All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
December 7, 2006, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Somebody sent me a story here, and uh it's incomplete in that I don't know where this happened.
I'm I'm when I read this to you, you may be surprised I don't know where it is, but I'm still I mean it's in America, I just don't know if it's Iowa or New York, I can't figure it out.
It doesn't matter, it's just item of curiosity to me.
Welcome back, uh ladies and gentlemen, America's real anchormen, source of unifying enlightenment here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, Rush Limbaugh.
As usual, half my brand tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
Telephone number 800.
What are you frowning at in there?
This is distracting.
I'm trying to do what.
Oh, don't even bother me with it.
What are you talking uh somebody on TV do a story about 10 minutes of Brittany Spears wearing no pants?
It's better than 10 minutes on this stupid study group.
Uh it's either Britney Spears or Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan or what he got.
Used to it, Sterling.
If you're gonna watch that garbage, that's what you're gonna get.
Why are you even watching it?
Fernando, don't just don't distract me with this stuff anymore.
I've got serious broadcast business to do here.
Now listen to this.
Here's the headline of the story Man fined for tossing pig at hotel.
When pigs fly, indeed.
Kevin Pugh, 20 of Cedar Bluff Somewhere, has been fined 279 dollars tossing a pig over the counter at the Holiday N Express in West Point on November 12th.
Now, Cedar Bluff could be an I don't know, that's Council Bluffs.
I guess this is New York.
How many West Points do we have?
There's probably a West Point, Arkansas Hillers and everything else, Arkansas.
Anyway, this happened on November 12th, and Pugh pled guilty Tuesday in city court to a charge of disturbing the peace.
West Point Police Lieutenant Denny McCaskill has said that Pugh didn't know the employees of the hotel.
There was no evidence that intoxication was a factor.
Nobody was hurt, including the pig.
McCaskill said this is silliest thing I've ever seen.
Almost every officer we had was involved because the incidents kept happening at different hours.
McCaskill said Pugh was accused of walking into the hotel throwing the 60-pound pig over the counter.
He said it was a prank.
Must be some redneck thing, because I haven't ever heard of anything like this.
Now, that leads me to believe it's not New York, because as we all know, New York doesn't have rednecks.
McCaskill said there have been four late-night incidents involving pig tossing at West Point businesses.
Twice.
A pig was tossed, and two of the incidents involved possums.
Now, would so can we just take a guess?
I let you come up with the answer on your own.
What possibly take a wild guess.
What could possibly make somebody want to walk in someplace and throw a pig over the counter at employees?
Uh give you a hint.
Where is it that we had the story the other day that uh is it Texas or someplace out west that some guy's gonna do pig races?
In his uh in Texas, I think it's pig races in his neighborhood to keep a mosque from uh from being uh built.
All right, to the audio sound bites.
President Bush today.
There was a very insolent reporter, smug, arrogant SOB from the BBC named Nick Robinson, and his question was the Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as grave and deteriorating.
You said that the increase in attacks is unsettling.
That'll convince many people that you're still in denial about how bad things are in Iraq, and question your sincerity about changing course.
Why did it take others to say it before you've been willing to acknowledge it to the world?
Make no mistake about it.
I understand how tough it is, sir.
I understand there's sectarian violence.
I also understand that we're hunting down Al Qaeda on a regular basis, and we're bringing them to justice.
I understand how hard our troops are working.
I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore they'll have the full support of this government.
I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season.
I understand.
And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.
I also believe we're gonna succeed.
not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail.
I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail, and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust and say it's just not worth it.
If we're If we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.
And the president wasn't finished.
And the president wasn't finished.
I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists.
And when you throw into the mix of radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power on top of modern governments with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America or anybody else who'd done kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives.
Historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat?
That's what they'll be asking.
And I want to tell you I see the threat.
And September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence in safe havens in a part of the world.
And what happens is people can die here at home.
You know, this is incredible.
September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand.
So I said the top of the program today, I've been watching all these commentators lament the fact that uh so many Americans may not know the significance of today.
December the seventh, Pearl Harbor.
It's not surprising.
How many of them know the significance of 9-11?
Uh you know, five years ago.
This is these are powerful sound bites, and it was a it was an insolent question from this arrogant uh condescending uh reporter.
Um when I listen to this soundbite, there are there are other bites in fact, uh let me see.
Um we don't have those buttons, and I don't want them.
I'm glad I don't have them because I don't have to waste time.
I'll just paraphrase them.
Uh the president started out his press conference's opening statement praising the report.
I like this report.
I think this report shows move the way to go forward.
Just pure political BS.
Uh, but these two bites that we just played for you, to me, indicate that he doesn't give a rat's rear end what's in this report.
Uh and I hope that's the case.
I hope he's just up there, you know, servicing the needs of a divided nation today, or rather servicing the needs of a divided Washington, uh, with the media and the Democrats on one side and the Republicans now hiding in a cave somewhere on the other.
Because I don't know where the hell they are.
We've been looking for Republican sound bites all over the place since the report came out, and damned if I can find any.
I don't know where the heck they are.
But uh the president, at least, in these two sound bites, makes it clear to me that he thinks what's in this report is worthless.
Because what he said in these two bites, as you just heard them, doesn't indicate at all that he accepts or agrees with anything in this report.
But he said in his opening statement, we're gonna study it.
It deserves long heard study, and we're gonna do what we can and implement as many of the recommendations as possible.
That's gotta be B.S. It's just gotta be typical Washington B.S. political doublespeak, because these when he got that question from this insolent reporter that fired him up, we found out what's in its heart.
His heart and his soul.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Though you might be interested in this little quote from Lady Thatcher.
We all know that.
And I heard her say this by the way in a lecture at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel uh in New York in the uh early 90s.
She said consensus is the absence of leadership.
But here's a little more detail in her theory.
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies.
So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
That is brilliant.
That is brilliant.
That's exactly what this report is.
Something that nobody believes and to which nobody objects, meaning the people involved, the principles who put it together, and of course, the eagerly starving, hungry for action Washingtonians, who now think because of blue ribbon panel who went to the green zone for a couple days, has issued its report that Iraq has been solved when it hasn't.
Uh quick phone call before we move back to Soundbites.
Uh Stowe Vermont, this is Tom.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Rush Ditto.
Thank you, sir.
Uh this is kind of amazing.
I'm a longtime listener, and it's just rare that I have a fundamental disagreement with you.
Oh, well, there's always a first time.
Now, didn't it used to be said that we kinda killed politics at the water's edge of this country?
Uh yes, politics ended at the uh uh water's edge, yes.
And don't we always complain about the Democrats undercutting our foreign policy overseas and especially morons like Carter and Clinton and Kerry, etc.?
Uh yes, sir, we do.
Well, wouldn't it be good for us as Americans to have a unified face on our foreign policy?
What if the policy is wrong?
What if the policy is erroneous?
What if the policy is dangerous?
Well, that's what we're doing.
What good's being unif what's goods being unified behind it?
See, this is the point.
What you're saying is that unity and consensus trump everything.
No, I didn't say that.
Well, I misunderstood then.
Well, I'm just saying that you seem to be attacking the the Commission on the basis that that consensus is a bad thing.
I am.
There's no question.
I I I think consensus is cowardice.
But with that consensus is that if if we form a consensus that's based on sound fundamentals, that would be a good thing.
Uh well, but yeah, but it see it's it in in arriving at consensus, you throw fundamentals out.
That's why I believe in leadership.
I believe in dominance.
I believe in winning.
I believe I'm right.
I'm on the side of right.
I'm one of the good guys.
I deserve to win.
My side deserves to win because we are the good guys.
And there are bad guys in this situation.
And uh just to form a consensus in order to get the bad guys on our side.
You think the country would have been founded if the founding fathers had uh engaged in consensus.
Uh well, they had to engage they had to engage in some consensus.
They had to make pragmatic compromises.
They were realists.
Uh well, but but consensus with whom?
They didn't have consensus with King George.
No.
No.
They they they managed to keep our country unified.
Well, they had debates, and the winners won the debates, and the winners implemented what they chose.
Now, in order to get the votes, they might have had to make some compromises now and then, but the the uh consensus that we're talking about here, uh, let's be clear, the consensus everybody's celebrating in this report is a consensus that's supposed to unify the country.
But behind what?
And who's and who says this is going to unify the country?
All this is done is unify the Democrats and the media again, and they're already unified.
Um no, they're not.
They're not unified at all.
The Democrats and the media are not unified.
The Democrats are not unified.
This report is not the the thing that they're making it out to be.
It isn't it isn't uh uh total cry for defeat.
If you watch Katie Curick, she wanted them to say that this this that victory is not possible, and they won't say that.
They did say that.
They don't say that.
But nobody heard Katie Curry say it because nobody's watching her newscast anymore.
True.
Um but that that isn't what they're saying.
They are saying it.
They said the only way we can go forward is to get out.
Two thousand eight.
Get out, get the combat troops out of there, start the training.
There's no way to win this.
There they didn't discuss military victory.
They don't call it because they won't use the term victory.
They What are we doing?
What are we doing?
You now you're practicing consensus with me.
You're trying to tell me it says something it doesn't say.
Well, what's victory?
Well, that's a good question.
Oh, I'm asking you.
Well, what do you think it is?
I think well, I uh I I will accept Bush's definition.
We need in Iraq some form of stable government that is able to be an ally with the U.S. Okay, well let me tell you what the big problem there is.
In order to get a stable government in Iraq, we need to take out Moktana Al-Sadr and his Mahdi army.
Agreed.
The problem with that is that uh Maliki, Maliki, Maliki, covering my bases here with this pronunciation, is sort of in debt to Al Saudr, old Mookie.
Yeah, we're gonna be able to do that.
And so by leaving by leaving Maliki in office, uh, we pretty much don't deal with uh Muki.
Uh but we should have taken Al Sadr out at Fallujah.
Agreed.
Now he's in the Anbar province.
We need to get rid of him.
He's the head of the Mahdi army, but that poses a problem because the president just said the other day that uh Maliki's the guy for the job.
Maliki's not guy for the job if we're gonna get rid of uh Mu Mukhtada al Sadr.
So what do we reinvade?
Uh no, we don't reinvade.
We got No, we're not fighting a war, is the is my point.
We're not we're not fighting the war to win it.
We're fighting we're we're we're engaged in a staging process.
We're trying to establish a democracy that functions and so forth without destroying the country.
Um, hindsight's hindsight.
Uh but we should have gone in there and taken out all of the heads of these opposing factions, as you do in a war, kill people and break things, and then start putting the place back together.
Too late to do that now, but it's not too late to go out and get the bad guys.
But with this report out there, um and everybody forming this the beloved consensus uh behind it, which doesn't discuss anything of the sort that you and I have just been discussing.
Victory.
Um what are the chances?
Uh hope remains that President Bush in his press conference today was giving us what is in his heart and soul about his intentions there.
And for all of this adulation and all the orgasms that have had in Washington the past couple days over this report, the president's still the commander in chief, and if he wants to, he can flush this thing down a toilet and risk being accused of torture.
But he can do it.
If he wants to, he can rip this thing apart.
He can do whatever he is not bound by anything in this.
And the whole notion that he is spin being put forth by people who want to handcuff him and our military and end up with a humiliated United States and a humiliated United States enemy.
Makes me sick.
Or military, and it makes me sick.
Uh it it it's this is it's patently absurd.
This is the kind of stuff I'm telling you that makes people start believing in these wild hair conspiracy theories.
Because this makes no sense.
And I'm I'm I'm telling you, consensus here is the is the not only absence of leadership, it's throwing out anything that might cause anybody any problems whatsoever.
So you end up with a document that means nothing that everybody willingly embraces and supports precisely because it means nothing.
Thank you for the call.
Diane in Oldney, Illinois, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
Yes.
I'm a first-time caller, so I'm nervous.
No need to be nervous.
You know what this is going to be like by the way.
Pardon?
You are my hero.
Well, thank you so much.
Okay.
Just just pretend you know what this is going to be like?
It's going to be like if if are you married?
Yes.
Okay.
Your husband is rubbing your back with a mink glove.
That is how this experience on the show is going to be.
You're going to be want to do it over and over again.
No need to be nervous.
Okay.
Um, I saw James Baker on Fox News last night talking about giving Syria the goal on heights.
They don't even want the goal on heights back, by the way.
Well, I was upset because I thought we went to Afghanistan and Iraq because of the terrorists of September eleventh.
What happened then?
And it seems like every time there's a problem that it's blamed on Israel, somehow they're they're pulled in to all these problems.
But what are we gonna do?
Pressure them into until we push Israel into the sea, and then they can all pat their self on the back.
Well, we've been doing that for 50 years.
Israel is essentially a 9 or 10 mile slither of land that's causing all these world problems.
Okay.
And if you listen to the if you listen, if you listen to the people that uh that have uh an anti-Israeli bias, uh you've got this little ten mile sliver of land.
Look at that on map sometime, folks.
How tiny Israel is, and then go uh listen to all the problems this little country is causing the whole Middle East and ever I mean you you you we're being led to believe that uh Al Qaeda in the Philippines exists because of Israel, and that Al Qaeda in Bali and Spain and London and Paris.
They're all There, folks, because of Israel.
And this report makes clear it when they start talking about the right of return, Palestinians' right to return, what that means is we're going to go back pre-1948, before Israel was proclaimed a Jewish state by the UN, and let the Palestinians just overrun everything and go back to everything that's there now that they're going to claim is theirs in 1948.
Essentially, the right of return means bye-bye Israel.
And that is in this report.
And you have to wonder what kind of anti-Israeli bias exists on this commission and where on this commission it exists.
Here again is another conflict with reality.
Israel is not the problem.
Israel is not blowing people up.
It's not blowing itself up.
It's just absurd.
Back in a sec, folks.
Unifying the nation with enlightenment, rhetoric, and reason.
No consensus.
Here on the excellence in broadcasting network.
Can I illustrate the consensus that's in this report?
It won't take me very long.
As far as how to get ourselves out of there.
When do we bring the troops home and all that sort of stuff?
The Iraq surrender group basically says, these are not the exact words, but it basically says we should withdraw not as fast as the Democrats demand, but faster than the Republicans want.
Now there is that's classic consensus.
You split the baby.
Democrats want to get out by a sooner date.
Well, the Republicans, Democrats want to get out too soon.
We'll choose somewhere in between.
But we're still getting out.
Consensus.
Here's a story out there.
I saw this story yesterday.
The Democrats prior to the election secretly met with members of Hamas.
You heard about this?
Don't know which Democrats.
Don't know where.
Probably over there, but I don't know exactly, don't know anything more than that.
Democrats, uh, some Democrats are denying this.
But is it so far out of the realm of possibility?
Do Democrats frequently meet with the enemy?
Why they do.
Can I give you some examples, ladies and gentlemen?
How many times and how many different Democrats were dispatched to Nicaragua in the mid-80s to meet with Daniel Ortega, who was on a payroll of the Soviet Union?
The Democrats ran the House then were forever rejecting presidential requests for funding of the Contras, the Nicaraguan freedom fighters, the good guys.
And Ortega, after these votes, would fly off to the Soviet Union, come back with a pile of money, embarrassing the Democrats, making it look like they're supporting communism, which they were, and they can send various people down there to meet with him and try to get his mind right.
George Miller from California, who's still in Congress was dispatched often.
Senator Kerry and Senator Tom Harkin in 1985 went down and met with uh with Ortega.
Uh how about how about what we just learned recently about Ted Kennedy in 1983 secretly offering the Soviet KGB assistance in bringing down Ronald Reagan in the upcoming election?
John Kerry in 1970, secretly meeting with representatives from the Viet Cong in France while the Vietnam War was uh was raging.
Uh so they may be denying it, but what is it about Democrats always wanting to meet with the wartime enemy?
They do.
In fact, uh at Gateway Pundit, actually they found this in the Wikipedia, Democrats are even meeting with the Confederacy and world in the in the civil war.
And Wikipedia has a pamphlet here of Abraham Lincoln with a crown on his head, and it's a pamphlet handed out during the Civil War, in which they were trying to get Union soldiers to defect the Democrats of the day.
Uh were meeting with the enemy.
There's something about these guys.
They're they're just they uh if they could meet with Castro, they would meet they do.
Hollywood stars and other people go out and have met with uh with Castro.
Look at how they embrace Yugo Chavez.
Look how they want to talk to Ahmad Vinizad.
And wasn't it Kerry himself, he said during the 2004 presidential campaign that he had indeed met with some world leaders?
Uh uh and refused to identify who they were, but he wanted us to know that they were really worried uh about Bush continuing to be president and so forth.
So the uh the idea that uh Democrats wouldn't it's it's far more reasonable based on history, experience guided by intelligence.
When you hear a story that Democrats have secretly been meeting with Hamas uh so that uh to make plans for dealing with them after the Democrats become a majority in the Congress next year.
Much easier to believe that because it happens over and over again than it is to accept their denial.
Here's Bill in um New Market, New Hampshire.
You're next, sir on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, I want to comment about uh this uh Baker plan.
It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy that the left gets it uh put into plactice.
Because then you'd have Vietnam all over again.
You've got your four-party peace talks.
Everyone can go home and talk nice for a couple years, and then bang, the country breaks up, the the invasion takes place, suddenly it's uh in the sphere of Iran and Syria.
Well, like I said, yeah, like I like I said yesterday, there's there's a lot more here than meets the eye.
And just the latest bit of evidence to me is something I've already mentioned.
What the president said today in response to a taunting question was as far from what this commission is recommended as you could get.
Now there's look at the things always happening behind the scenes that nobody knows about until the New York Times gets the leak.
And there are things happening here that nobody knows about.
Uh and I it it's it sounds to me like the purpose of this this this little agreement is to make the country, the ding bats in this country who get sucked in by this to think there's now a consensus and that we're all getting along, and we're all oriented toward a certain exit plan, when in fact that's not the case.
Because believe me, nobody responsible, no general, no ex-general, they've all changed their tune now.
In fact, Nancy Pelosi's new chairman of the Intelligence Committee wants more troops.
He's in line with McCain.
And Pelosi put him on the committee knowing full well that was his view.
McCain, running for president, wants more troops.
Lindsey Graham, soon to die of anal poisoning if he doesn't get to separation from McCain, also wants more troops.
Uh the the the indications from the experts here are that the exact opposite what's in this report is going to happen.
I'm not saying more troops, who knows.
But there's some none of this jives.
None of none of this makes any sense uh when you look at what the report says and what the principals are actually thinking and talking about.
Uh John Howard uh the Prime Minister of Australia, this guy is a rock.
This is um this is from the um uh Sydney Morning H Sydney Morning Herald.
Uh Prime Minister has refused to commit to withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq by early 08, despite the recommendations of a bipartisan surrender group that American combat forces leave by then.
During question time yesterday, the labor leader, Kevin Rudd, asked John Howard three times whether he agreed with the report of the group led by James Baker, which concluded U.S. policy's not working.
Howard declined to agree with the findings, instead saying that one of the report's conclusions was that the policy of the person who just asked me the question, Mr. Rudd, would lead to a bloodbath in Iraq.
In reply, Rudd asked for a third time, why is the Prime Minister the only world leader who refuses to accept that current coalition policy in Iraq is not working?
Howard responded, it's a bit rich for somebody who is in favor of it not working, asking such a question.
This I love this John Howard guy.
He is a rock.
Uh, Flemington uh Wyoming is there, or is this West Virginia?
I'm sorry.
Donna, nice to have you on the program and welcome.
Oh, Rush, this is certainly a thrill.
Oh my goodness.
Thank you.
Um remembering Pearl Harbor, uh, could you give a little history on the great debate back in 1940, 41 and the isolationists in Congress, which were stating that we should stay out of the European war, and of course the attack on Pearl Harbor killed isolationism and replaced it with a single-minded determination in this country to win the war.
And Rush, I have a son in the Marines, and I fear that this country will have to experience an even more severe attack in 9-11 before we wake up and unite together to win this war on terror.
I've said so.
I I I I think that uh uh it's gonna take maybe a couple more.
If if if if nine eleven wasn't enough to do it, uh it's it's it's going to take a couple more.
That's scary.
That's very, very scary.
I just don't understand people's mindset.
Well, I think I do.
I do.
I understand it perfectly well.
That's why it's frustrating, but I understand it perfectly well.
We are a very rich, very affluent, mobile, upwardly mobile country with lots of economic opportunity and lots of opportunity for fun.
We have more time and opportunity for pure hedonism in this country than uh than has ever been known to exist outside of ancient Rome.
And as such, b people don't want to get in the way of that.
Come on.
I mean, okay, so they blew up the World Trade Center.
Just mere episode.
Terrorism's a fact of life.
We're gonna have to learn to live with it.
Why are we going off to Iraq and off to Afghanistan and why do we go off to war?
We don't have to go.
We're the United States of America.
I don't want to have to be bogged down with this.
This is it's troubling me, and I don't like all the discomfort I see on television every night.
I hate these 30 minute show sound bites in the newscast where I see a car blown up and a bunch of dead bodies and smoke and everything.
I don't want to watch, I just don't want to watch, can we just end it?
Because people don't want to be confronted with grim reminders of reality during periods of such affluence and opportunity, no wanting to get in the way at a good time.
You couple that with the natural partisanship of uh conservatism and uh liberalism and the arguments between the two uh uh ideologies, and then you add to this recipe a little dash of Bush hatred.
Uh and and you you can see people just they they don't want any part of it.
They're they're and it's that's why it's going to take we're gonna eventually do the right thing.
I am optimistic.
At some point, Donna, the people of this country to wake up, but it's gonna take a lot more than nine eleven.
Obviously, this is no longer a theory, this is reality.
Nine eleven wasn't enough.
It just wasn't it's gonna take some more.
And at some point, something will happen, uh mark my words, of the equivalent of what you just described that Pearl Harbor was on the American people, uh December 7, 1941.
Uh even if you want historical parallels.
I mean, I find it fascinating.
People forget this.
Why do we go to Iraq?
Why do we go to Iraq after nine eleven?
Why Saddam didn't attack us?
Okay, the Japanese hit us on December 7th, 1941.
Where did we first enter World War II?
Europe.
We entered it in the European theater.
And, you know, when the when the Germans invaded Poland and Hungary, we didn't do anything.
Didn't do a thing about it wasn't until the Japanese attacked us that we said, uh oh, we got a problem in Europe.
And we went to Europe and we dealt with the Japanese uh not long after.
But that was truly a global global conflict.
But the i the whatever the commensurate event uh in the future that will equal terms of the impact on the American people, Pearl Harbor was I don't know.
It's obvious 9-11 wasn't it.
Back in just a second.
According to the Iraq study group, he may have been right.
That's all we're having an argument here, folks.
Over whether I should say something to you.
The fear is the drive-by media will take it totally out of context and try to destroy me again.
I'm just telling you, as I read the Iraq study group, it seems to me that they seem to be agreeing with what he said.
Pure and pure and simple.
Audio soundbite time, Joe Lieberman uh and co-chairman of the surrender group, James Bake James Baker had this exchange at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
I'm skeptical that it's realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq.
They are after all supporting Hezbollah, which gathers people in the square in Beirut to shout death to America.
They're giving sophisticated IEDs to the militias, which are killing Americans every day in Iraq.
Why is there any reasonable belief that the Iranians should do any of the things that you think they should do?
And if they do, won't they ask us an unacceptable price, which is to allow them to go ahead and nukes?
Yeah.
Exactly.
we specifically exclude any linkage to the nuclear proliferation issue?
You're saying why should we uh approach them?
There are two reasons.
One, we did so in Afghanistan, and guess what?
They helped us.
Now, you're quite right.
They probably would much prefer to see us stay bogged down in Iraq.
If we ask Iran to come and they say no, then we will hold them up to public scrutiny as the rejectionist state that they have proven to be.
What do we lose by saying we're getting all of Iraq's neighbors together?
We want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they're all about.
Okay, now I get it.
Now I understand it.
You know what this is?
I'll tell you what this is.
The commission is attempting to drive a wedge between Iran and Syria.
That's and that is so typical of Washington.
If we can't embarrass the United Nations over the oil for food program, if we can't embarrass Iran for its support of Hezbollah, if we can't embarrass Syria for what it is doing in Lebanon, how in the world does anybody think that inviting the Iranians to show up and they don't show up is going to embarrass them.
These guys not understand that most of Europe is already on Iran's side, they hate us and they hate where we are, wherever we are, in this case it's Iraq.
Baker is essentially admitting that all the talk to Iran talk is just talk.
We don't expect them to show up.
Well, and if they don't show up, and Bush, by the way, said the same thing today, one of his answers to the uh press conference.
We're going to have a meeting.
They don't show up, they don't show up, and we show them who they are.
Oh my God, if people don't know who the Iranians are already, that's not going to do anything to illustrate it.
Well, you know, this is like high school games.
This is this is it really is like high school games.
Remember in high school used to pass notes to people in class, and maybe you wanted to embarrass a classmate rather than confront.
Uh this is this is just childish stuff.
Moving on.
Uh we're skip number uh six.
Sandra Day O'Connor was on hardball last night, the uh guest host Mark Mike Barnacle.
I read that Chris Matthews in the hospital with uh complications and diabetes, and is due back on the show next week.
So Mike Barnacle is guest hosting and says to uh former Justice O'Connor, you said prior to Senator Simpson's eloquent dissertation on bipartisanship that it's up to us, you know, to pull together as a country.
What do you who do you mean by us?
You mean the people, you mean the media.
I meant the media.
You are the people who bring news and views to the American people.
You can put a spin on it that makes the results largely negative.
Or do the reverse.
Or you can just give very honest appraisals of what's out there.
And I hope that at least it will be the latter.
Because this is something that matters to the American people, and it's very important that they help develop a consensus on what we should do, because that will make it happen.
How can how spare me this?
Just spare me.
I'm so sick and tired.
Nope, I'm just saying if you read that report, surrender group report, it sounds exactly like he was saying.
It's all I'm saying.
Have you seen this story from the Australian?
Get this.
A uh the father of a Muslim boy expelled for urinating on the Bible, burning pages from it, then spitting on the Bible, has lashed out at the scruel saying it failed to protect and control his son.
So a Muslim boy urinates on a Bible, burns pages from it, spits on it, and the father is upset that the kid's not being protected.
I haven't seen any stories of rioting in Australia.
I'll tell you, well, when I read this story, that's what I wanted to do.
I wanted to gather all my friends, and I wanted to get pictures, and I wanted to get pamphlets, and I wanted to get flags, and I wanted to start running through the streets as a mob, demanding that whatever this gid get the Australian government uh they get get really hard on this.
But you know, you never see that.
When the Bible's desecrated, uh Christianity's made fun of, left at impugned.
Uh, you just don't see Christians getting angry and marching in the streets demanding censorship or any of that.
Uh I'm only joking about being motivated to do that.
But it seems like when the situation is reversed, like cartoons and Danish or Dutch newspapers, all hell breaks out around the world.
Brief time out, folks, one exciting broadcast hour remains.
▲
Export Selection