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 and 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 Scowhegan, 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 pretty long list.
Bomb threat at a Branson, Missouri Walmart, at a Mansfield, Ohio Walmart, Eden, North Carolina, Walmart, Morgantown, North, or 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 Hillsborough, 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, Cocoa, 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 gotta tell you something, folks.
These are you know you know, words mean things and and uh words have have uh 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?
Why would why who's creating that?
You know, who's up there ginning up all this hatred and animosity for Walmart?
Uh and I you'd have to say it's our old buddies in the uh 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.
Uh so I was, I mean, I I was in and out of uh of the library, uh all day at library for those of you in realinda throughout the whole day, and I really didn't really start concentrating and focusing on things till 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, uh, ladies and gentlemen, they are not the Democratic Party.
That the uh I mean, I know what they're trying to accomplish here.
They're attempting to kill two birds with one stone by having the title or party have Democrat as a root word, but Democratic itself is um is a word that conveys Action and conveys philosophy and conveys behavior, all of these things, uh, and versus the Republican Party, you wouldn't call them the Republicanic Party or the Republicanism Party, is the Republican Party.
And they are the Democrat Party.
We don't call them the Democratics when we talk about them, we call them a Democrats.
They are the Democrat Party.
I don't care what they want to be called, we're gonna get it right.
You know, just because somebody wants to be called something, I mean, it's not as though it's it's a it's a name and you want to be called by your by your given.
Who was it that did this?
Um, actually, there have been a lot of people who have asked to have like P. Diddy uh from Sean Combs to 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 uh uh have all of the uh 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 it was funny to read this because Ruth Market, 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 a 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.
Yeah, one sylla one syllable of civility, too much to ask.
That's 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 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 that's why they uh they want this to be utilized in that means in that way, because it implies something of us, states something about them that it doesn't state uh about the uh about the Republicans.
Anyway, as uh and here, 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 uh John Dingle.
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 Dingle, 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 gonna run into trouble on that because the you know, the bottom line is that that program's surprising a lot of people.
It's working.
It is uh making drugs available to seniors at prices lower than anybody thought would happen.
Eighty percent of the people participating in the program love it.
And they're gonna have to be real careful here about monkeying around with this.
Uh they're gonna investigate Halliburton, ladies and gentlemen, spending on government contractors in Iraq.
Um, and they're gonna 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 uh the 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 Wrangell said Democrats don't want to fight with President Bush and want to prove they can govern.
What these guys are gonna try to do is hide their liberalism until 08.
They're gonna try to make it look like they're not liberals, they're gonna try to make it look like they're just moderates and independents and run of the mill, but uh they want 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 Dingle gets going, these people are not gonna be able to help themselves uh at all when it when it comes to uh hiding their liberalism.
Now, Dick Morris and his wife have a column.
It's pretty interesting, basically says that the Democrats are not gonna be able to accomplish anything.
The only thing they'll be able to do is to harass the administration.
But they won't be able to accomplish anything because they don't have big enough majorities.
In the Senate, you have to have sixty 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 Democrat See, I screwed up.
I said the Democratic 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, and 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 a hundred bucks 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 malarkey.
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 park.
Pork.
Well, believe it if you want.
I myself, ladies and gentlemen, didn't fall off the turn.
I haven't fallen off the turnip truck, period, uh, much less yesterday.
Anyway, the uh by the time any piece of legislation that's introduced, and let's say it's clear cut.
Let's say it's very simple.
You just want you want to let's say cut taxes by a measly five percent.
Just cut taxes.
Well, by the time that goes through all these various Democrat caucus groups, they're gonna 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.
Uh this is Morris's theory, and he says this isn't 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 into 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 with the threat to veto things.
But all they can do is harass.
So in the sense that uh, you know, they can say, well, we're not going to be liberal.
We're going to not get investigated.
Well, we're not going to have earmarks.
No, we're not going to do uh we're going to have no more pork barrel, 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 uh reform reporting today that Henry Waxman uh is he's and he's uh uh head of the government uh oversight or government reform 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.
And I can't, it's gonna be Christmas morning for me for the next two years.
He is um working now with crew, the uh group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
This is the group uh that uh uh uh pushed the whole Mark Foley scandal onto the penis loving uh Brian Ross at ABC News.com a little blog site there uh and all those instant messages and so forth, uh gonna actually hire uh Waxman is going to hire some of Crew's outside legal counsel to work on his committee.
Well, this the only reason crew 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 gonna govern in a oh we like winning elections.
So no, we're gonna stick to the mainstream.
We're not gonna 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 crew 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, Miss uh Carter.
Yeah, this is the runoff here for uh 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 and then did they add 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.
So Well, but with the Michael Richards thing, you never know what might happen now with Jefferson being re-elevated back to the uh committee, so but he can prove they're not racist.
I hope not.
But anyway, what do you think of my reasoning?
Uh I there I only find one flaw in your reasoning.
And then a Jefferson's not going to be indicted.
You don't think so?
No, he's not going to be indicted.
Nothing's gonna happen.
Oh, yeah.
Nothing's nothing's gonna happen.
Nothing's gonna happen to him.
He's a Democrat.
He's a Democrat.
Nothing's gonna happen to him.
If he was gonna be indicted, he was gonna be indicted a long time ago.
They know what's going on.
Hell the Republicans saved him.
The Republicans the Republicans, Denny Hastert and the boys under the uh separation of powers charter.
Yeah.
Uh 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.
Uh I don't I don't think he's gonna be indicted.
I don't think he's gonna get any trouble at all.
Oh, I hope not.
And one of the reasons why is the Republicans aren't gonna push it.
They're gonna just left leave me mayor so it's one wasted seat.
Uh well, I mean, wasted in whose in whose eyes wasted.
Yours.
Well, I mean, it was far as the Democrats concerned, 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 gonna owe them.
Yeah.
Not that not that uh he would be off the reservation anyway, but Well, she, Miss Carter, she already owes them.
Her father was a uh lawyer for the uh tobacco suit and made millions.
Billions.
Yes.
Well, maybe individually millions, yeah.
She was a trust fund baby, but she pretends to be, you know, lowly and of the people.
So I can't.
Well that's that's she's she's had a lot of role models there to learn from.
Uh Kennedy family on down.
That's the truth.
Well, no, really, I I'll be stunned if uh if William Jefferson is indicted.
And I even if he's indicted, he won't go.
No.
He won't he won't leave the house.
He won't leave.
I I know that.
I know that.
So it's a very dismal uh 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 you you could uh you could go.
You you could go vote for William Jefferson again.
Again, or you can vote Sure.
And I could get my dead husband to go vote for it.
Did you have to show a photo ID to go in there and vote?
Yes.
You did.
You do have to show a photo.
Really, really?
Really surprised.
Well, you might have a little trouble with uh with with that.
But it can be overcome.
I mean, it's Louisiana.
Yeah.
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 Rushbow serving humanity.
Democrats.
Well, as a pretty Democrat spokesman on TV, you just don't see those often, and uh I did a double take.
Moderately so, moderately so.
Uh 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, at least in some really.
I don't remember hearing about that in the campaign from the Democrats.
They 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 uh other proposals won't get through because they're either too expensive or they uh 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, blah, blah, blah, 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 uh 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 I think we're done.
Oh, we're done.
I I'm I know James Carafano.
He's a he's he's credible, don't misunderstand.
Where was all this before the election?
By the way, not that I care about what the 9-11 Commission said, because I'm getting this blue ribbon panel.
Well, why should we do what they say?
It's the same thing now with the Baker Committee.
Okay, we're gonna 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 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.
Uh Richard Ben Vaniste, uh Jamie Garelic.
Uh, and and then aside from them, it was old Democrat elected officials, a governor here, a congressman there, uh senator over there.
Say 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.
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 clothing?
Well, how come you're closed the base?
I've got nothing to do with it.
That was the uh blue ribbon base closure committee.
Uh 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.
Uh so why in like the the Iraq Study Group.
Now, you got some fine people on there.
Uh Vernon Jordan, but he's a rainmaker.
Vernon Jordan gets hired by firms to bring money into the firm.
The Sandra Day O'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, for some reason we can't listen to these guys.
Uh we have the president, he's botched it.
We can't listen to him.
Uh we've got the Democrats in Congress cut and run, but all of a sudden, no, no, no, no, 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, why?
Everybody was telling us it had been totally ignored and the country wasn't safe.
We weren't investigating the ports.
We were carry 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.
Mm-hmm.
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 little planting little nuclear bombs in uh inside people, and they die of radiation.
We can't, we can't, we can't stop it.
Uh cost too much money, and uh.
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 a track and appropriately screen potentially dangerous cargo at the ports.
So Congress passed two major port security bills since uh 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 um some of the Commission's recommendations to change foreign policy, such they actually changed the suggested this.
The 911 Commission suggested presenting a better U.S. image to the Islamic world.
They say they also suggested that we support Pakistan and that we reform Saudi Arabia.
The 911, 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 uh 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, linguini 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.
Um 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 shake out.
Uh see here's Michael Vick.
Michael Vick here, you know, if he he flipped uh the uh fans at uh at the uh Georgia Dome yesterday off after the game, and they had lost to the uh New Orleans Saints.
And uh he said that's that's not what I'm about.
That's not what the Atlanta 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 uh 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.
Uh as I know, I think the freight train was wrote 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 old fingers just went up, and then some words came out of his mouth.
But that's he's just not who he is.
Wants to put the incident behind me, requests privacy.
Well, I didn't request privacy, but that uh that will come.
Uh a couple stories today on happiness, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
One of them here from the Associated Press, researchers seek routes to happier life, and then there's another story.
Uh this story, I think comes out every Christmas.
Actually, there's the two stories that come out every Christmas.
One is how all the the twelve 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 Twelve 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.
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 uh 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 uh 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 I don't think there's going to be an Iraq pull-out that quickly in two years, although it may begin uh it won't happen in Toto, but it may begin within the uh within the next two years.
But in terms of the Democrats, your your 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?
I mean, it's a it's a 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 gonna be able to force Bush to cut and run out of there?
Oh, it's actually a very small percentage because if even a lot of the people that voted Democrat, they understand that we can't immediately cut 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 gonna 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 till after the election.
The Democrats clearly let it be known to anybody and everybody and with General Zinny, Admiral Zinney, and General Batiste, Major General Batiste, that we're gonna this is our this is our we are gonna get out of there.
We're gonna cut and run, we're gonna get our troops, we're gonna bring them home, we're gonna make them safe and so forth.
Wasn't until after the election.
I 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 I would 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 run ran on kind of a cut and run, we're immediately going to withdraw troops, and now they're admitting.
So the people can't do that.
Right.
So the politics, the question is, you're probably right, we're not gonna pull out of there as fast as the Democrats made voters think.
Uh what price are they gonna pay for that politically in 2008 if nothing happens?
But a long comes to the rescue the Iraq Study Group.
The Baker Commission report.
Uh it's not officially entitled the Baker Commission report, but he and Lee Hamilton are the chairman, is Hamilton guy showing up everywhere on all these important commissions now.
And uh they're leaking what they're gonna suggest, and they have no timetable, by the way.
They have the they're the leaks.
And anyway, people familiar with the documents and the report who've seen it uh must be made anonymous, of course, uh claim that there's no timetable espoused uh or announced in this um in this document, but that they're going to start negotiating that or discussing that.
Uh in the meantime, the effort is gonna be to throw this off on somebody else, like Iran and Syria.
The interesting thing interesting thing about that is that the Syrians, well, I should say the Iranians are saying, screw that.
Why we're not gonna listen to Baker Commission report.
Who do you people think you are?
So you're gonna pass off responsibility from Bush to this bunch of uh blue ribbon panelists, and you're gonna tell me and you're gonna tell Bashar Assad and Syria that we're the ones that are gonna fix this for you?
Hell's bells, gang.
We're gonna do this on our own without you.
Who do you think you are?
And so, Jalal Talabani, the uh prime minister, president, whatever, the the head honcho, like the CEO, uh chairman of the board in Iraq, either just last Saturday or this coming Saturday, is gonna go over there and uh and meet with Mahmood Ahmadinejad and uh and all the others.
Uh 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 uh 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 a 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