All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:16
December 6, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, my good friends, music lovers, thrill seekers, and conversationalists all across the fruited plane.
I am living legend Rush Limboy and the most listened to radio talk show in America, the EIB Network, here at the Limboy Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, and I know you do, 800-282-2882.
Email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
Hey, it's not just the Iraq Surrender Group today, folks.
We've got Hollywood women, major Hollywood stars, so busy that they don't have time to shave their underarms, but once every two weeks.
Oh, are we loaded with exciting things on the big program today, ladies and gentlemen?
But we will start with the Iraq Surrender Group, big press conference today, chaired by Lee Hamilton and James Baker.
I think one of the best ways to share with you my thoughts on this is to read to you an email I got from an Air Force friend of mine, a veteran in Iraq, watching this this morning.
Hey, Rush, I'm climbing out of my skin here, watching the Iraq Surrender Group unfold on TV, but they're missing the point.
Iraq is not the problem.
The hatred our enemy has for us, that's the problem.
Iraq is only a battleground in the global war on terror.
The enemy continues to provide resources to fight for the battle in Iraq.
Whatever happened to holding those nations to account who harbor and support terror.
In my view, not until we fully mobilize our nation like we did in World War II and take this war seriously like we did in World War II.
Only then will we successfully snuff out terror and win.
If we didn't do what we did in World War II, Hitler would have had, in time, developed weapons, nuclear perhaps, and used them.
I see the same situation today as our enemy tries to acquire similar capability.
Now, I've said all this to you before, but I think having you hear it from an Air Force vet with a couple of tours in Iraq makes it more powerful.
Why don't we take that seriously?
Why is the battle for Iraq the only focus here?
And we continue to ignore the forces feeding that battle.
That's right.
No, we're going to talk to those forces that feed the battle.
We're going to talk to Iran and Syria.
And Jim Baker today say, hey, we talked to the Soviets for 40 years.
There's a little difference here when you've got a competing superpower with tens of thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at you and tanks all over the world than dealing with these.
It's a comparison that just doesn't make any sense.
Besides, we never talked to the Soviets.
It ever went to Gorbachev or Brezhnev or Khrushchev or Yuri Andropov or any of these guys and asked them to bail us out of a problem that we were having somewhere in the world.
You know, we didn't go to them and say, hey, could you help us out with the Sandinistas?
No, we're not going to help you out.
We're going to destroy you.
We are surrounding you.
I mean, it's, it's.
But, you know, the thing that bothered me most about this, here we've got this Iraq study group, 79 recommendations, and there were two words that just kept pounding out.
And I heard them over and over and over.
And each time I heard these words, I was climbing the walls here.
One was consensus, and the other was bipartisan.
You know what this document, this document's not, it's not even a military document.
It has nothing.
There's nothing in it about winning the war.
This is, as we thought, as the leak suggested, there's nothing in here about winning the war.
To me, you know what this document is?
These commission members, the ones I heard, Especially Sandra Day O'Connor, boy.
I wanted to puke.
We have that coming up.
I've got these soundbites I'm talking about.
She's out there saying, well, to the media, it's up to you now to take what we've done and take it to the plebes out there because this document and this group has one objective, and that's to unite the American people in defeat.
To unite the American people in withdrawal, to unite the American bipartisan, just bipartisan and consensus.
Well, I remind you again what Lady Thatcher said about consensus.
It is the absence of leadership.
This group was specifically put together by Congress.
Congress requested it.
I think the president asked Jim Baker to be part of it.
But it's irresponsible.
This is just irresponsible.
This is all about trying to bring the American people together, bipartisanship, make sure that everything is just hunky-dory and kumbaya here in the country.
You know, a lot of people are saying, well, we've got like my Air Force friend who wants to know in his email says, I'm incredulous.
Why are we so blind to the truth?
Why do we continue to ignore the forces that are feeding that battle?
Sir, and the rest of you, I will explain this.
This group, to show you just how they operate, this group was not going to recommend or urge the president to take out the regimes in Iran and Syria.
They would have put the president in a bad place since they know he's not in any way inclined to do it right now.
So they didn't put that in there.
I mean, they're not going to make suggestions he's not going to do in an affirmative way like that because it puts him in a bad position.
I think what people aren't understanding here is that this report really is of little consequence.
I mean, I don't want to put down the members here.
The president's still going to decide what will or won't happen.
So, you know, a lot of people are reluctant to criticize the president for not taking a tougher stand.
So they'll key off on this group.
But, you know, this group is basically in existence in their minds to unite the American people.
That's the thing that needs to happen.
We need to unite the American people.
We need to, American people have to be Leon Panetta made that point.
And it's clear that their objective here has nothing to do with obtaining any sort of victory in Iraq or in the war on terror.
Let me play you a couple soundbites here.
Jonathan Carl, who used to be at CNN, the best question of the day.
And it came, like I said, he might have been the fourth or fifth question.
Best question of the day.
And after he asked this question, there was a stunned silence for at least 20 seconds while Baker and Hamilton figured out what they were going to say in answer.
I understand you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb.
None of you made it out of the green zone.
Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?
That's the question.
Why should he listen to you guys?
You went there once.
You never got out of the green zone except for you, Senator Robb.
You never got out of the green.
Why should he listen to you guys and not the commanders on the ground?
And it was met with stunned silence.
And both Baker and Hamilton were a little miffed at this show of disrespect for this august group of blue ribbon panel members.
Here's Hamilton's answer.
The members of the Iraq study group are, I think, public servants of a distinguished record.
We don't pretend now, we did not pretend at the start, to have expertise.
We've put in a very intensive period of time.
We recognize that our report is only one.
There will be many recommendations.
But the report will stand on its own and will be accepted or rejected.
Get this.
Get this.
We also hope that our report will help bridge the divide in this country on the Iraq war.
Yippee.
And will at least be a beginning of a consensus.
Yeah.
Because without that consensus in the country, we do not think ultimately you can succeed in Iraq.
All right, so there you have it.
Well, what we really want to do here is bridge the divide in this country.
We're just, we're public servants and we work very hard.
How dare you ask that question?
Here's Jim Baker's answer.
Let me add to that that this report by this bunch of has-beins up here is the only bipartisan report that's out there.
See?
See, ladies and gentlemen, its value is that it's bipartisan.
And they're attempting to achieve consensus like the new cathetrati.
And they're doing everything they can to unite the American people in what?
Unite the American people in defeat.
Unite the American people in surrender.
The Iraq surrender group.
Unite the American people in getting out of there.
Now, this is not a cut and run document, but it does say we've got to get combat troops out of there.
And we've got to train the Iraqis and we got to get out of there.
And this whole thing has somehow evolved into this is just about Iraq and it's not about who's feeding Iraq and keeping Iraq alive as an enemy.
I have to tell you, I am just, well, I'm not stunned.
You know, I held out hope for this.
I hoped that some of these leaks were wrong, but I know blue ribbon panels.
Look, I have hope.
I hope I get my hearing back.
You know, I have a lot of hope out there, ladies and gentlemen.
But, you know, nevertheless, I followed my instincts.
Baker said, by the way, during this press conference, hey, we talked to the Soviets for 40 years to justify talking to Syria and Iran.
Yeah, well, we talked to the Soviets, well, we got to talk to Syria and Iran, which is simplistic nonsense.
Did we negotiate with the Sandinistas in Nicaragua?
Did we negotiate with Noriega in Panama?
To compare Iran and Syria, which are two third world police states, with a superpower like the Soviet Union had nukes, tanks, tens of thousands of missiles, two million soldiers in uniform, is mindless.
It's a silly comparison.
And we didn't ask the Soviets to help us solve problems in places where we were engaged around the world.
I mean, the Soviets marched into Hungary in the 1950s.
We didn't do anything.
When Hussein sent his troops into Kuwait, we attacked him.
There's a difference between dealing with another superpower and dealing with third world police states.
And we're making these nations much, much bigger than they are.
We're giving them much more status than they deserve.
They are not superpowers.
We can't win anywhere we go.
And why is that?
Because of Iraq.
And this report comes and pretty much confirms it.
So now we can't beat Syria.
We can't beat Iran.
We can't beat Iraq.
We can't beat anybody.
The left wins.
The U.S. military is incapable of achieving victory.
It's immoral in its very existence.
I mean, Jimmy Carter, does Baker remember Jimmy Carter talking endlessly with the Iranians, begging them to release our hostages?
Does he not remember that?
Does Baker not recall that under his stewardship, we talked to the Syrians too, to no avail?
We've been talking to the Palestinians to no avail.
Talk to the enemy.
Talk to the animals.
Dr. Doolittle, let's make a play out of it.
You know, this is, you know, I don't think we needed the Iraq surrender group.
There is one man out there who could have gone up, conducted a press conference today and answered questions and said the same thing, and that's Jimmy Carter.
Take a quick break.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Well, what do you expect?
She works at CNN.
Snerdley's telling me he thinks the question of the day during the press conference came from a CNN Infobabe.
Tell me, Mr. Baker, does the president have to implement all of the recommendations or can he tick and choose from the 79 recommendations you have made in your report?
Baker was as diplomatic as he could be.
Look, this isn't legislation.
This has no force, Mike can throw it in the fire if he wants to.
But these idiots in the drive-by media think this is like a Bible.
This is the Bible on Iraq, and this is the 79 Commandments.
And the president has to accept all of her.
He goes to hell.
You know, it's just, it's, it's, it's stunning.
You know, Winston Churchill to Parliament, 1940.
You had the chance to vote for appeasement or to vote for war.
You have voted for appeasement, and you shall get war.
He said that.
And that's what we're doing.
We're appeasing here all as many places as we can.
There's something else funny, too, about this.
The New York Times story today, Iraq Panel presents its report to Bush.
The Washington Post reported today that the group recommends that Mr. Bush threaten to withhold economic and military support unless the Iraqi government, led by Prime Minister al-As Biden says, al-Maliki, meets specific milestones for progress on security and political reconciliation.
Boy, are we not a brave bunch of people?
We'll go threaten our allies all to hell.
We will threaten this Maliki guy, Malachi Howard.
We'll threaten the Iraqis.
You guys, you guys better, you better give us look bad, you incompetent boost.
You guys, you better put it together, pull up your bootstraps, or we're out of here, and we're taking our money and our tanks and everything else supporting you with us.
Now, who do we need to be talking to like that?
North Korea, Syria, Iran?
I mean, the liberals won't even threaten North Korea.
It's easier to threaten your allies, I guess.
He'll go tell the Iraqis, hey, pal, we're not sitting here and propping you up anymore.
Here's Sandra Day O'Connor.
Oh, there was another word.
There was another word that emanated from the oral cavity of the various commission members today, and that is success.
Somebody asked him, what about victory?
Well, of course, victory isn't in our report.
Of course, no, but success is.
Well, whoop-de-doo.
Yip-yip-yip-yip-yahoo.
Success is in the report.
But how do you define success?
You know, victory is fairly easy to define.
It's right there in the Limbaugh Doctrine.
You defeat the enemy.
They lose.
They surrender.
They give up.
And you have dominion over them.
Success can be whatever you want.
Success in this case is getting out of there and having the American people at one with that concept.
One O-N-E, not W-O-N, at one.
Make no mistake.
This is not a military document.
It's not about victory.
It's not about how to achieve anything.
It's how to get out of there with the total support of the American people.
Sandra Day O'Connor, she was a little bit miffed at the question about why should the president listen to these guys.
And at the end of her answer, she went another direction.
This is not an ongoing commission.
It really is out of our hands, having done what we did.
It's up to you, frankly.
You are the people who speak to the American people.
You're there interpreting this and talking to America.
And I hope that the American people will feel that if they are behind something in broad terms, that we'll be better off.
I think we will.
And I hope, in general, others think so too.
Yeah, this is a woman doesn't think the courts ought to be criticized, that judges ought to be criticized.
And look, hey, our work's done.
We wrote the book.
We got our 79 commandments here.
Our recommendations have been done.
But we're not an ongoing commission.
Damn it.
I mean, if we had charted ourselves properly, we would become a fourth branch of government here, the Iraq Surrender Group.
And we would continue to go out and make press conferences and so, but we can't do that.
So it's out of our hands now.
It's up to you, frankly, you and the drive-by media.
You are the people who speak to the American people.
You're there interpreting this and talking to America.
And I hope the American people will feel that if they're behind something in broad terms, that we'll be better off.
So what she's saying is to the drive-by media, look, take what we've said, the Iraq surrender document, go out there and convince the American people that all is lost.
There's no hope.
Cherry-pick what we've said to fit your agenda because we gave you plenty of things in there you can cherry-pick.
Go ahead and take them out of context and get the American people unified once and for all on the fact that we had no business being there in the first place, no business going there in the first place, and that we need to bring everybody home and so we can have consensus and bipartisanship.
Jerry in Cookville, Tennessee, we'll go to you first on the phones today.
Hello.
Hey, good morning, Rush.
Hi.
I don't believe that these people on this panel have any clue at all about Islam.
They don't.
The teachings of Mohammed, these are his words.
Jihad cannot stop until all the world has submitted to Islam.
All non-believers' lives and wealth can and will be taken by jihad.
Only those who submit to Islam will be spared.
Now, that's what these people over there today are doing.
Well, you're very shrewd, sir, but you understand that's not what this document's about.
This document is not about the enemy.
Oh, no, we're the enemy, according to them.
That's right.
Well, it's not that we're the enemy, but we're the reason for all this distress and discord over there.
And this is, as I said earlier, this is not a military document.
This is not a strategical document.
This is not about the war on terror.
This is simply about what these people consider to be a crumbling nation brought about by our ineffectiveness.
And we've got to get out of there while they fix their problems themselves.
This may, as well, in fact, have nothing to do with the war on terror as far as this document is concerned.
The whole point of this is being missed.
I don't know if it's being missed purposely or if you're right.
These guys just don't get it.
These people are not stupid.
Well, wait, they're educated.
They could be stupid.
Hell, who knows?
None of it makes any sense, does it?
It just doesn't make any sense.
Makes me believe in the Trilateral Commission.
Yes, making the complex understandable.
Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
By the way, you may not have heard this yet.
The Syrian government has just a special blue ribbon panel in Syria, has just released a bipartisan report after having studied the report from the bipartisan Iraq surrender group.
And the suggestion of the Syrian bipartisan group is to turn the screws another notch in Lebanon.
The U.S. is fleeing the region.
The Iranians, interestingly enough, also put together a blue ribbon panel to study the blue ribbon panel here of the Iraq surrender group in the United States.
And the blue ribbon panel assembled by the Iranians has just been released to us here at the EIB network.
And the conclusion of their study group is turn the screws another notch in Gaza.
The U.S. is getting out of the region soon.
So can you imagine how they're smiling in Damascus and Tehran today overall of this?
Grave and deteriorating.
It's grave, the situation in Iraq.
Grave and deteriorating.
Those are the first words of the report.
Grave, dire, deteriorating.
Not the words the administration wants to hear.
Give me a brief.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, the Iraq Study Group commissioned a song to accompany their report issued today.
By the way, that song exclusive to the EIB network produced by the Iraq Surrender Group to accompany the release of their report today.
I like it like that.
All right, to the phones, people want to weigh in on this number if you do, 800-282-2882.
This is Rodney in Detroit.
Hi, Rodney.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you for being an American.
Thank you.
I have no choice in the matter.
Well, I'm glad.
Anyway, I just wanted to make a point that I forget exactly what years they were, but we were in Afghanistan fighting against the Russians unofficially many, many, many years ago.
And when we left, we created this great big vacuum because we totally drew out or withdrew all support.
And this big vacuum brought in the Taliban very shortly afterwards, in fact.
And if we do the same thing in Iraq, I guarantee that now that Saddam is gone, trust me, I don't support him.
I'm glad we did what we did.
But what I'm saying is that now that the power is gone from there, except for America, there's going to be a great big vacuum there that's going to be super sucked up into Iran.
And we're going to have a bigger problem than what we had with the Taliban.
Well, you know, it's interesting you say that because I myself have been saying this for ever since this talk of getting out of there began months and years ago.
But there's a story today, and I can't.
It was Lindsey Graham.
Senator Graham, I'm watching him on TV today.
Oh, I think getting out now would cause disaster.
Pulling out of Iraq now would, of course, he needs to impress McCain, who's out there calling for more troops.
You know, Lindsey Graham may die of anal poisoning someday if he doesn't get separation.
But at any rate, ladies and gentlemen, all these people not coming out so we can't get out.
It will be just what you just said, precipitously dangerous to begin to withdraw our troops.
Yet the media is spinning this as we're in bad shape over there.
We've got to cut and run to get out of there.
Grave and what is it, situation grave and deteriorating.
This is what I mean when I said before the break, that none of this makes sense.
Everybody knows what you just said is going to happen if we pull out prematurely without victory.
And you know what?
I'll bet we don't.
I bet all this is just, there's some, folks, there's something else going on here.
None of this makes any sense.
None of it makes any sense in a reasonably intelligent manner.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Before the election, every general, ex-general, retired general, every media member, every Democrat, we got to get out.
How about, do you know what we just learned yesterday?
That this new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the Silvestri Reyes, this guy wants to send more troops.
It's in Newsweek.
It's an Istikov story.
Guy wants to send more troops, and Pelosi knew it before she named him chairman of the committee.
He wants to send more troops over there, all of these ex-generals now getting out why I think that would be a danger, why that would lead to civil war.
And here comes this report, in the midst of all these other experts.
Well, we need to pull back, get our combat units out of there, keep some training troops over there and get the security forces uh, up and run which, by the way, has been the objective from the get-go here in part.
Uh, let me get this.
Uh, I put some lighthearted stuff at the top of the stack today.
Uh, such as the women in Hollywood not having enough time to shave their armpits.
We're talking actresses here.
We're talking about Maggie Gillenhall, and who else is it?
Um, Maria Bellow, star of World Trade Center.
They were both in World Trade Center.
They haven't got time to shave their armpits now.
european influence uh yeah here it is in a surprise twist in the debate over iraq representative silvestre reyes the soon-to-be chairman of the house intelligence committee said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped-up effort to dismantle the militias.
The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war, voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade the country.
That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.
But in an interview with Newsweek on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democrat colleagues who have called for fixed timetables to get out of there.
Commenting on the eve of the recommendations from the bipartisan Iraq surrender group, Reyes' comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.
Well, that's not the only thing that's going to be debated.
What the hell was Pelosi doing?
I mean, do you realize how good Jane Harmon's looking to the wacko leftists about now?
And the point is, she knew, he told her, Reyes told her that he was for this position, had this position before she put him up there in the committee, of the chairmanship.
I mean, Newsweek makes clear that Sylvestre Reyes is closer to McCain than he is with the Democratic Party and the Democrat leadership in the House.
Brenda in Vandalia, Ohio, you're next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
This is a dream come true to talk to you finally.
Thank you.
I can understand that.
I just wanted to make the comment.
I'm very surprised that the Iraq surrender study group didn't make mention of victory, and that would be victory over George Bush.
Well, did they, I mean, they didn't say it specifically.
That's why I'm surprised they didn't come out since they've been gloating about everything else that they can do against George Bush.
Pondering this.
Pondering this, Brenda, I don't see politics works in a much more subtle fashion.
You can actually slit somebody's throat while everybody's watching it, and the only thing they see is the blood.
They never see the knife.
And I think, you know, there's an element of that in this.
I'm sorry, it's lunchtime to create such vivid images for those of you who headed out to Taco Bell and the Green Onions.
Be careful of E. coli out there.
Plenty of tort lawyers for you.
Go, in fact, go eat the stuff, get sick, and then go get a tort lawyer and get rich.
The American way.
Quick timeout, back in just a second.
Hey, I have to correct something here or clarify something.
I've been saying that the Iraq Surrender Group's report doesn't contain the word victory, and it doesn't.
But it actually is a victory in this sense.
The Iraq Surrender Group's report, its book, its 79 recommendations, represents victory, mission accomplished in the media versus George W. Bush.
So in that sense, it is a victory.
It's a victory for the media.
And that's exactly how the drive-bys are spinning this thing.
Victory for them.
They've been telling us for three years that this was an unjust war, that this war was immortal, that we were losing our treasure and our whatever the line is for no purpose.
They're lying about the WMDs and Halliburton and all that.
And there are enough nuggets in this thing that the drive-bys can spin this as mission accomplished.
Have you heard, ladies and gentlemen, that the Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is considering running for president, the Republican nomination in 2008?
I got a copy of his book.
He sent me a book, very nice inscription, very nice note.
Never met him in person, but I don't think his chances for the presidency are that good.
If this report from our buddies at Newsmax is true, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said Wednesday, today, that the nation's being given a chance to make up for past racism by the way it handles the influx of Hispanics.
Huckabee, a Republican, considering a run for president 2008, said Arkansas has made progress on racial justice and has a fresh opportunity to do the right thing in the way it welcomes the growing Hispanic population.
One of the great challenges facing us is that we do not commit the same mistakes with our growing Hispanic population we did with African Americans 150 years ago and beyond.
We're still paying a price for that.
The pathetic manner in which this country handled that.
He was talking at a meeting of the Political Animals Club in Little Rock.
The club meets monthly to hear from political figures and experts.
He said, I think, frankly, the Lord is giving us a second chance to do better than we did before.
Now, he declined afterward to elaborate on his comments on immigration.
See, I don't know if he's talking about illegals or just the legal Hispanic population.
I'm going to need to clarify that.
Otherwise, goose is cooked.
Richard in Miami, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
How are you doing, Rush?
Couldn't be better.
Good.
Live in America, man.
Live in America, home of free and the brave and opportunity.
Absolutely.
I tell my kids that every day.
Be sure they're free.
Number one.
When we pull out of Iraq and Syria and Iran take over, basically take over, what Israel is going to do about it?
Because we're not going to go back anytime soon.
Well, here's the dirty little secret.
I don't think we're going to get out of there.
I don't know what's going on here, but I don't think we're pulling out of Iraq.
I just, I know the timetable get out of there by 2000.
At least not with this president.
And I'd be surprised.
Something's not computer here, folks.
I can't get my arms around this.
Can we look at a little, look at some time.
I'll get to your Israeli.
We're not going to abandon Israel.
The best thing we could do for Israel is turn it loose.
I mean, would you tell me, for example, in the Iraq surrender group report, what in the world does the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have to do with fixing Iraq or winning the war on terror?
Would somebody please explain this to me?
We've only been struggling with this for 40 years, and we keep going back to the same old failing techniques, policies, diplomacy, and what have you.
I don't know what it has to do with anything.
But look, folks, I don't want to come off as a conspiratorial Area 51 type.
But the Friday or Saturday after Thanksgiving, Dick Cheney pops up where?
In Saudi Arabia.
What for?
I mean, that's a huge trip.
Pick up the phone.
And then Bush.
Bush goes over there.
Jordan meets with Maliki.
Every time I hear Biden pronounce it Maliki, it's the way it's Maliki.
And Maliki stands him up for dinner, but then they have this big meeting.
Something's, you know, we don't know what happened behind the scenes.
And then Bush meets with Abdulaziz al-Hakim at the White House.
Another meeting coming up.
If you look at the staging, Rumsfeld's gone.
Gates is in.
Gates, this is the fastest confirmation hearing for a defense secretary in my lifetime.
All he had to do was go up there and say, yeah, well, we're not winning.
We may not be losing, but we're not winning.
Goes up there.
Let me tell you while Gates is being embraced, not only is he a perfect bureaucratic animal for Washington, he's not Rumsfeld.
They hate Rumsfeld so bad, they just can't wait to get his rear end out of there, and they'll take anybody, especially a guy like Gates that they can manipulate.
A guy come up and kumbayaz and bow down, kiss their feet, tell them what they want to hear.
A lot of things happen leading up to this report, and I don't know what they mean.
They may mean nothing.
But as for getting out of there, well, we're going to get out of Afghanistan.
Anybody talking about that?
Folks, as I say, I don't have enough knowledge to actually formulate or postulate a posterioratic theory for you.
But the idea that we're going to cut and run and get out of there, despite what this report suggests, and despite the whole tenor of that has now shifted since the election.
Commanders don't want to get out.
The ex-generals don't want to get out.
The ex-admirals don't want to get out.
Everybody's going to be a disaster if we get out of there.
The new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee wants to send more troops to snuff out the militias.
That's usually the kind of things Republicans do and stand for.
So the Israelis will take care of themselves.
They're probably going to have to.
But we're not going to be abandoning them anytime soon.
Trust me on that.
Quick timeout, folks.
We'll be back in a second.
And the hour's over.
Where did it go?
I'll tell you where it's going.
It's going to the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum, as does every hour of this program for historians to review and attach a proper meaning and context to decades and decades from now.
▲
Export Selection