the old myth, the old wives' tale that money doesn't equal happiness may in fact be wrong.
That money, in fact, may equal happiness.
We'll talk about both of those in the next busy broadcast hour.
In the meantime, to Redlands, California, this is Matt.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Thanks, Rush.
You know, the conventional wisdom was that if the Democrats won back control of the House and the Senate, most, if not all, U.S. troops would be forced to leave Iraq within a year or so.
But I think that conventional wisdom's now turned on its head because the vast majority of Democrats, even including Democrat leaders in the House and Senate, are on record as saying they refuse to cut funding for the troops in Iraq, which means, in practice, that the U.S. will probably be able to maintain more or less the same number of troops in Iraq, at least for the next two years until the next election.
What do you think, Rush?
Well, I think it's possible.
I don't think there's going to be an Iraq pullout that quickly in two years, although it may begin.
It won't happen in total, but it may begin within the next two years.
But in terms of the Democrats, your point is interesting in this sense.
How many people do you think voted for Democrats on the basis that the voters thought the Democrats will mobilize the cut and run philosophy and get our troops out of there and end this war?
How many people do you think?
It's an anecdotal answer.
I'm not asking for anything scientific from just what do you think?
How many people who voted for Democrats do you believe did so on the basis that they think the Democrats are going to be able to force Bush to cut and run out of there?
Oh, it's actually a very small percentage because even a lot of the people that voted Democrat, they understand that we can't immediately cut and run from Iraq.
I mean, even a lot of the generals that are critical of Bush in this war, like Zinni and others, have said, you know, if we immediately cut and run, it's going to be disastrous.
I saw that, but where were these guys before the election?
This is my point.
Yeah, I know.
None of this news is coming out until after the election.
The Democrats clearly let it be known to anybody and with General Zinni, Admiral Zinni, and General Batiste, Major General Batiste, that we're going to get out of there.
We're going to cut and run.
We're going to get our troops.
We're going to bring them home.
We're going to make them safe and so forth.
Wasn't until after the election.
I'll never forget that New York Times story quoting all those guys.
That would be a disaster.
Why, this would be, it would lead to civil war.
It would lead to total chaos.
It's kind of like the bait and switch where they say, oh, come in.
We have this beautiful car at a low price.
And you get there.
And then they're like, oh, we're out of that car.
I mean, the Democrats ran on kind of a cut and run.
We're immediately going to withdraw troops.
And now they're admitting people can't do that.
Right.
So the politics of the question is, you're probably right.
We're not going to pull out of there as fast as the Democrats made voters think.
What price are they going to pay for that politically in 2008 if nothing happens?
But along comes to the rescue the Iraq study group, the Baker Commission report.
It's not officially entitled a Baker Commission report, but he and Lee Hamilton are the chairman.
This Hamilton guy showing up everywhere on all these important commissions now.
And they're leaking what they're going to suggest.
And they have no timetable, by the way.
They have the leaks.
And anyway, people familiar with the documents and the report who've seen it, must remain anonymous, of course, claim that there's no timetable espoused or announced in this document, but that they're going to start negotiating that or discussing that.
In the meantime, the effort is going to be to throw this off on somebody else, like Iran and Syria.
The interesting thing about that is that the Syrians, well, I should say the Iranians, are saying, screw that.
We're not going to listen to Baker Commission report.
Who do you people think you are?
So you're going to pass off responsibility from Bush to this bunch of blue ribbon panelists, and you're going to tell me, and you're going to tell Bashar Assad and Syria that we're the ones that are going to fix this for you?
Hell's Bells, gang.
We're going to do this on our own without you.
Who do you think you are?
And Saul, Jalal Talibani, the prime minister, president, whatever, the head honcho, like the CEO, chairman of the board in Iraq, either last Saturday or this coming Saturday is going to go over there and meet with Mahmoud, Ahmadinejad, and all the others.
Their effort in Iran is clearly to show the world that we are irrelevant.
But as far as the Democrats are concerned, the Iraq study group will provide cover, and they'll claim credit for whatever recommendations are in it because the recommendations are based on one premise, and that is we can't win.
And that's what excites the Democrats.
Losing wars.
Back in just a second, folks.
Okay, does money make you happy or not?
How can you be happy if you're miserable?
▲
Export Selection