All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 18, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:55
December 18, 2006, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We do that each and every day here at the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
If you want to be on the program, it's 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, we've got some audio soundbites.
You know, there's beginning to be a split in the Democratic Party.
I said beginning to be, and it's becoming pronounced now and obvious.
And by the way, this is a C, I told you so.
I was able to predict after a presidential press conference that the Iraq study group, the surrender report, was doomed for the ash heap of history.
I said, if you ask me, it seems to me, I'm hearing from experts everywhere, military, civilian, we need more troops in Iraq.
And now Hillary's come out opposing it.
Dingy Harry's come out in favor of a temporary ratcheting up of troops.
The president appears for it.
Senator McCain is still making that a hallmark of his policy of what to do in Iraq.
Teddy Kennedy has come out against more troops, saying he doesn't agree with Senator Reed.
He has profound respect for Senator Reed, of course, but he doesn't really agree with him about any of this.
Let us go to the audio soundbites.
And it just makes me wonder what the Democrat base, the Kook fringe base, thinks now of the Senate majority leader in favor of a temporary, because you know how they'll interrupt.
There's nothing temporary in troop increases.
Why, that's going to be permanent and so why we're supposed to be getting out of Iraq.
Here's Mrs. Clinton.
She was on the Today Show today with Meredith Vieira, and she was asked if she thought we should send more troops to the region.
I am not in favor of sending more troops to continue doing what our young men and women have been told to do with the government of Iraq pulling the rug out from under them when they actually go after some of the bad guys.
I am not in favor of doing that unless it's part of a larger plan.
Let's see the plan.
You know, I'm not going to believe this president again.
I did that once.
It's time now to make the break.
Mrs. Clinton, anybody doubts that she's running, that's it.
That little bite right there is all I need to know that she is running.
That is a direct statement to the base of the Democratic Party.
Fox News Sunday, Ted Kennedy, Chris Wallace, says, let's start with Iraq.
The president reportedly considering an option to send another 50,000 troops as he wants nothing less than victory.
If that's what it takes to stabilize the country and protect us from terrorism, isn't that worth it?
I don't believe that that would stabilize the country, nor do I think it would bring victory.
Since the Hamilton report has been issued, 40 Americans have been killed.
So far.
Our military has.
Hold it a minute.
Hold it a minute.
Stop it.
What does one have to do with another?
Nothing.
Here's the rest of the bite.
Longer than a World War II, World War I, longer than the Vietnam War.
Stop the tape.
Stop the tape.
Sorry.
Yeah, we will see.
World War II didn't quite go as long as this war did.
But what were the total casualties, American casualties, deaths, and so forth in World War II?
I know the number.
Does it just pop up into your mind?
Try 300,000.
Try 300,000.
I mean, this was World War, Senator Kennedy.
300,000 Americans died.
What's the death count in Iraq?
Because you guys are just keeping a score of this.
It's around 2,954, but I don't know if that includes the 40 that Senator Kennedy's talking about who died since the Iraq surrender groups report.
All right, so we've fought in Iraq longer.
We've lost basically 3,000 troops.
Shorter period of time for World War II and lost three.
What's the point?
This is meaningless.
What do we now have?
Is war a football game and the clock's ticking?
And if you don't get it done within a certain time frame, you leave?
Yeah, apparently so do the Democratic Party.
Sorry, Democrat Party.
Here's the rest of this inane soundbite.
On everything that they possibly could.
This country is in chaos.
There are now 100,000 refugees that are leaving Iraq every month.
Jordan has sealed its borders.
Lebanon has sealed its borders.
They're rushing into the Middle East.
We have 700,000 refugees that have come into Jordan.
It's like 30 million people had entered the United States over the last two to three months.
This is inane.
These are non-sequiturs.
By the way, if Jordan has sealed its borders, how do 700,000 refugees get in there?
If 100,000 refugees are leaving Iraq every month, then pretty soon it's not going to be an Iraq.
And that may be the way to win the policies, drive everybody out of there and go in and take over the oil and establish Halliburton government and be done with it.
I'll tell you, these people are dangerous.
And now here's Senator Kennedy, the swimmer, splitting from Dingy Harry.
He was asked to comment on Dingy Harry's remark, which you'll hear in a moment, that he supports a temporary increase of the number of troops.
I respect Harry, read on it, but that's not where I am.
I agree with the generals who have appeared before our Armed Services Committee and think what an enhanced, just as we saw the enhanced troops in Baghdad didn't quiet Baghdad down, the generals that testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions.
You know, there's another way to look at this.
It's just another way to look at it.
But how long has this been going on?
Three years.
And the general consensus is, even though there are arguments about this, the general agreement is that it's chaos and we're not doing well over there.
We could have done much better than we're doing.
Now, the president has said throughout that he's been listening to the generals.
And it was the generals that came up with the policy and the generals that said, no, I don't need any more troops right now.
Well, we got this fine and so forth.
Could it be that maybe the generals have screwed up?
I mean, I don't know.
Maybe it is time for a new direction.
Maybe we've been listening to the wrong people for enough time now that changing strategiery and changing policy might make sense.
And you get some input from some different people.
Not the think tank crowd.
You don't want that.
But I mean, Ted Kennedy, here's a guy who despises the military, but can't wait to sign on to them when they happen to say something before his committee that he happens to agree with.
Now, this next soundbite, this has made some news.
It has nothing to do with Iraq.
He was asked if welfare reform has worked.
Your figures are wrong in terms of child poverty.
Your figures are absolutely wrong.
We've had the increase now in the last five years of the number of children that are living in poverty in the United States of America has increased by 1,700,000.
We have 36 million Americans that are going to bed hungry every night.
36 million Americans who are going, and 12 million of those are children.
We've had the total number of people that have fallen back into poverty during this Bush administration.
We have 5 million more people that have dropped back into poverty.
This is, well, this is not inane.
This is insane.
We have full employment.
But here's a classic illustration of the Democrats and their vision of America as soup line America.
What you don't, you know, a dirty little secret is that Senator Kennedy likes this.
I mean, he likes being able to bandy these numbers.
He wants the people of this country to think that we are all one paycheck away from utter financial ruin, bankruptcy, that there's no security, that poverty is creeping up and everybody's falling into it and falling back into it.
And it's all because of the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, more revenue is pouring into this country via taxation than ever before.
Why doesn't somebody ask Senator Kennedy, look, you've had the war on poverty since 1965, Senator, and according to all of the statistics, the same number of people are still in poverty today as were in poverty when the program began.
I remind you of this.
And we had this statistic last year.
It's the result of a scholarly paper by some scholar whose name escapes me.
He made the point that people living in poverty today have the same lifestyles that the middle class in this country lived in the 60s.
He also pointed out that poverty statistics today are static and the ways we measure poverty and calculate it have not been updated since 1965 when the war on poverty began.
There's also the number I gave you last week, and it runs around that 1% of the American population earns 16% of all the wealth in the country.
And that, of course, is calculated on a formula that does not include a number of forms of income.
And so the amount of income that is not calculated to get that 1 in 16 formula is about 35%.
35% of total income is exempted because they don't count Social Security, transfer payments, the cash, underground economy, and so forth.
So by the time you add in the 35% of income that's not calculated, the figure becomes 1 in 10 rather than 1 in 16.
You add that to the fact that the current people, current poverty, the guys, Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation has done great work on this too.
And I've been citing it since the late 80s.
And ever since, I have been, it's been one of the liberal arguments, bones of contention with me, that I'm cold-hearted and cruel because I have no sympathy for the poor and so forth, which, of course, is not what we were discussing.
What we're discussing here is just what is poverty in this country?
Is poverty where you own your house?
Is poverty where you own at least a car?
Is poverty where you have air conditioning?
Because that's the description to handle most people in this country who are below the poverty line.
And it is, when you learn that people in poverty in America today have the same lives that middle-class Americans had 40 years ago, it tells you a lot about how much progress we actually have made in improving lifestyles for every American.
And this figure of 36 million people go to bed hungry every night.
Maybe they don't need dinner.
Who knows?
But that is absurd.
It is just patently ridiculous.
And it's nothing more than a bunch of propaganda designed to tug at your heartstrings to make you think that there is hunger abounding in this country because others don't care.
The haves don't care.
The have-nots are getting bigger and so forth.
And this kind of politics is shameful to me because it's filled with lies and distortions.
It creates false impressions of people.
And ultimately, it ends up destroying people's faith in their own country.
And make no mistake, Senator Kennedy and his ilk would love for you to start doubting capitalism.
They would love for you to start doubting free marketism.
They would love for you to think that it doesn't work and grant government the power to redistribute all the wealth fairly and equally so that everybody suffers.
Not just a few.
We'll be back in just a second.
All right, audio soundbite number 10.
To wrap this up, this is Dingy Harry on this week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.
And he was asked if he would oppose an increase in troops in Iraq.
If it's for a surge, that is for two or three months, and it's part of a program to get us out of there, as indicated by this time next year, then sure I'll go along with it.
All right.
Well, it's of course some, I wouldn't say riffs, the Democrat Party, but let's not be under any false illusion here that these clowns are totally unified.
Stewart in Portland, Oregon.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Yeah, hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
It's good to talk to you.
Staying the course seems to be a moniker that they've attached to George Bush, like he's stupid for staying the course.
But I was just thinking, what was the policy before we went into Iraq?
If it wasn't 12 years and 17 resolutions of staying the course, what was Kofi Annan's policy?
What was Germany's policy?
What was Russia's?
It's just more of the same.
And Rush, you're talking about Nancy Pelosi and coming up in January with the new House.
What's their course?
They're going to be staying a course, too, that is dysfunctional.
It doesn't work.
Yeah, all excellent points.
Excellent points.
However, I think there were two elements of criticism on the stay the course crowd.
The president's opponents said, stay the course, why we're losing.
Well, who wants to stay that course?
There were other critics who said, come on, there's got to be a better marketing way to present our strategy in Iraq.
You just don't run around and say the course.
Let's hear a plan.
I found both of them sort of funny because the president has announced specifics of plans since after 9-11 for Iraq and the war on terror, and he has been very clear about our purpose and objective in Iraq, why we went in there, what his strategy is now to rebuild the country and so forth, establish it as a Democratic outpost in the Wild West.
What's the alternative, to sit up on the hill and to see which way the battle goes and then decide your policy?
Well, no, but see, this was all part of a strategized campaign to create anti-war sentiment in the country by suggesting that stay the course, why we're losing.
Stay the course, why getting 3,000 more Americans killed?
It was all part of portraying Bush stupid, which is, you know, in fact, there's a, do you remember shortly after Bush chose Dick Cheney, the vice presidential running mate, the word gravitas showed up on the lips of thousands of media people.
It's gravitas.
He has added gravitas.
Now, why was that?
Why did Bush need gravitas?
Because he was an idiot.
That was their image.
He's a frat boy, cowboy, idiot.
Cheney brought strength.
Cheney brought weight.
Cheney brought substance.
Bush, lightweight, cowboy, fret boy, idiot.
So other days they've been mad at him for outsmarting them.
But everything that they have criticized Bush for has been based on image and creating images of him.
And that's many Republicans have been upset that he hasn't fought back on these images.
Be honest.
You're one of them, I know.
Now, here comes Nancy Pelosi, who, to me, and I'm going to be very objective here, I have yet to see any demonstration of substantive deep intelligence.
To me, Nancy Pelosi needs some gravitas.
Nancy Pelosi needs some weight.
What in the world?
Fact, recent stories of Nancy Pelosi have been how she screwed that up, she screwed that up, what is she doing with Mertha?
What was she playing around with Alcy Hastings, making mistakes?
How come nobody has said, I'm going to do something to give Pelosi some coffee sauce?
Well, because the media does not look at any Democrat as needing any.
They all have it.
They all have weight.
They all have substance.
They're given a pass.
Every Democrat, every liberal is considered smart and brilliant and intelligent.
Mrs. Clinton, smartest woman in the world.
Bill Clinton, the most articulate president we've ever had, the most brilliant political tactician we've ever had.
I don't care who.
Gary Studs, what an honorable guy.
What a fabulous.
He actually did what they accused Foley of doing.
When Foley didn't do it, Foley was just messing around with instant messages.
Gary Studs got in there, got it, and got out.
And he was celebrated and so forth.
This is just the way it is, folks.
And it isn't going to...
Poor little Katie Couric.
Esquire Magazine last week complaining that there are vultures out there.
She admits that her new gig is anchor at the CBS Evening News has been a little harder than I thought it would be, quote unquote.
Some people out there are rooting for me to fail.
She said to the guys at Esquire in a January issue, you have to be unwavering in your convictions that you're doing something good because there are a lot of circling vultures that will eat you alive.
In Esquire in September, she says, you guys even take a shot at me.
You have something in the November issue, something about how since I become an anchor, you don't know me anymore.
You don't know me anymore.
me.
That's...
Now, you know, here's what's interesting about this.
Here is Katie Couric, who herself is a circling vulture.
When she ran the Today Show, she was one of these people.
Take a look at how she treated various guests of different political persuasions to say that there are people, I mean, I hate to bring myself up in this, but for crying out loud.
How about, forget, how about George W. Bush?
How do you think he feels?
Katie, what is it with you liberals that you are exempt?
You know, what if Barack Obama actually got the kind of press that most everybody else gets?
Anal probe, examining, turning over every rock, looking under every stone, not this fawning puff piece stuff.
How long would it take him to crumble?
We don't know.
But I'll guarantee you he would be shocked and stunned and surprised.
But for the anchorette of the CBS Evening News to be complaining about circling vultures, hoping she fails?
Yeah, Brian Williams and Charlie Gibson for two.
If you're not in the Christmas spirit yet, I don't know how you can avoid it if you listen to music like this from Mannheim Steamroller.
We are back.
Rush Limbaugh, a talent on loan from God.
The police in Britain say that Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked in Britain because of their religion than Muslims.
One in 400 Jews compared with one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of faith-related hate attacks every year.
The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales.
The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship.
Hmm.
Those must be the hate crimes that don't matter.
The hate crimes against Jewish people in London, England.
An Indian runner, this is New Delhi, an Indian runner who won a silver medal in the women's 800-meter run at the Asian Games earlier this month, has failed a gender test and is likely to be stripped of her medal.
News reports said today, Santhe Sudarajan, 25, was made to take the gender test in Doha Cutter after her victory.
Oh, man.
Well, yeah, it's a failed gender test.
Obviously, there was a what would this would have been the chopped dikophamy operation and appropriate hormone insertions.
Obviously, the trick, the trick failed.
Mike and Orlando, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Wow, Rush, what a great honor and pleasure just for this 25-year Air Force veteran to speak with you today.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Listen, I just got a quick question.
What would you think, what's your thoughts on the terrorists of 9-11 hitting, if they would have hit the Capitol building instead of insignificant targets like the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, do you think that Nancy Pelosi and her ilk would make any difference to them?
You know, that is an excellent question.
And there is, just off the top of my head, here is the first answer that I come up with.
If the Capitol building itself had been hit, we still would not have forgotten it.
We would not be allowed to forget it.
World Trade Center is different.
The Democrats, you know, they've done everything they can to try to make sure 9-11 vanishes from the memory in terms of a political victory.
And because they're trying to create the notion that the wars that we are engaged in now are irrelevant and worthless and have no purpose.
And so American lives are being lost.
But if the Capitol had been hit, the damage probably still would not be repaired, depending on how big the hit was.
If it had taken a hit like the World Trade Center, and we don't know it or the White House was the target of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania.
We're just not sure which.
There are arguments on both sides.
Had it been the Capitol, I guarantee you we would not have been allowed to forget this.
You don't attack Congress.
I don't care who you are.
As a witness to a committee, you show them full-fledged, 100% idolatry-oriented respect.
Or are you in deep doo-doo?
They'd still be blaming Bush for it, and they would still, you know, the politics of the situation would be similar, but they would not have been able to erase it from people because the media goes there to work every day.
And if they weren't able to go there in temporary quarters, if some of them had been killed, it'd have been a whole different ⁇ if the people killed had been known and were elected officials, there'd be memorial every day.
We wouldn't be allowed to forget it.
That is not an argument for the alternative having happened.
I'm just answering a question based on the brilliant way it was posed by Mike and Orlando.
This is David in upstate New York doesn't want to identify exactly where out of fear of Mrs. Clinton.
Hello, David.
Yes, good afternoon, Rush.
I've been a previous caller under more financially fortunate times, and I take great umbrage at Senator Kennedy's comments.
The wife and I are currently on social service and food stamps, and we have been for two years.
You have to be, oh, I would say anything from unintelligent or downright stupid to go sleep hungry.
We get $284 a month.
And if you shop intelligently and frugally, you can feed yourself a lobster basically every couple of months.
I mean, I live on tremendous food, boneless, skinless chicken breasts, pork tenderloins, bacon.
I've got everything.
In fact, even hard times have befallen my neighbors, and I'm able to feed them too.
Before I respond to this, I want to ask you people in the audience a question.
How many of you think that this guy is a seminar caller begging for an Allen Brothers Rush gift pack?
I'm just, I know you don't stir.
I'm just trying to get the people in the audience who are probably, we have just heard a very heartwarming and uplifting story.
And I just wonder how many of you cynics out there think that this guy is just trying to score a rush pack from Allen Brothers.
Rush, I don't have enough room in my freezer for A and B. That's okay.
We'll send you a freezer.
I mean, that's not a problem.
Okay, I'll take that.
I don't have enough room, I kid you not, in my freezer to put an A and B steak and hot dog pack.
Because if you shop intelligently and frugally, and you can even go to food pantries, even if you don't have a social service food stamp card, there's no reason anyone in this country should go hungry.
I don't have it in front of me, David, but the definition of hungry, there is a political definition to this, and it's kind of kooky and it's oddball, because how do you measure hunger?
I mean, I'm hungry now, and if I don't eat before I go to bed, I will go to bed hungry tonight.
Certainly, it can't be said that I'm going to bed hungry because I can't find food.
And that's what they're trying to portray, and that's what you're doing a great job of exploding.
I mean, we all remember the, I forget what bureau it is, the fund handles food stamps.
They're always advertising for new applicants.
Every day.
Every day.
You should never go to bed hungry, like you say, unless you don't eat and decide to go to bed hungry.
By the way, I thought we were an obese country anyway.
I thought a lot of us could do without eating as much as we've been eating.
I mean, there's so many conflicting things about this, but you're absolutely right.
And if people are going to bed hungry in the country, it's because they're not making an effort even to go get the freebies.
Because the idea that this country cares so little for the poor is insulting.
That's what Senator Kennedy ultimately wants people to believe, that we don't care enough about the poor, and it's so bad that 36 million, 12 million of them children, of course, are going to bed hungry every night.
It's ridiculous on its face.
We've seen the charity numbers just in the past three weeks.
Conservatives give far more personal charity money away than liberals do.
Look at the taxes.
Look at the money we're spending on poverty in terms of the federal budget.
There is no excuse for people going to bed hungry in this country.
It's not because the effort isn't being made.
And it's not because the food isn't there, and it's not because the rich are hoarding it and stealing.
You know what this has its roots all the way back to, well, it's probably farther than this, but I'll never forget when Reagan was in the White House and Mitch Snyder was running around talking about the 3 million homeless.
They portrayed a picture of Ronald Reagan not caring about the homeless.
They were homeless because Reagan didn't care.
People had AIDS because Reagan didn't care, and he never uttered a word, and he didn't talk about the homeless.
And they created a picture of Reagan at night.
This is the image they wanted people to accept.
Reagan would sneak out of the White House at night, go across the street to Lafayette Park, steal all the pork and beans from the homeless over there, take them back to the White House, get the can opener out, open them up, and eat the pork and beans, and then rub his stomach as though he were very happy denying these poor homeless people their food.
Yeah, Department of Agriculture does food stamps.
At any rate, this is what Kennedy's doing.
There's nothing new in the Democrat playbook.
That's the same thing.
We got 36 million people, interestingly, who are hungry, go to bed hungry every night with who in the White House?
A Republican.
That's all this is.
And I'm glad, David, that you called.
Are you still there, by the way?
You said you've been on assistance temporarily and recently?
Well, for the past two years, I was very financially fortunate earlier in my life, but my wife and I have befallen hard times.
And all I can tell you is there are food stamps and there are food pantries, and there is no reason you should go to bed hungry.
Well, but you said $284 a month.
Is that just your food budget?
You have more money than that?
Yeah, we get cash assistance for rental where we live.
But $284 alone goes to food for my wife and I.
And I can feed more than two people on that.
And I can feed more than two people extremely well on that, like darn near gourmet meals.
How many times a day do you eat?
Three times a day.
I have bacon and eggs every morning along with a muffin or a waffle.
I just had a hamburger and some potato chips for lunch.
And tonight I'm having veal chops.
I kid you not.
It's because if you.
And you, you would be qualified as in poverty in a market.
Correct.
You'd be classified as poverty.
Do you cook these like the veal chops you're going to have tonight?
Are you using any trans fat?
No, I'm going to cook them on a gas grill that a friend gave me.
All right.
So you're not going to paint them with hydrogenated vegetable oil or anything like that.
No, they burn up real nice on a gas grill all by themselves.
I'm just checking.
They're very worried about trans fats killing people in New York City, and it's not going to take long before it spreads up the Hudson River and carries it upstate.
Yeah, exactly right.
But no one in this country should ever go to bed hungry or they've got to be totally ignorant.
What are your prospects for reversing your financial fortunes?
My next phone call is to be for a part-time job at a ski area, starting hopefully in a couple of days.
So I haven't given up.
This fascinates me.
I wish I had more time.
Your attitude here is, see, folks, I have told you over the years, I know people who've lost everything.
Everybody thinks that once you have a lot, you never lose it, or that once you're born poor, you never get out of poverty.
I had a friend down here, Palm Beach, who passed away some years ago.
He lost $100 million twice.
No, once.
He earned it twice.
He lost $100 million.
Thirdly, he is cringing.
He did it in the commodities market, but he was dead broke.
100% broke.
Most people would be devastated.
He came back from it and earned it back again.
At his funeral, he was a World War II vet.
For the first time, most of his friends found out how many flying crosses he had been awarded, how many medals he got.
He never bragged about a thing, a typical World War II vet, typical World War II generation person.
Never, ever.
At his funeral, is where people found out all of these things that made him heroic.
I mean, he was well loved and respected.
But when I first heard his story, I was stunned.
I just couldn't believe that.
I mean, how do you lose it once you have it?
What are you doing putting it all at risk?
But they're different kinds of people.
Everybody's different.
And people assess risk in different ways.
And people react to failure and go, oh, time to go do it again.
Some people crumble and.
And here's David.
He's accepting the reality of what happened and getting back up and trying all over again.
The meantime, making do with what he has.
And people in the Democrat Party want you to believe that he is in poverty and going to be hungry at night.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with us.
By the way, for those of you that are also between jobs and seeking new opportunities, this story in the Los Angeles Times might interest you.
For years, activists in the marijuana legalization movement have claimed that cannabis is America's biggest cash crop.
It would be marijuana for those of you.
Well, never mind, you know.
Now they're citing government statistics to prove it.
Report released today by a marijuana public policy analyst contends that the market value of pot produced in the U.S. every year exceeds $35 billion.
That's far more than the crop value of such heartland stables as corn, soybeans, and hay, which are the top three legal cash crops.
California responsible for more than a third of the cannabis harvest with an estimated production of $13.8 billion that exceeds the value of California's grapes, vegetables, and hay combined.
Marijuana, the top cash crop in a dozen states.
Now, this is all underground cash.
You must understand, folks.
And the people doing this are very, very wealthy, but it doesn't show up on any of their tax information.
I mean, this, I'm just telling you, the country is a land of opportunity.
All kinds of opportunities.
If you're willing to take certain risks, you do the risk-reward ratio and go for it.
Plenty of things you can do.
Remember, I told you last week, broke the story.
Bill Nelson, senator from Florida, went over talking to Assad, Basher Assad, against the wishes of the White House.
Typical Democrats go meet with the enemy.
And he said that Assad was totally open to the Baker Hamilton surrender group report talking about helping Iran, using help with Iran in Syria to alleviate our problems in Iraq.
Well, a state-run Syrian newspaper on Saturday criticized remarks made recently by Senator Nelson, accusing him of spreading a series of lies about his meeting with Bashur Assad.
Said it was strange that some U.S. senators who visited Syria were very gentle, diplomatic, and attentive while in Syria.
But immediately after they leave Damascus, they turn upside down, start making up stories and tales that exist only in their fertile imagination.
The state-run newspapers said Nelson's remarks are strange and condemned.
he did was basically say, hey, Assad said he was all for helping us out.
So much for diplomacy.
As, you know, don't you just love these guys?
Senator Nelson, the president can't handle this.
The president doesn't know what he's doing.
We got to get these people involved.
We have to get out of the rock.
We've got to get a run and we've got to get Syria working with.
We'll handle it.
So they go over.
Arlen Specter's going.
Terry went.
And he meets with these guys.
They go meet with dictators.
They go meet with tyrants.
The tyrants are nice.
They look human and tell the senators whatever these idiot senators want to hear.
Senator comes out.
I have brokered peace.
I saw it as well.
And now Bill Nelson's being portrayed as a blithering idiot liar by the man he trusted more than he trusts George W. Bush.
It's the Indianapolis Colts and the Cincinnati Bengals.
Cincinnati Bengals with eight players arrested this year, the all-criminal team.
And it will be a barn burner of a game on ESPN.
Hope you enjoy the rest of the day.
We'll catch you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection