All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:44
December 27, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I actually haven't won an award in years and years and years and years, and I'm not sure that I ever won any awards, but it sounds good saying that.
Anyone who's going to do a national program ought to be called award winning, right?
I don't know that I've ever won any awards, but we'll keep claiming that.
Good to be back in the big chair here.
Before we go any farther on today's program, I want to talk about the death today of President Ford.
Uh died at the age of ninety-three, longest living president ever, ninety-three years old.
We're going to have a segment later on in the program in which we're going to talk about President Ford in greater depth, but I want to at least acknowledge his passing at the beginning of the program.
And it's not easy to do.
Gerald Ford is the hardest president we've ever had to assess.
Partly because it was the weirdest presidency.
Only man ever to serve as president who not only was not elected president, he wasn't elected vice president.
He served because of the unique circumstances he was placed in.
The bizarre coincidence that both President Nixon and his vice president Spiro Agnew had to leave office in disgrace.
Nixon, of course, forced to resign because of the Watergate scandal, and shortly before that, Vice President Agnew, because of a scandal dating back to his days as governor of Maryland, he was forced to resign.
Nixon had to fill the vice presidency, chose Ford, who at the time I believe was the House Minority Leader, the leader of the Republicans in the U.S. House.
He served as vice president and therefore was the person who was in place to take over his president when Nixon resigned while facing the likelihood of being impeached and removed from office.
People think back about their memories of Ford, and there aren't a lot of them that are real substantive.
When you think about Ford, it's almost always in reaction to Nixon.
His most famous act was the pardoning of Richard Nixon, or the fact that he lost to Carter, leaving us with that legacy.
But Ford, unto himself, it's hard to analyze and it's hard to discuss him.
There are some things, though, that I believe are undeniably true, and maybe President Bush today had the best description of President Ford.
He said, quote, he came along when we needed him most.
And I think that's right.
When you think back about that, think back in that era, the Nixon impeachment process was unbelievably divisive.
We live in a world now in which everything is divisive.
Republicans and Democrats are always at each other's throats.
It wasn't really like that prior to Nixon.
In fact, Nixon was probably the first president who was truly despised by a large portion of the country.
And we went through this horrible battle.
It took two years.
It dragged on forever.
Was Nixon a crook?
Did Nixon need to be removed from office?
There are deep emotions in the country over it.
And then he left.
And what America needed was a stabilizing presence.
Gerald Ford proved that the United States could have the greatest political upheaval possible.
The removal of a leader, and yet we would continue just fine.
Look around the world and look at the incredible controversies that occur with regard to the removal of leaders.
How many governments has Italy had since World War II?
Look at the nations in which there are military coups or juntas that take over.
In our country, we had one political party call for the removal of a president of the United States, a call that was ultimately accepted by the other political party.
Yet the process continued.
Ford managed to convincingly lead the country, even though he was never elected to anything.
You can argue that his accomplishments were minimal.
You can argue that his pardoning of Nixon was both politically and morally wrong.
You can make all of those cases.
What you can't deny, though, is that Gerald Ford got in there, Calmed the country down and created a stabilizing presence at a time that we were facing our greatest instability since the civil war.
And I think that will ultimately be his greatest contribution, that he held it all together, that we proved we could handle something like the removal of a president.
The other thing that I believe has to be said about Gerald Ford is the remarkably dignified way he handled his ex-presidency.
He was the ex-president of the United States for 30 years.
Ford was defeated in the 76 election, so he left in uh, I guess January of 77, nearly 30 years, served as ex-president of the United States and did so with dignity and class.
Again, it's almost the nature of discussing Ford that you have to compare him to how others have handled their ex-presidency.
He didn't run around the world criticizing America like Jimmy Carter.
He didn't choose to intervene on international affairs.
He chose to be there and represent the office he once held with tremendous dignity.
So we mourn his passing.
And as I said, we'll be dealing with uh President Ford in a little bit more depth later on in today's program.
All right, let's turn our attention to the complete opposite in terms of world leader.
Saddam Hussein is now facing the ultimate punishment.
They're going to hang him.
According to the process in the new Iraqi constitution, he has to die within 30 days.
They say it could happen at any time.
We'll modern make sure that Saddam isn't found swinging any time today during the program.
I hope that doesn't occur.
The decision, though, to execute Saddam almost forces you to step back a moment and look at the war in Iraq.
Now, those of you who've heard me on Russia's show before know that I supported the war from the beginning, and I was very critical of the doomsayers who were saying that it was a lost cause and that it was a mistake.
And I'm still adamant in my belief that the war was the right thing to do.
So that's my bias.
Maybe you can argue that I'm going to rationalize with the comments that I'm going to make here.
But the fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein is going to be executed by his own people.
He was the leader of that nation.
We went to war with them, and now his own people are going to execute him.
You think about that and you look at it in that context, and it's hard to say that we didn't win the war.
We keep raising the bar here.
Well, we're losing the war.
Look at the trouble in Iraq.
There's all sorts of conflict.
The government there is not stabilized.
Well, I suppose if that's the criteria for winning a war, that's true.
But when is our responsibility for the ultimate outcome of Iraq over?
Does this go on forever?
If this government stays in place for 10 years and then falls, does that mean we lost the war?
We haven't lost anything over there.
We have given the Iraqi people the opportunity to govern themselves.
This man, Saddam Hussein, is a despot.
His crimes are astonishing.
While the entire focus is on him and the world now confronts the notion of a public execution, which makes a lot of people very uncomfortable.
This guy ordered the deaths of not tens, but hundreds of thousands of people.
His wipeout of 180,000 Kurds was essentially a genocide.
His nation was filled with political prisoners.
He was an ugly, brutal dictator, who treated people with inhumane cruelty in an attempt to terrify The population to follow him and not rise up against him.
We came in and we got rid of him.
The Iraqi people didn't get rid of Saddam Hussein.
They couldn't get rid of Saddam Hussein.
They didn't like Saddam Hussein.
The fact that even in this insurgency that's going on, nobody's calling for the return of Saddam Hussein.
The El Sadr crowd and the rest of the rebels aren't rallying on behalf of Saddam.
He's a guy that no one in that nation had any use for.
He was reviled.
Yet we got him out.
And once we got him out, his own nation decided that he has to be executed.
That is a remarkable accomplishment.
Whether you support the notion of executing someone or not, the fact of the matter is that this is the judgment of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people and the government that they chose.
And in evaluating the war in Iraq, I believe you've got to factor in as the number one criteria, the fact that we removed the problem.
Prior to our intervention in Iraq, what was the problem?
There were two.
We feared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Whether they did or they didn't, and obviously we haven't found any, whether they did or they didn't, or whether they got rid of the ones they had, clearly they don't have weapons of mass destruction that are threatening the world now.
The other problem in Iraq was Saddam himself and his government.
The fact that he defied the United States, the fact that he defied everyone else, the fact that he was a force for evil in that part of the world, and the fact that he was telling the civilized world that he could do whatever he wanted with regard to weapons of mass destruction, whether he had them or not, he wouldn't let anybody come in to see whether or not he did.
In the meantime, he was brutalizing his own people.
And he's now out of the picture.
And within a couple of weeks, he'll be completely out of the picture.
That is a significant accomplishment.
And while we're running around seeing who lost Iraq and we shouldn't have gotten in Iraq, ask yourself if that nation isn't better off with it with him gone.
They are, and the world is better off with him gone.
It is.
It is a significant accomplishment.
And it makes it real hard for me to be sold in the notion that somehow we are losing or that we have lost.
Unless you argue that Iraq is an unending game, that you keep playing it and playing it and playing it and playing it until you're on the losing side.
And right now we might be on the losing side.
I don't know if this government can survive.
What I do know is that the old government, which was evil and a major threat to our country, is gone.
And the proof of it is that the guy who was leading it, their dictator, is going to be hung by his own people.
Whether you support capital punishment or not, that is still a cause for celebration.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882 is the phone number, Rush Limbaugh.com.
Let's go to the telephones now.
Tom in Miami, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
How are you doing, Mark?
I think uh everything you said is false.
I think that we've caused more death and destruction, and we've wasted our own blood and treasure over there, and it's been a total dismal failure.
And I don't think Iraq was ever a threat to America, and I think it was one of the most stable countries in the Middle East.
Well, you can you you can you can argue all of that, but I think it's beside beside the point.
You can be it's still beside it's besides I know, but it's beside it's beside the point that Saddam Hussein was there when the war started, and he's not there now.
If you're gonna you're arguing, you're arguing whether or not we should have started the war.
That's a separate millions of dollars over to 3,000.
That's a separate question.
The argument that's being made now is whether or not we're losing the war in Iraq, which is a separate question from whether or not we should have entered in the first place.
It seems it seems to me that the goal of a war is to displace the problem.
The problem with Saddam and his government, it's not there.
What criteria would you use other than that?
Saddam was zero problem to the United States.
It was no problem.
Saddam was no problem for the United States.
Let me ask you a question here.
Yeah.
How, given that bias that you have, could we have won?
What would have had to happen?
Well, we didn't need to fight that war.
That wasn't the that's not the question.
I'm asking you a different question.
You're arguing point B, and I'm on point A. We can go into this whole notion of whether or not the war in Iraq was worth it.
What I'm arguing is the goals that were established in the first place have by and large been achieved.
You want to go back to the early 2000s and decide whether or not we should have intervened in Iraq in the first place.
And that's a separate point.
We have achieved not one goal on Iraq, not one.
Is Saddam running the country?
Is that the only goal you can claim we achieved?
You said we didn't achieve any.
Now I threw one at you, which is a pretty doggone good one.
Usually when you fight a war, you want to knock off the government that's in place and you want to leave with a different government.
That has been accomplished.
If Saddam was running it, it'd be a more stable, safe place.
If stability is the be all and end all, you're right.
It was very it was very it was very stable.
He's absolutely right.
If stability is the criteria of what makes a country great, he's right.
If stability is what we evaluate, nations that may be threats to us, he's right.
But since when did stability become the goal?
And since when is stability at any cost anything that is desirable, even strategically strategically or even morally?
Hitler had Germany pretty stable before he started World War II.
Soviet Union was very stable from from the revolution on.
You know, Paul Pott figured out how to make Cambodia stable.
A lot of stability out there.
Even Cuba's stable.
A lot of nations are stable.
We here in the United States, on the other hand, right now, we're not very stable.
We're yelling and screaming at one another all the time.
We've got crime in our cities that's bad.
Much of urban America is completely up for grabs.
Does that mean that our quality of life is less than that of nations that are stable?
We look at this.
Well, they're fighting over there.
You're right.
They weren't fighting before because they knew doggone well that if they even raised a peep, they'd be killed, they'd be tortured, their children would be taken away from them.
This notion that stability is the only goal is, I think, wrong.
But it does make it hard for us to evaluate what to do now.
Now that caller and I aren't totally in disagreement.
I'm acknowledging that there are problems in Iraq.
And I'm not even sure what our goals ought to be right now.
I'm ambivalent about President Bush's apparent support for sending more troops over there.
Might support it, might not support it.
I just don't know because I don't know what our goal is.
I also don't know if Iraq has the ability to govern itself.
For heaven's sakes, look what we have done for that nation.
We've gone in and we've removed a despot.
We have provided massive internal security while keeping the infrastructure of that country running.
They still have their oil, which means they still have their money.
The schools are operating, the highways are still there, the nation's still moving along.
We allowed them to establish their own constitution, a real constitution.
They held elections.
We sat there and we made sure that those elections went well and went smoothly.
We're providing security in as much of the country as we can, and most of Iraq, even now, is still relatively safe.
It's bagdad in the big cities that are inflamed.
But you've got to be an idiot.
And I'm not an idiot.
You've got to be an idiot to say that Iraq right now is at peace.
It's not at peace.
And I don't know if it can ever be at peace.
I don't know if a nation that's divided between Sunnis and Shiites and with both determined to have their way.
I don't know if you can ever have total peace there.
And I don't know whether or not we should perceive we should pursue that as a goal.
You could make the case that we've accomplished everything that can be accomplished, and we need now to move on.
I'm open to it.
I'm not advocating it.
I'm open to it.
The point that I'm making with regard to the death sentence of Saddam, however, is that we have achieved the majority of our primary goals in Iraq.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number.
I don't know that I want to dwell on this whole notion of stability being a goal in terms of American foreign policy.
But even if you factor in all of the violence in Iraq now, Lord knows we hear about all of it now.
Can you argue that Iraq under Saddam wasn't violent?
Violence was quieter.
He didn't send out any press releases when he wiped out an entire village.
The charge which is actually the one that they're going to sentence him to death on.
When he attacked the Kurds, is that not violence?
180,000 Kurds killed.
Was that peace?
Just didn't hear about it much.
And we weren't over there at the time.
CNN wasn't showing us any pictures, by the way, CNN knew, but remember they didn't want to report on everything that was going on badly over there.
They're afraid their bureau was going to be closed.
Want to bring him back?
Saddam, was he just a good guy?
The fact that he's not there and that the Bath Party is a thing of the past is a major accomplishment for good, and it does advance American interests without regard to whether or not you think that looking out for what's in the best interest of the Iraqis is part of our responsibility.
As for where we go from here, yeah, I admit that's a harder question.
I do have some concerns about sending more troops in.
By the way, so does Joe Biden.
Joe Biden, uh Biden, by the way, says he's going to run for president again.
How many times is this for Biden?
34?
He's the Harold Stassen of the Democratic Party.
The only reason they don't even know it is at least when Harold Stassen ran, he his name would get on the ballot and he'd be there, and he became a joke.
Biden's candidacies have been so obscure that it isn't even becoming a joke.
He needs to rise to the level of being a joke.
Anyway, Joe Biden raising Sarah, the Democratic Party and Democrats in the Senate say that they have concerns about sending more troops.
Well, so do I. Right now the situation may be moving toward Quagmire status.
But even the current status, messy as it is, which is not surprising in a new nation and Iraq is a new nation.
You can't argue with any credibility that the alternative, what they had in the past, was better.
Uh to the telephones in Cleveland at Jack, it's your turn on EIB.
Hey, greetings from Cleveland and uh Merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy honey to everybody out there.
You know, I was gonna tell you that um uh yeah, my belief, even though we gotta move forward, I like to move forward on the subject as well.
But uh, if we would have kept uh Sudan in power, I think it would have kept Iran in check um a lot better than they are now.
But since we do not have him in power, and evidently he's going to be thrown to the gallows, I think uh within a forward thinking.
We must realize as an American country that if we can't establish our own peace here, we won't be able to establish it abroad or even uh even admit to try to understand it from uh an American level because I don't know that you can ever establish peace, whether here or anywhere else.
All you can do is try to make the world a safer place and advance American interests.
Now, the point that you make with regard to Saddam and Iran, there's there is some truth to it.
I'm not gonna argue otherwise.
He did kind of keep the Iranians in check, but that doesn't mean that would have been the case permanently, and it also doesn't mean that they couldn't have formed an alliance as a major supporter of terrorism and a major dual nuclear power, aside from the whole notion about what would have happened to Iraq once Iran developed nuclear weapons had we not intervened there.
The other part the other part the other part of this though that can't be forgotten is we for better than a decade huffed and huffed and threatened to blow Saddam's house down.
I mean the entire Clinton era.
This is unacceptable.
Every time Saddam violated a UN resolution, this is unacceptable.
This is unacceptable.
This is unacceptable.
We finally showed that the American word meant something.
Now, I do think that Iran is a far bigger problem right now than Iraq.
We can wonder whether or not this version of the Iraqi government is going to remain in place, whether or not the public over in Iraq really supports it.
But Iran is becoming a much larger problem.
Iran Iran is going to go nuclear.
Far bigger problem for the United States.
It's a far bigger problem for the world.
It's the crisis of the new century.
Are they going to have atomic weapons?
Is that what you think?
Well, that's what I they're certainly moving in that direction.
The point that I'm making is this obsession that we have about whether or not we're winning or losing in Iraq is largely irrelevant because I think we won.
I think I think I think Iraq, I think Iraq, in terms of being this massive priority for the United States, is pretty much over.
And that's why I've got some concerns about escalating the situation in Iraq, unless our determination of victory is that this is something like the Garden of Eden over there where everyone loves one another, and that isn't going to happen in any Middle Eastern nation that has a democracy.
And that's the root of all of these problems.
There's a form of government in place there that a lot of insurgents don't like.
And if you you don't like something and you're bent on terrorism, you can cause trouble, and I don't know how we can ever sweep all of that under the rug.
Thank you for the call, Jack.
I appreciate it.
New Albany, Indiana.
Laura, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Yes.
Uh thank you for taking my call.
Uh I was driving up the road listening to you, going, yes, yes, yes, out loud.
I'm glad you did because a lot of other people are yelling, no, no, no.
I'm the mother of three soldiers, one who is yes, still in the in the army, one who served three tours in Iraq with a private company training Kurdish police officers.
That the Kurdish people love us.
They are a democratic people.
They are so grateful that we are there to save the life of their entire people.
The amount of mass graves, people want to say mass destruction, weapons of mass destruction, but they're not thinking about the amount of mass graves found in Iraq.
The man who did this is no longer in power.
I don't necessarily agree with everything President Bush has done, but taking Saddam out of power was the human thing to do with the most important thing.
You are right.
You are right in all of our evaluations of Iraq are being put under this prism of what's happening there now.
And I don't think that's the right question to ask in terms of evaluating whether or not we should have intervened in Iraq in the first place.
Because what was there in the past was evil.
It was wrong, it was morally indefensible, and it was not in the best interest of the United States.
Even if Iraq goes haywire, from this point forward, it is not a nation that possesses globally threatening weapons, nor appears to have any desire to do so.
And we didn't know about it, thought we knew about it, I guess some of us were wrong.
But we but that isn't the case now.
They're not a threat really to anybody.
The greatest threat that Iraq poses is to militant Muslims who don't want a democracy in the Middle East, but they don't pose a threat to any anyone else because of the United States.
And from the larger overall scheme of things, we've sent the message to the entire world that when a nation defies the United States and treats his own people, it treats its own people in a barbaric fashion, we're not gonna stand for it.
And he's gone.
And to pretend that that didn't happen or that it can't be factored in is evaluating this thing, I think just in a silly fashion.
May I add one more thing?
Yes.
I spent uh I lived in Germany for three and a half years in the sixties.
And the German people feel that we did the correct thing.
The majority of the German people feel like we did the correct thing after World War II.
What we did is the uh the Allied powers went through Germany.
They went house to house to house, removing the weapons and removing the threat of Hitler and his people.
House to house to house, but we had the amount of people to do that.
If we sent for a very short period of time, the amount of soldiers to clean out the bomb making materials to clean out the majority of the threat to the the the Shiite government.
I mean, I feel like we need to put more in for a very short period of time, clean up a majority of threats.
It's a large country I know, so is Germany.
And we could do it.
Laura, you might be right.
The problem I have with that is that unlike the German example that you cite, Germany didn't have Iran and Syria right next door with money and weapons and people, terrorists, crossing the border.
That's that's the problem that I see with regard to believing that we can ever totally clean out uh Iraq.
What maybe we can, maybe we can't, but I'm not going to be a real starry-eyed optimist with regard to the long-term future of Iraq.
What I am saying is in looking back, we've made that nation a better place.
Unless as unless, as I said, stability is your sole criteria.
You know, the South was pretty stable when it had slavery, but that didn't mean it was right, morally defensible, or in the interests of the United States.
Stability isn't everything.
There are some things that are more important.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Uh President Ford died today out in the California desert.
We are going to be spending some time discussing his legacy and his presidency a little bit later on in the program.
You know, though, doesn't it seem to you that when I sit in for Rush, we get way more of these lefties who call in and have at me than he gets.
I think they think I'm Clinton.
They think I'm a paper tiger.
To McCallan, Texas, uh Pete, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark.
Uh first off, I'm definitely no left winger.
I started the counter-demonstrations for supporting the troops at the beginning of the war down here.
Uh as far as Saddam.
I think the United States wants to hang them quick because if this uh deal with the Kurds and the Saddam gas and the Kurds really start digging into it, Saddam's gonna start asking the question, where did I get this stuff?
And he's gonna say, Well, Secretary Rumswell came over and we had a deal with the states.
We hang him, end of story.
We just cover it up and we bury it.
Well, first of all, we're not hanging him.
The Iraq the Ira the Iraqi people are hanging him.
Now you're you're you're implying some sort of scandal here in the let me ask Yeah, let me ask you a question about that, Pete.
If four years ago in Iraq, you had said about the Iraqi government, what you just said now about Secretary Rumsfeld, what would have happened to you in Iraq four years ago?
The the c the question is.
That was my that was my question.
That was my question.
I think you know the answer.
Okay.
You you would have been shot.
And the only thing that's going to happen here is we're gonna move on to another caller.
Don in Tallahassee, Florida, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
How are you?
I'm great.
I wanted to make a point if I could.
Sure.
In in in World War II, um the military and well, in all wars, they go right after the supply lines.
Food, fuel, ammunition like that.
It's my opinion.
We've been fighting Iran all this most of this time.
That's where the stuff is coming from.
I think you're right.
I think I think you're absolutely right.
These religious I'd like to swear right now, but these religious people, the heads of the religion, they don't they want to keep the place in the seventh century.
They don't want to let go.
And they're sending people out to do bloody murder.
How would you feel if you went to church and your priest told you your rabbi or whatever told you uh well, go out and kill this kill us, want to kill.
You're dealing with the Islamist problem, and I agree with the point that you were making that we are in the post-Iraq phase of the conflict in the Middle East.
We are in Iraq, but we're not fighting Iraqis.
We're not fighting the Iraqi people.
We're fighting an insurgency that has its roots in Iran.
Now, we haven't attacked Iran.
We haven't figured out yet what we're going to do with Iran, but that's what we're fighting.
We're fighting the Iranians, and we're fighting this notion of the Islamist movement that can't stand the idea that there's going to ever be any self-determination for people in the Middle East.
I think he's absolutely right about that.
Now, let's talk about the situation in Iran for a minute.
This is potentially the greatest problem the world is ever confronted.
Iran is a nation that is pursuing nuclear weapons and may well use them.
That's not something that you can just ignore.
My great concern is that the problems we have had in Iraq after the removal of Saddam has the American people unwilling to confront any other problem ever.
You have in place in Iran a government that is not fully supported by its people, a government that is talking the way Hitler talked.
What did Hitler do?
He scapegoated the Jews in an attempt to build tremendous support from among his own people.
And he used that scapegoating of the Jews to move on a terrible path.
You're seeing the same thing with Iran.
I mean, Ahmad Najeg comes right out and says that Iran is not a legitimate nation, excuse me, that Israel is not a legitimate nation, that Israel needs to, that it the Israelis need to go back to Europe, that the Holocaust never occurred, in the meantime, he's pursuing nuclear weapons, and his entire basis of support is a group that is bent on religious domination of the entire world.
We can't let Iran get nuclear weapons, can we?
I think no.
I don't know if the nation has come as far as I have on that question, though.
Is America ready to deal with stopping Iran from going nuclear?
We have to.
Because once they are nuclear, it's going to be too late.
I'm not even saying that we have to go in and take out the facilities.
What I am saying is that we have to establish the point the premise that Iran can't go nuclear.
People will argue and say, well, India's nuclear, you're okay with that.
In fact, we encourage it.
Israel's nuclear, Pakistan's nuclear, Russia's nuclear, North Korea might even be nuclear.
What's the difference?
The difference is that I think the Iranians might use these nukes.
And so does everybody else.
Listen to how they're talking.
Because we've got this whole Iraq thing hanging around us like a millstone.
Oh my goodness, we went into Iraq and there are problems afterwards.
Well, you know what?
If we deal with the Iranian problem, there are probably going to be problems after that as well.
If we got rid of all of Iran's nuclear capability, and we even got rid of that government led by religious zealots, Ahmadajet is gone.
The reformers in Iran take over.
Even if all that happened, yeah, there'd probably be here we go again, instability.
The religious zealots would probably demand to take control of the country.
We can't look for the happiest perfect ending all the time, but we do have to do what's in our own Self-interest.
Do we want to sit around and allow this nation to start nuking up the world?
I don't think so.
The point I'm trying to establish here is that it's a moral imperative to end the Iranian nuclear threat.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in today on EIB for Rush Limbaugh.
Let me summarize my point.
If three years from now, Iraq remains torn by sectarian violence, excuse me, Iraq remains torn by sectarian violence, but the Iranian problem is eliminated.
Iran is not nuclear, and there is a government in place that isn't pursuing nuclear goals.
Which of the two is the more important goal?
▲
Export Selection