All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
December 20, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know these terrorist guys are just they're just mean.
I mean, they're just really mean.
I can't believe that Zawahiri uh did this.
I just uh uh I'm don't he know it's Christmas time here, the children hear about this, and it's just gonna ruin everything for them.
It's just gonna upset them.
I mean, hell, if the kids are running around being upset with a school bus driver wearing a Santa Claus hat, can you imagine what the kids are gonna think when they hear about the latest tape from Eamon Al-Zawahiri?
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, El Rush Ball, a program that combines irreverent humor and uh parody and satire with the serious discussion of issues, a uh combination not found anywhere else in major media, uh, which leads to many liberals not understanding what happens on this program because so few of them have a sense of humor.
Uh telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
Yes, the deputy leader of Al Qaeda, Amon Al-Zawahiri, told the U.S. today that it was negotiating with the wrong people in Iraq.
Uh he implied in a in a video broadcast on Al Jazeera that Washington should be talking to him and talking to his group and not worried about talking to Syria and Basher Assad and uh uh uh uh uh Ahmadinejad said, I want to tell the Republicans.
This is he's out there saying, Hey Libs, talk to me too.
You know, if you're gonna go over and visit Assad, stop in and see me.
Uh Zawahiri said in his tape, I I want to tell the Republicans and my pals of Democrats together, you are trying to negotiate with some parties to secure your withdrawal, but these parties won't find you an exit from Iraq, and your attempts will yield nothing but failure.
It seems that you will go through a painful journey of failed negotiations until you'll be forced to return to negotiate with the real powers.
That's us.
Well, he didn't identify the real powers, but I mean, who could he possibly talk to?
The guy's feeling left out.
So then he went on to promise more attacks and said the United States.
So he's basically telling the Democrats, hey, we love the fact that you want to use diplomacy and you want to have talks and all this, but you're talking with the wrong gang.
You need to be talking with us.
It's almost a plea to the Democrats.
The video which bore the logo of Al Qaeda's media production house, Al Sahab.
Bore the logo of Al Qaeda's media production.
My side's starting to hurt.
Uh it was the 15th time this year that Al Zawahiri has sent out a statement.
On Wednesday's tape, he appeared exactly as in previous videos that have been authenticated by CIA analysts.
He wore black turban and white robe and pointed his finger at the camera for emphasis.
As usual, he had a rifle behind his right shoulder that was leaning against a plain brown backdrop.
Meanwhile, we got kids in this country who can't go through the day seeing somebody on a bus, the bus driver wearing a Santa Claus hat without complaining.
We got mothers who can't bear to see her kids' name not on the published honor roll.
And here comes Zawahiri.
Here we are, what we're five days before Christmas.
And he's threatening to blow us up again if we don't start talking to him wearing a turban and so forth.
What?
And the tape's all over the place.
The media is not running any warning saying warning children should not see this.
He also criticized the militant Hamas party, although he didn't name it, which uh which has condemned the proposal for early elections.
He accused Hamas of making a number of concessions that would ultimately lead to the uh recognition of Israel.
Uh he said these concessions began with Hamas signing the truce with Israel last year.
Then the group took part in January elections based on a secular constitution.
He rebuked Hamas uh particularly for not pushing for an Islamic constitution before it contested uh the elections.
So he's he's not happy out there.
Uh thinks he's being ignored by uh U.S. Democrats who are traveling all over the region to talk to people he thinks uh are only gonna lead to further problems for us.
So I guess Zawahiri is essentially saying you want you want to get out of Iraq and you want to do it in negotiation, come talk to me.
Come talk to me, and we'll find a way to get you out.
It'll be interesting to see uh if the Democrats hear this.
If the Democrats respond to this uh in any way, shape, manner, or form at other end of the region, Syrian President Basher Al-Assad said yesterday that he was ready for dialogue with the U.S., but he warned Washington against giving Damascus orders.
Assad wrapping up a visit to key ally Russia was asked asked my reporters about proposals by a special U.S. panel that the U.S., the Iraq surrender group uh should open talks with Iran and Syria.
And uh uh he said, Well, we want to make a dialogue, but you have to differentiate between dialogue and giving instructions.
We're open for dialogue, but we will not take instructions, Assad said.
Uh so this is the guy, don't forget Bill Nelson, the brilliant senator from Florida went over and talked to Assad after the meeting came out and said, you know, Assad heard me.
Assad is willing to help.
I think we can count on him.
I saw into this man's soul, and I know that Assad is willing to help us get out of Iraq.
And then a few days later, Assad released a statement, this Nelson guy was telling lies about the meeting.
Democrats are such I don't know, hopeful fools.
Uh now Assad is basically giving us orders.
Well, yeah, we'll talk to you, but you're not going to give us a you're not going to order us around, pal.
Uh meanwhile, Iran demanded yesterday the UN Security Council condemn what it said was Israel's clandestine development of nuclear weapons and compel it to place all its nuclear facilities under U.S. inspection.
While meanwhile, Ahmadinejad today says we are nuclear ready.
We are nuclear.
Rush, how can you laugh at that?
Because it's absurd.
It folks, if if and I'm not suggesting this I'm just see if I can put this in the in the proper context.
If we did somehow for some reason find ourselves in armed conflict in a war with Iran, they wouldn't last, I don't know how long.
But it wouldn't be very long.
It just that a year and a half ago, Achmadili Jad was the mayor of Tehran.
Today, and Pat Buchanan made this point yesterday uh in arguing that this guy should have been Times person of the year because he's had the most effect in the news.
Uh in a year and a half, this guy with words alone has dominated the world.
With words alone, he's running around talking about the obliteration of Israel every other day.
He is running around talking about how the he said it again recently.
United States, the Zionist regime, and the UK will all cease to exist, and they will all go the way of the pharaohs, uh, is his latest prediction uh threat uh or challenge.
And but the only thing we're doing uh is is increasing our naval presence uh in the um uh Persian Gulf.
I mentioned this yesterday, there's news on it today.
Pentagon considering a buildup of Navy forces in the Persian Gulf as a show of force against Iran, uh speaking on condition of anonymity because the idea has not been approved.
The official said one proposal is to send a second aircraft carrier to the region amid increasing tensions with Iran, blamed for encouraging sectarian violence in uh Iraq as well as allegedly pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
No allegedly about it.
Uh they are.
We just we at this point don't know how close they are to it.
One day they say they're ready, another day we hear it's gonna be four years uh or what have you.
But uh, in the meantime, uh people who could not, and this is I guess a little bit of a think piece.
People who could not deal with us for five minutes in an armed military conflict are ordering us around and threatening us, and we seem to be backing down to it.
The Iraq surrender group wants to turn over the power of saving Iraq to Iran and Syria.
If we wanted to, we could take Damascus, we can finish it off inside of a day or two, and and Tehran the same thing.
I'm just talking about with the power that we are able to project.
I'm not talking about the politics and what would result from it.
But these and these people know it.
There's there's no way they can do anything to us uh in in that sense.
And yet they talk like, you know, we're the little kid on the corner and they are the giant bully that runs the town or runs the world.
And we've got way too many people in this country who want to accord them that status.
I mean, I'm I frankly, uh I don't care if elected officials go talk to foreign leaders, like the Democrats are going off to talk to Damascus and Assad.
I mean But I don't like the attitude they take with them.
I don't like this notion of going over there and groveling and saying, Will you help us?
Uh uh we have this report here prepared by brilliant Americans, and it says that we should talk with you, willing to help.
This is this is uh not how you remain uh uh a dominant superpower in the world.
And people to run around and act inferior or subordinate the interests of the United States to these guys and how they might think about us and feel about us.
It's just not who we used to be, folks.
We'll be back, stay with us.
Quick, quick.
What's the name of this tune?
And a way to go pat a pen.
Pat a pan, manheim steamroller.
You really got to hear all these things in their entirety, ladies and gentlemen.
We just select the best portions of them that suit our purposes for the bump rotation.
And just they're all so good.
We're back at 800-282-2882 into the phones.
Uh Riverside, California.
Hello, Joe, nice to have you with us.
Mr. Rustemba, major cigar smoking kudos to you.
I think you are the wisest of all life.
Well, I appreciate that.
Thank you very much, sir.
And I have done myself an injustice because I have not subscribed uh to your letter yet, and trust me, I will be doing it.
My question is if we have a female president, whether Democrat or Republican, will our enemies look at that as a weakness, and will we be opening ourselves up to even more and worse attacks as they look at a female president as a weakness?
I don't think that's a factor.
Uh and I don't think it should be a factor.
We've had, you know, Golden Mayir was one of the toughest leaders Israel has ever had.
And it and she was uh superb in that role.
Uh and and it it might have provided uh uh Israel with more problems.
I don't frankly know that it did.
I don't think that it did, but it matters who the woman is, it matters who the man is.
I mean, you could have you could have a man elected president who'd be a laughing stock and wouldn't be respected at all.
Uh and you could have a woman the same thing, or you could end up with a Margaret Thatcher uh or a Jean Kirkpatrick type.
I mean, it it I don't I don't think in in in trying to look, we've got Secretary of State Rice, uh and and the the uh the so-called uh even our allied Muslim uh nation friends, they still meet with her.
They don't they don't refuse.
Do you think Condolisa Rice, if she ran for Republican uh presidential candidate, do you think she would uh she would do a lot better in Hillary?
I have no clue.
I I I uh I think there's a romantic attachment to uh the notion of Candy running for the presidency because people uh get caught up in um uh the symbolism of things.
Oh, Republicans could be the one with the first woman.
Black woman, yeah.
And that way we can show them we're not racist.
I uh you know the motivation for this is something that's uh that that's missing.
She's a brilliant woman uh in all that, but if she doesn't want to be president, then I don't want it running.
And she's made it clear she doesn't want to be, and she's not going to nah politics, and uh and that can change tomorrow after one conversation with Dick Armitage or Valerie Plame.
I mean, you never know.
Um but I don't think that the the sex, the gender of um of the president has anything to do with whether or not uh we're respected.
It has to do with that person's character and leadership and strength uh and resolve.
And uh I I frankly, folks, I I think that there's uh, you know, one reason.
Now it's hard to say one, but there's a series of reasons why Al Qaeda or others have not hit us again on our own soil.
And there is a reason why Democrats are the preferred political party of our enemies.
And you can't deny that they are.
I mean, here's Zawahiri with his latest tape, scaring America's children, sending out messages to Republicans and Democrats, but they're all in the aftermath of the election, they were all talking about how happy they were that Democrats won because they want Bush gone.
Bush, they fear the one thing they they don't want to take the chance of is that Bush will retaliate if they hit us again.
But they don't look at the current crop of Democrats as being so inspired or so oriented.
Why should they?
Half the Democratic parties running around trying to meet with every one of these enemies they can to try to come up with common ground so that we can talk and negotiate and so forth.
I mean, even before the election.
I asked you to consider a bunch of things that made it clear who the terrorists were for.
Let me go through this again.
Some of you may be listening here that didn't hear this in the couple times I did it before the election.
Let's say you're Amon Al-Zawahiri, or pick your terrorists.
You are a big terrorist leader.
And at the time, what is the popular consensus of the war in Iraq that we are losing?
The Democrats say we're losing the drive-by media in America, they say we're losing.
Accompanying this are claims from Democrats like John Kerry and others, echoed by the drive-by media, that not only are we losing, but Bush is so agitating the Middle East that he is creating more terrorists.
Bush is out by why they're flooding into Iraq from all over the world because Bush won't leave well enough alone.
We have no business going there, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, if you're big time terrorist leader, Zawahiri, and you hear that, you say, okay, America is losing.
That must mean we are winning.
We terrorists, we must be winning.
And if it's true that Bush is creating more terrorists with this folly of being in Iraq and Afghanistan, then I, as a terrorist leader, should be very happy.
I need new recruits.
I need more idiots willing to go blow themselves up with the explosives strapped around their waists.
I need more martyrs.
I need more people.
And if I, if Bush is doing all this for me, then by gosh, I want Bush to stay in office.
Don't I?
If Bush being in office means everything's going my way, I gotta keep Bush in office somehow.
I gotta do whatever I can to influence the American election so that Bush stays in office.
And Democrats don't get anywhere near control of anything, because Bush is single-handedly giving us a victory.
But then you have to stop and think, well, wait a minute.
Before we killed him, what was this of uh the guy we nabbed uh the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq having a mental block, but we captured it in his home, killed him in his home and so forth, and he was there have been video of him shooting his guns.
He had Lit and written a couple letters to bin Laden saying, we're in big trouble here, meaning in Iraq, we're in big trouble, we're losing, things are not going well.
The bottom line is this.
Bottom line is this.
Zarkawi was his name.
Uh Mohammed Allah Zarkawi, whatever.
And the bottom line is this.
All of the conventional wisdom prior to the election that Bush was creating more terrorists, that we were losing in Iraq was absolute BS.
Otherwise, the terrorists would not have been supporting issues, causes, techniques to influence the American voter to vote against Republicans.
Republicans and Bush should have been the best thing they want.
I'm telling you, folks, the reason we haven't been attacked is because there is somebody in the White House these guys do fear, and there is somebody in the White House that they they have no question and no doubt.
If they launch a major attack like that again, here we're gonna come right back at them.
And they're waiting and they're biding their time, and it's uh it's clear to me that they think they're gonna have a much easier time of getting what they want and dominating us further if a Democrat wins the White House in uh in 2008, and if the Democrats keep control of Congress.
So all of the, you know, whether the gender of the next president is irrelevant.
It matters who it is, matters what their core principles are, matters what their um experience is, uh, and it it matters uh if you know whether they have the ability to see the world as it really is, or if they want to look through rose-colored grasses, glasses and deny that there are certain evils and horrors that await us out there that must be dealt with in a ways that will bring us success,
not doom us to continual defeat and uh and humiliation.
And I frankly, you know, I don't know of any women on the scene right now that are candidates that are going to inspire that kind of respect or have that kind of worldview because the the big female candidate everybody's talking about is Hillary, and I'm telling you that's a disaster.
That is an utter dis and incompetent, having accomplished nothing, uh thinks the office is hers by virtue of entitlement a disaster.
And don't buy this notion that she's moderate and move to the center.
She is as core ultra left wing as she ever has been, and the only reason a core ultra left winger wants control of government is to expand it and do everything possible to control as many aspects of your life as possible.
We will be back.
Stay with us.
They're going to be going to the audio soundbite soon, ladies and gentlemen.
Drive-by media in a tizzy that Bush isn't listening to the generals now.
And we, of course, have John Kerry, who was on the Today Show today, describing his world tour, his Middle East tour, to try to solve all the problems over there.
It's hilarious.
We'll get to that in just a moment.
But first, Ed Lon in Melbourne, Florida, your next, sir on the EIB network.
It's great to be with you, Rush.
You've been one of my great uh fans for a long time.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate that.
Uh the the issue I was just coming back from a late lunch, the issue of whether we should talk or not to the Syrians is dominating the news, and that really is not the issue.
That's covering up the real issue.
The real issue is the precedence that this Syrian government has set.
The precedence is that Colin Powell already went and discussed with the Syrians in 2003, he got a commitment from them that they will help us in in Iraq.
And that that uh fell into open ears.
Uh that was an empty promise.
Uh David Schenker is the a leading uh analyst for Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.
He said recently that the issue of whether we should talk or not is not the issue.
We have been talking to him.
We've had five official meetings with the Syrians in the past couple years about helping us in Iraq.
Okay, they failed to help us.
You're absolutely right.
So let me ask you a very pertinent, poignant, pointed question.
Why does Powell keep saying, and why do Baker and all these we gotta talk to Syria and we've got to talk to Iran?
Because you're exactly right.
The question is not we not we sh we don't have to, we have been.
Baker, when he was Secretary of State for Reagan, went there fifteen times in the eighties, talking talking to Hafez al-Assad.
We've talked to the the Israelis have been trying to talk to their enemies over there for fifty years.
Nothing gets solved by talking, and yet that's what these people claim to do.
Now, what in the current context of events, what is the point of somebody like Powell?
Beyond the fact he's trying to rebuild his legacy, there's a personal component to all this.
Powell knows that Washington opinion makers and the elite will just swoon if he goes over there and says the right things or doesn't go there but says the right things.
We must talk.
There must be a political process together.
You know, the elites love hearing the stuff that doesn't work, and he's into legacy rebuilding.
But take that out of the equation.
What possible reason for this could there be?
Well, I my personal opinion is they're politicizing it.
They're politicizing it for uh for uh uh differing reasons.
Rush in Lebanon in the Cedars Revolution, more than seventy percent of the nation voted for the freedom and democracy.
President Bush is fantastic in the Middle East.
His policies are loved by each one.
Here's the problem we're running into in the Middle East.
We have made commitments, but the other side, the opposition in Iraq and the opposition in Lebanon are telling the freedom and democracy lovers over there that the Americans are leaving, and they're saying this because of reports like the James Baker report.
We've made commitments to people over there that want freedom and democracy.
The last thing that they need to hear is there's a possibility that we're gonna cut and run, because these people have their necks on the line.
Let us remind the your viewers that his ballan uh chief Nasser Allah said that the Americans are leaving, and those who stood up for them will pay the price.
And we saw what happened uh a couple weeks ago.
Right, right.
Look, look, I I I agree with you, and I understand all this, but I want to I want to look at the big picture of this.
See, I get interested in motivations.
Uh we the you you you and I are not the only ones who know what's going on in Lebanon.
We we're you were certainly not the only ones who know that uh one of the tricks being played is to tell the populations over there the United States is leaving.
The question is Why do so many educated understanding adults in power position this country want us to do just that?
What you you know, you you said it's the it's being politicized, and I assume you mean people are setting up for the f for future elections and so forth.
Do you think it might go further than that?
Well, Rush, the fun it's very funny that we were sitting as a family, and we're we're of Lebanese culture and heritage, and my parents were born there, and we're very active.
It's very funny that uh we were sitting there, and uh one one of my family members came out and said, you know, if James Baker had relatives in the Middle East, that report would have been a hundred percent different.
And yes, it's true.
We cannot go to the Middle East and impose our will on the people.
They've told us this a million times.
But yet, that is what that report is doing.
The leading Kurdish uh leader in northern Iraq said just that, that this is an imposition on the Iraqi people, and it's a disrespect to the Iraqi people.
If we want to solve the war in Iraq, we need to seal the borders with Iran, seal the borders with Syria, step up our pressures on Iran, step up our pressures on Syria.
And once the people inside Iraq realize that that lifeline is cut with Iran, the lifeline is cut with Syria, and they know that we're there to stay, they will start to solve their problems themselves.
The same thing in Lebanon.
We c we close the border with Syria and we stop allowing Syria to undermine democracy in Lebanon, we solve the problems.
Yeah, well, good luck.
I I uh you know, I don't I don't I don't see that happening.
I but I agree with you.
And when I was in Afghanistan, it'll be two years in February that I was in Afghanistan, and they were paranoid we're gonna leave.
Uh and I'm I'm sure the Iraqis are paranoid we're gonna leave, and and uh the Iranians and the Syrians are hoping the hell we can leave, and they'll do whatever they can to facilitate it.
But I still go, you know, I I understand where you're coming from on this with your with your Lebanese heritage and background, but you know, I I I look at this and some of it is so senseless.
Makes no common sense whatsoever.
You don't mean need to be a highly educated uh Ivy League blue blood person to figure this out.
So they start questioning these motivations.
What possible reason uh could these Democrats who are going over there and talking to Assad and basically will you help us?
Will you help us?
And they're going down to Cuba now, and they're trying to talk to Raoul Castro wouldn't meet with them.
Uh they've had a parade of U.S. Senators go into Assad uh and and talk to him.
Here, look before I answer the question, because I I do have an answer for it, uh grab audio soundbite number two.
Here is uh Jean-Francois Kerry uh on the Today Show today.
The guest host David Gregory says uh more troops, more troops uh would not do enough in your estimation to shore up Baghdad and at least give the uh Maliki government a fighting chance.
I think you can put a hundred thousand troops in and you're gonna up the casualties, up the stakes, increase the violence, uh, and not get a resolution.
The fundamental resolution that I've uh heard in every country I've been to Egypt, I met with President Mubarak, been to Jordan, met with King Abdullah yesterday.
We're here in uh Syria today, going to Israel from here, but I was in Lebanon yesterday, everywhere.
People are saying you've got to have a comprehensive political reconciliation process, and we're here to explore whether that can be broader than it's been in the past, and we think it can.
Now, uh, ladies and gentlemen, with all with all due respect, that is sophistry.
And that is not smart, and that is not wise, and that is not thoughtful, and it is not useful.
He's going over and talking to people who he thinks theoretically are our allies and friends, and they're all talking to him, and they're all saying, if we can believe him, uh that we have to have a comprehensive political reconciliation process.
You can send a hundred thousand more troops, and all it's gonna lead to is more casualties.
And he's gonna increase the violence, and it's not gonna get a resolution.
It's the exact opposite.
You don't get political resolutions in wars.
You do not get negotiated settlements until one side loses.
The idea that sending in more troops is only going to provoke the situation.
Come on, folks, that's not how we deal with crime in this country.
And we're talking about war.
This is asinine.
The uh the the bottom line here is we have a bunch of pacifists who themselves do not have the the slightest slightest understanding of how things are actually won.
Now, where I take it further than that, uh when I see somebody like Kerry and others uh cohorts of his in the Democratic Party and things they've been saying the last three or four years, I do ask.
And just as Lynn Cheney asked Wolf Blitzer on CNN, do you want us to win?
You do want us to win, Wolf, don't you?
And he was taken aback with a question.
Uh I wonder if these guys want us to win.
They don't sound like they want us to win, folks.
From Colin Powell to the Iraq surrender group, I don't care who, they don't sound like they want us to win.
Nobody is talking about victory.
These people are mired in the attitude of defeat already.
And they are conducting these talks and these negotiatings.
From the context of starting point, the uh standpoint of, well, you know, we've lost or we've been humiliated, and we need to get out of there.
We just can't stay there anymore.
We have to get out, regardless of the result.
The success is cutting and running.
The success is getting out.
And these guys are going over all these Democrats are talking to these people.
Now it may be hard for you to digest, and you may not want to hear it during the Christmas season.
But I question whether or not these people want to win, whether they're even have the concept of victory as a possibility.
See, I believe that there is an inherent distrust and dislike amongst, and Kerry is certainly one of the U.S. military.
And I think any time the U.S. military triumphs, it presents problems for people like Kerry.
Liberal Democrats love it when the military is embarrassed, when they're ineffective.
Oh, no, they go out and mouth and speak the right words about we support the troops and they don't have enough body armor and all that.
But you catch them in a moment where they don't think the cameras and microphones are on, as in Kerry's dumb joke.
Uh, and you get the truth out of these people.
They'll always tell you who they are if you're just patient and sit and wait for the right time.
They will always tell you who they are.
And so uh you call me and ask me uh Powell's already gone to Syria, and we already know that Syria has promised to help us three years ago and hasn't lifted a finger.
Of course he knows that.
Everybody in the world who's dealt with this knows that they are not gonna help us.
They are not our friends.
They want us defeated and run out of there.
Which makes it incredible that we continue to talk about bringing them in, or some people do.
Bush isn't, by the way.
Uh is punting that idea as publicly as he can.
Uh but so you've got personal things.
You've got Powell, I think, trying to rebuild his legacy because he thinks he was damaged when he had to go to the UN and present the WMD report.
Uh who knows the motivations of Iraq surrender group.
I I think you've got some people who hate Israel in this bunch.
I think you get some people, uh, Republicans and Democrats both somewhere politically who think Israel is the albatross around our neck.
They're presenting us all kinds of problems.
That's why the world hates us over there is because of Israel.
Well, you know that's true because uh uh Israel is being blamed for terrorism all over the world because people hate Israel and the terrorists are support to taking action all over the world.
The theory is that because Israel, a country ten miles wide, is in their midst.
So there's a lot of factors happening here, and it you're gonna make a mistake, any of you, if you analyze this purely on the base of policy, because the policy makes no sense if applied and analyzed with the the basics of intelligence.
Why would you continue to ask people who have pledged to help you and never have to help you again?
When you know full well they're not going to.
When you know full well that they don't want to, when you know full well that they actually seek your demise, why would you keep doing that?
What would you say the national interest is?
What would you say the positive result or outcome of this is?
Hard to name one.
So you gotta start looking, well, what's positive to these people?
There's a presidential campaign going on no matter what you think, and Bush is still in the White House, despite the fact that Democrats won the House and Senate.
The Republicans still have the White House, and there's a campaign going on.
And if you think just because they won the uh the House and Senate that they're going to hunker back now, okay, half the job done.
They they hate this president.
They hate George W. Bush with a passion that has blinded them.
Uh and it it has it has led them uh down a path that has taken their country's interests not first.
They don't put them first.
Uh these are treacherous times.
Uh and these people don't recognize it.
They don't recognize it, and they're not prepared to deal with it right now.
And it's that that's a frightening thing to me.
Anyway, a little long here in this segment, a quick break, and we'll be back in just a brief second.
One more little sound bite here from uh from John Kerry, who by the way uh served in Vietnam.
He was being interviewed by David Gregory on Today Show today, and the uh question was look, Senator, our latest poll.
Um, seems like it's coming up.
Look at your standing.
Hillary Clinton 37, Barack Obama 18, Edwards at 14, you're way back there at 11%.
You look at your standing.
Does that affect your decision about whether or not to get into the presidential race?
Not in the least.
Uh, you know, most of those other people haven't had several hundred million dollars worth of negative framing against them.
I'm not concerned about it, and I'm certainly not concerned about it sitting here in Damascus trying to figure out how we're going to solve the problems of the Middle East.
Oh, my heart!
Blee, he's in Damascus, ladies and gentlemen, trying to solve the problems of the Middle East.
Don Kerry.
He of the global pledge and a global what was it?
The global.
We got a global, we had to go get the permission of the United Nations.
Why don't these guys just run that that's what they want to do, but they want to invest in the United Nations to run U.S. foreign policy.
But about this.
This what did he say?
$700 million of negative framing.
You think Mrs. Clinton hasn't had some negative framing, Senator Kerry?
And she has survived it.
She's had all kinds of negative framing for many, many moons now, sir.
You had one legitimate attack against you with a Swift boat, Veterans for Truth.
This guy's delusional.
And I know he is delusional.
I know he I've heard enough stories.
Can't repeat them because I trust confidences and respect them.
John in Columbus, Ohio, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Rush, Merry Christmas, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Your point is uh that the left doesn't seem to be too heavily invested in victory.
I say it goes much worse.
I say they don't even care about defeat.
And the idea is there doesn't seem to be anybody saying, what if we don't check Islamic fundamentalism or fascism right where it is today?
I don't think anybody's looking forward to what life could be like in this country.
Five or ten or fifteen years from now, if these people keep winning these battles.
This is very shrewd of you, but I I I have to uh only moderately disagree with you on just two things.
A, a lot of people are asking uh what will the world look like if we lose in Iraq?
And more and more people after the election than beforehand are saying it, including some generals and some people the New York Times often put forth before the election, saying we gotta get out of there, we're just making the things now.
Nobody wants to get out, by the way.
Everybody wants to send more troops now.
People understand that.
Uh and and uh so people are asking the question as to this whether the Democrats care about victory even see the results of defeat.
Uh let's call them liberals in this case.
You have to understand, and you're you're witnessing, you just heard Kerry.
What is it?
John Kerry thinks he single-handedly can go over there and figure out the solution to this.
Now he's against sending any more troops, he's against a military victory.
Um there are some liberals who think we deserve to lose, folks.
We are the big guilty majority of power in the world, and we steal and rob the world and the people of the world, and we pollute the world.
We deserve to get a come up.
We deserve to lose.
We deserve to find out how the rest of the world lives.
There are a lot of Americans that think that.
Um the other aspect of the equation is people like Kerry think they, with their superior intellects and diplomatic skills, can go talk to these enemies and persuade them not to hate us, because we're actually nice guys, and we can all live happily ever after.
And both things I just told you make book on.
They're both true.
Folks, two of the three hours in the can, one big hour of broadcast excellence remaining, and it's coming right up after this.
▲
Export Selection