All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
January 10, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 Podcast.
And it's the most listened to hour of Talk Radio in America, Rush Limbaugh, kicking off three hours of broadcast excellence on the one and only EIB network.
Yes, my friends, America's real anchor man now on the case, doing play by play of the news, commentary of the news, and opinion and analysis, all combined in one presentation.
Eager to get started today, the telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Both CNN and PMSNBC today have launched what I am calling their telethons to purge the surge.
I mean it it's ridiculous.
PMS NBC even has a countdown clock to the Bush speech tonight.
It's right now at eight hours, fifty-two minutes, 47 seconds, and counting.
Until the Bush speech.
And during this telethon to purge the surge, they're doing everything they can to defeat the policy before the president has even really announced it.
The president invited both Democrats and Republicans to the White House yesterday to get a little preview of the uh of the speech.
And of course, it didn't go over well with the Democrats, and the media says that it didn't go over well with some of the Republicans that were there as well.
Some interesting headlines about all this in the New York Observer today, after Huddle, Democrats may punt on Iraq.
New York Times, Democrats plan symbolic votes against Bush's Iraq troop plan.
And once again we got symbolism over substance for them.
They're going to have votes with no teeth, and they're going to do hearings and so forth, and they're going to express their opinion and all that.
But when it when it boils down to cutting off funds for this, they just they are not going to do it.
I wish they would.
But they not they're not that uh uh suicidal, ladies and gentlemen, not quite.
Now, here's the New York Sun story, I'm sorry, the New York Observer story, despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to the war, and by the way, you can find polls that show just the opposite.
Despite polls showing Americans overwhelmingly opposed to the war, despite the mounting American military casualties, and despite the obvious ineffectiveness of the entire enterprise until now to bring stability to Iraq, Democrats at the very heart of the party's anti-war wing still think the political costs would be too high to end America's presence in Iraq via a spending cut.
Charles Wrangell said the president will say we're in business with Osama bin Laden if we do this.
Anytime politically you have to explain what you're saying, you have a problem.
And so if I am saying cut the funds for Iraq and the war in Iraq, then someone's going to say you're taking away rifles.
Well, exactly.
If you cut the funds, you are securing defeat.
Take a look at Somalia, ladies and gentlemen.
Somalia, Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today.
Somalia indicates that an exit strategy does not guarantee victory.
And we had to go back in there with AC-130 gunships.
How many years after Black Hawk Down?
We don't have any boots on the ground.
Well, none to speak of.
But pulling out of there did not quell any violence.
It didn't solve anything.
This is not how you defeat any military enemy, by the way, is exiting or retreating.
It's just ridiculous.
And the Democrats know this.
You know, one of the things I think that's driving the Democrats here, they have a genuine anti-war wing.
There's no question about this, ladies and gentlemen.
And they they have been alive and kicking in earnest since the Vietnam War.
But I think something else is at work here in addition to the genuine anti-war, anti-military, blame America first attitude that they have, and that is they see all the money spent on the war, and they want to spend it on other things themselves.
They want to spend it on domestic issues.
They want to spend it on expanding government's role in people's lives.
And that's one of the reasons that they have an innate distaste for the military.
It takes so much money out of their pockets, out of their hands, and uh denies them the opportunity to spend it on the things that they actually enjoy.
Here's more from Wrangell in this story.
Uh uh after Huddle Democrats may punt on Iraq, a decorated Korean war veteran, Wrangell seemed acutely sensitive to the potential consequences of uh voting against money for the troops.
Quote, if my black ass was in Korea during the war and people got fed up with it, he said, and they cut off the money so I couldn't get some snowshoes or underwear, well, blank damn, you're cutting the wrong people.
He knows, despite all of his rhetoric before the election that he can defund the war, which was campaign rhetoric, what he knows is that the American people, whatever their opinion is on the war, are not going to stand for the American soldier being undercut.
The American people may have, I don't know, an attitude that we can't win this thing and it's pointless.
But if anybody takes action that undercuts the American soldier, other than a few wackos in the country, the vast majority of the people in this country are not going to stand for the soldiers being the victims of this little political fight going on in Washington.
They're not going to look at Democrats as winners.
They're not going to look at Democrats as doing something courageous.
They're going to look at it as cutting the knees off of the troops, cutting them off at the knees, and Wrangell knows this.
So it's President Bush practiced his speech, scheduled to be delivered tonight, by the way, the countdown eight hours, 47 minutes, 39 seconds and counting.
A jubilant gavel waving uh uh of Democrats threatening to slash Iraq spending amounted to an ostentatious display of their ability to hold hearings.
We could have a hearing every day, said Jim Moran of Virginia, and we're going to be very busy by conducting aggressive oversight hearings.
Democrats do hope to at least pressure Bush to withdraw from Iraq by shining a spotlight on the billions of dollars the administration has spent on a war that seems to be worsening by the day.
Wrangle added, you don't have to cut off funds.
Having public hearings causes the country to ask, what are the funds for?
And what makes you think it's going to be effective?
So when it push comes to shove, they don't have the guts to stand behind their position of defunding the war.
They just not they they're they're not going to do that.
And in the in the process of even talking about it, they're really painting themselves here in a corner.
You know, they they've got this inflated sense of power, and are having such a ball with it, such a great time with it, that they're hardly noticing how it appears to people.
I mean, for crying out loud, Ted Kennedy?
The Senate did its best to keep Ted Kennedy hidden in a closet for a number of years, but now he's wormed his way out of there.
They didn't understand what he was saying half the time.
Now he's out there, he's the voice, he's the face of the Democratic Party.
Does he think, do they think people have forgotten chappaquitic?
Is he the most credible person to be talking about this?
They have no power to stop this war unless they defund it.
And as Ronaldus Magnus once said, go ahead, make my day.
Defund it, Democrats.
Come on, you're doing everything you can here.
What's this hold hearings to try to convince the American people?
I thought the polls ought to be showed the American people on your side, Congressman Wrangle.
What do you need more hearings for to have people start questioning the war?
According to you and your buds in the drive-by media, you've got polling data out there that suggests the American people are fed up with this and want us out of there yesterday.
But you're going to hold hearings to get the American people to ask questions, a disconnect there.
Now the New York Times, Democrats plan symbolic votes against Bush's Iraq troop plan.
Oh, one of the things from the uh the New York Observer story.
Senator Ted Kennedy introduced legislation to ban funding for troop increases over the January 1 level, and he told the press club Tuesday that Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam.
That's the speech we had the excerpts from yesterday, and I didn't bother playing them for you.
He says, if we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we are condemned to repeat them.
Senator Kennedy, you're repeating the mistakes of Vietnam.
You and the Democratic Party are making the mistakes that we made in Vietnam.
You are the ones making the mistakes, not the U.S. military, and not George W. Bush.
As Tony Snow Said yesterday.
Votes are symbolic.
The war is real.
We understand that their resolution to defund is purely symbolic, but the war and the necessity of succeeding there is very, very real.
And so once again, it's the substance and its victory that are being overlooked with the Democrats here as they as they mount their symbolic vote and roll into congressional hearings about is all of this, but in the uh in the real meaning of all this when it uh gets down to the pedal of the metal time is they have decided the American people will not understand them defunding the war, and they've come to the right conclusion about that.
Here's a brief timeout.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Okay, perusing some of the drive-by media today on this uh this whole big story today about the uh the surge and the effort by the drive-bys and the Democrats to purge the surge.
And by the way, remember the big news in this story is not so much the additional twenty thousand troops.
Uh they're they're gonna be acting in a in a in a backup or training capacity, but they are gonna be in Baghdad.
The big change here is the assurance of the Prime Minister Maliki that uh they're gonna go after the Shiites, the Shi'ite militia, the s the the Shiite uh terrorists, uh Maliki's munch, they're gonna go after them.
They're not gonna let these guys off scot-free.
That's been the problem up till now.
It's been the uh you know the Sunnis have been targeted.
The Shiites have been left alone by the uh Maliki government, he's one of them.
Uh, this has been one of the big concerns about the surge.
If if it goes wrong, are we empowering Maliki and the Shiites, which basically the same uh sect of uh of Islam as are the Iranians?
Uh and that's been one of the concerns.
Uh everybody's saying, can we trust Maliki?
The president says he thinks he can, uh, after going through all of this.
Uh I mean, nobody wants the situation to continue the way it is, and the idea to end it here with a victory uh in a stable Iraq is a certainly far more uh uh valorous objective than just cutting and running and redeploying and getting out.
Uh and leave I mean, if that happens, as we've discussed countless times, it's only going to get worse.
I can't I still can't get over this New York Times editorial from yesterday.
Well, we gotta we gotta pull out of there.
Well, we gotta make sure that nothing goes wrong after we get out.
We gotta protect the oil fields, we've got to make sure there's no civil war.
We gotta keep the Iranians out of there, but we gotta get out first.
We gotta get out to do that.
One of the most ridiculous assertions I have ever heard, and it could only be made by somebody who doesn't sign their name to a stupid editorial in a newspaper who has thus no accountability.
Washington Post today with a rock speech, Bush to pull away from his generals.
No, that's not, and the whole story goes into detail about Bush is not pulling away from his generals.
He's talking to other generals.
He has decided he didn't like the message he was getting from other generals.
He's put other generals in there who think they can accomplish what he wants to accomplish.
I mean, McClellan and U.S. Grant were not alike.
Lincoln had a switch generals in a civil war for crying out.
It's just every little thing, picky picky pig.
These they they wanted to get rid of all these.
The media has been demanding.
The Democrats have been demanding.
Get rid of Rumsfeld.
Get rid of all these people, get rid of these people.
Bush got rid of them.
It still wouldn't make them happy.
It nothing makes them happy.
Gotta get rid of Rice, gotta get rid of Cheney, gotta get rid of wouldn't change a thing.
Give them everything they want.
And it's uh and it's never enough.
Uh Los Angeles Times storm rises over surge.
Get this story.
Is it a surge?
Is it an escalation?
Is it harmless semantics?
Is it disingenuous spin?
What infuriates critics of the war, including many liberal Democrats, is that they see the word surge as a manipulative and deceptive word.
It implies a relatively short-term increase in the U.S. military commitment, they say, when the White House intends to keep the additional troops in Iraq much longer, maybe for several years.
Even worse, critics say the news media have uncritically accepted the word and thus contributed to deceiving the public.
Oh, contraire.
It's the exact opposite.
They love the word surge.
They can use it to try to discredit the policy.
They're using the word surge to imply massive new troops, massive new military movements to try to get the American people going, oh no, we're gonna get even oh my God, we're gonna get everybody up.
That's what they want to create.
Now in military parlance, uh according to some military officials, surge has long been used in the armed forces to indicate a quick but not necessarily short-term increase.
Army Chief of Chap uh Peter J. Shoemaker, for example, or schemaker, I think it is, used the term in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in 2003.
Now there is no question that there is parts of Iraq that we need to surge troops into.
And uh Abizade has used the term before uh as well uh when he was uh talking to a senior group of U.S. commanders.
So the uh the the Democrats that their argument here at the LA Times is over the word surge, or the use of words, and the drive-by media gets ripped for allowing the use of the word surge.
You know, folks, in the old days, not that many days ago.
This would be going down very differently.
The President of the United States has scheduled a major address to the nation tonight at nine o'clock.
At a moment in our history when our nations become disenchanted with a war, that uh the Democrats overwhelmingly supported and the people overwhelmingly supported, and now demoralized by a daily diet of negative news and negative images, the president has a pretty big pretty big challenge.
He has to rally support to rally the country, much like FDR had to do during the Battle of the Bulge.
During the bloody early days of the war in the Pacific, the Baton Tarawa, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima.
Back then the Pon scum didn't rise to the top.
Today the Pon scum has risen to the top.
Whereas in the past, all of America would gather around their radios waiting, anticipating, praying for words of encouragement, hope, success.
No, such luck today, the Pon scum has risen to the top.
Even before we hear the president's message, we get shouts of defeat, shouts of disaster, and the ramblings of a liberal icon, gleefully, I should say, Ted Kennedy, who blubbered that this is Bush's Vietnam when it is Senator Kennedy and his party that are reenacting the mistakes of Vietnam.
That's what sets the stage for tonight's address to the nation, the Pon scum having risen to the top.
Are you aware?
I wonder if the drive-by media is aware that Ted Kennedy blubbered the same words almost three years ago that this is a rock, that this is a quagmire.
I don't care at this moment to label Kennedy the swimmer, the snorter, the whatever uh name that we could uh come up with to describe him.
Author of the waitress sandwich, practitioner of it with Chris Dodd.
Not the time for that now, folks.
In fact, we might even want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let's just say for a moment, let's say that Senator Kennedy has point, just hypothetically.
Not that he's right, but that he may have a point.
Why would he try to speak before the president speaks?
Why would he try to close down mines?
Why would he attempt, along with his party, to impede any attempt at national unity?
We always hear about the breakdown in civility.
We always hear about the breakdown that's caused all this rampant partisanship.
The president hasn't even spoken.
Maybe Senator Kennedy has a point.
Who knows?
But where is the civility and where is the confidence of his position to lets decide for themselves?
He's trying to close down mines along with his party.
But more than that, all this talk about breakdown and civility, we have witnessed it for the last number of years as practiced by the Democrats.
And the Pond scum has risen to the top.
If there's any of you, here are any of you who have any doubts.
Let this past couple of days with Senator Kennedy be the illustration for you.
They have no interest in national unity.
That's not even on their radar screen.
Their motivations at this point, I don't even care about.
Why does Al Qaeda hate us?
Doesn't matter.
That's unless we got a bunch of nincompoops who want to say that we're responsible for them flying airplanes into the World Trade Center in the Pentagon.
I don't understand Senator Kennedy's motivations any more than I do.
He's a liberal.
I mean, that's that covers it for me.
But there's all this notion that we need to be unified and have one great nation and so forth is being undermined by the uh the Democratic Party and led by the old liberal war horse, Ted Kennedy, who has no interest in national unity and doesn't even have the confidence of his position to let people make up their own minds after the president's speech.
The pond scum has risen to the top.
I know, and welcome back.
We are here having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We do that every day.
Rush Limbaugh doing what I was born to do.
All right, now time to go to the phones.
We'll start in St. Louis.
This is Steve.
You're up, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Good.
Uh I'm a little disheartened and slightly offended.
Uh your comment and uh in the beginning of the program lumping uh the majority of liberals and or Democrats uh as being uh anti war and anti-American.
I certainly am not anti-war, I'm anti this war, and I'm certainly anti not anti-American.
I'm very patriotic.
Well, it's good to know that you're there.
You know.
You took what I said personally, obviously.
Well, yes.
I think the majority of liberals and our democrats are taking it personally.
Well, uh I hope they do.
But let me let me tell you I I'm not I didn't say it because it didn't mean it.
I mean, I only listen to what Democrats say.
I only read what they write on their blogs.
I only listen to the what they say to me on the phones here when they write me emails, listen to the Democrats in Washington.
I dare say you can't find one but Joe Lieberman who's making any sense about this or is even talking about victory and American might and American uh uh righteousness.
I can't I can't I I can't find any of them.
Rush, in the when the war first started, okay, you didn't hear the outcry from liberals and democrats.
I was pro this war, okay.
But after these many years, it's gone on too long.
Right.
It's gone on too long.
We need to quit.
We need to quit a get out of there.
We need to quit strategy.
If you don't need to quit.
Well, what do you think is coming tonight?
Uh what's coming tonight is how can we wait a minute?
Did you just say we need an exit strategy?
That's quitting.
That's cutting and running.
That's getting out.
No.
Rush, let's say it's five years from now.
Right.
And we leave Iraq.
Yeah.
Isn't that cutting and running?
Not if there's victory.
What if there isn't?
You keep going till there's victory.
What's victory?
Victory is a stable Iraq.
Victory is a stable Iraq where the insurgency as an existing political movement has been put down and the Iraqis can handle it and deal with it themselves.
They don't like this unrest any more than anybody else.
They've got a thriving economy.
They want to protect it.
They want to continue to grow.
This is not in their best interest either.
And until they're able to pull it down and quell it themselves, there's no sense in getting out of there and leaving the country a mess.
I mean, it's it's did you read what about what the New York Times said yesterday?
The New York Times said we got to get out of there, but we gotta make sure the Iranians don't take over the oil fields, and we gotta make sure there's no civil war, and we gotta make sure that there is no greater, wider regional war.
How do we do that by leaving uh with an exit strategy?
Rush, there comes the time.
To quit.
No, not quit.
I'm sorry.
Steve, I can interpret it no other way.
When you want to leave before the job's done, uh whether it's a war or whether it's the assignment you have at whatever job you were, when you leave before it's done, when you quit, there's nothing valorous about it.
Uh I'll tell you something, okay?
Yeah.
There comes a time when you have to you have to make a decision, whether it's the right or the wrong or the good or the bad.
It's come a time where the war has gone on too long.
We need to have an exit strategy, whether it's the the whether we win or whether we don't there's no winning or losing.
Well, yes, there is.
You sound like Nancy Pelosi now.
See, there's no winning or losing.
It's just a situation we got to fix.
You know, again, and and I and I hate with all due respect, with all due respect.
Yes.
For many years.
Many, many years.
No, for many, many years.
And believe it or not, I do listen to your program.
I don't agree with you the majority of the time.
You need to work on that too.
Well, but you have you have termed people who uh as as being slip floppers, okay?
For many, many years.
George Bush has stay the course, stay the course, stay the course.
And now he's the biggest flip-flopper of them all.
He's changing.
Wouldn't you say that?
I can't believe of all the things that you've said.
That's the thing that I find most incredulous.
But it's it's incredible.
Bush is slip-flopping by changing strategy to win.
Bush has never wavered from the desire to win.
He is trying a new set of generals and a new set of strat strategical moves oriented toward victory, and you look at that as a flip-flop.
I I would have may I would venture to say that the majority of people look at it that way.
Well, let me ask you where in the Constitution does it say that the majority of the American people are the commander in chief, and the commander in chief has to bend to the will of the majority of the people.
Well, because it's not there.
Well, okay.
It's not there.
Uh Bush can't get elected anymore because he can't run anymore.
Unlike Hugo Chavez going to set up unlimited terms uh in uh in Venezuela.
You know, this is this Steve seriously, something you guys have to consider here.
You opened your call by pointing out how you were heavy metal to the pedal, ready to go for war when this whole thing started.
You were right there, and all the Democrats were too.
And you're right, and in fact, they were so eager, they demanded a new resolution in October of 2002 to make sure the American people knew they were for this, because the American people were ready to kick some ass after 9-11.
And Bush warned us about various aspects of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, using identical words Bill Clinton had used in 1998.
And then when we got to a hundred casualties, that's when the Linguini spined began to fall out.
And then they started Bush lied to us, lied to us, Bush lied to us, he lied to us, he lied to There is a permanent anti-war wing of the Democrat Party, and it is existing, whether there's a war or not.
And it comes to life when there is a war, and it is in the Democrat Party, and it is large.
It defines a whole segment of the Democrat Party.
And there are many reasons for it.
They are pacifists, they are guilty.
They think America deserves to lose in war.
They are hesitant for the American military to succeed because it makes war look productive, which it is if it's fought for the right purposes in the right places.
But it's it never fails.
You can you can you can call here and try to claim all this great heroic credit for supporting this at the outset, but you get no credit when you want to cut and run before we win, meaning we lose.
You don't get credit.
That's not smart thinking, that's not enlightened in any way, shape, manner, or form.
Be patient.
Just wait two years.
You'll probably elect a Democrat president and we'll quit everything.
We'll give up everything, and we'll really start blaming America for problems like global warming, lack of the cure for Parkinson's.
If you want this country beat to shreds so that it's unrecognizable in about ten to fifteen years, be patient.
If the Democrats win the White House in two thousand eight, that process will begin.
Frank and Tarpin Springs, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Rush, uh I supported this war from the beginning, and I've supported the president up until now.
Uh another one.
I believe that a troop surge at this point is is is misguided policy, and I'll give you my explanation real quick.
Okay, I'm ready.
Let me write take take notes here.
In nineteen ninety-one, we sent five hundred and seventy-five thousand young Americans, which of which I was one to Saudi Arabia to remove Saddam's Troops from a country the size of Rhode Island.
Wait a minute.
They sent you to Saudi Arabia?
I was in the Red Sea, technically.
But that's where we were in that region.
Saudi Arabia, most of the troops are on the ground in Saudi Arabia.
Uh Frank, my friend, it was Kuwait.
You're talking about here.
Yes, sir, 1991.
Right.
Kuwait.
That's not Saudi Arabia.
Okay, well, the American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia on the ground, regardless.
We sent five.
Well, we had a base there, but we sent five hundred plus thousand to Kuwait.
Okay, well, uh we sent them to Saudi Arabia and then they invaded and went into Kuwait.
Not all of them part of them, but anyway, we sent 575,000 troops to the region to accomplish that mission.
And in 2003, we sent roughly 200,000 to occupy a country, toppled the government for multiple years.
A country the size of California.
Now we need more troops to secure Baghdad.
Okay.
So we need more troops now.
We need more troops in the beginning.
This president has been presided over a misdire policy from the beginning because he didn't execute it properly.
Wait a minute.
You said you supported it from the beginning.
Rush hindsight is 2020, okay?
If you can't remove enough troops from the game, I can't help you.
You know, here's something you people are missing.
You're still exhibiting the classic characteristics of quitters.
Okay, 2020 hindsight.
Okay, might have been a mistake the way it started.
Might have been a mistake the way the mission was first defined.
What does that matter?
I've had this conversation so many times.
I was at a golf resort down in Puerto Rico shortly after the invasion took place.
Liberal came up to me.
You have to admit that this was ill-conceived.
Okay, just I'll grab if if that'll make you happy and stop you start talking about something else.
I will say, yes, it was ill-conceived.
But now what do we do?
Do we pull out because it was ill-conceived?
Do we go to the United Nations and say, we're sorry it was ill-conceived, and we lied.
What do we do?
What do you people want?
You want embarrassment for your country?
You want shame for the country?
Okay, we are there.
There is a mission.
I you know the this is very enlightening.
It's very eye-opening to me.
This nation's big problem, one of the we can add to the list.
There's a potload of quitters out there.
And they also are in a Democratic Party.
You know, the uh drive-by media is uh still all absorbed with uh Trump uh and Rosie O'Donnell.
And there's this, I guess some more happened.
Yes, Trump's out there saying Barbara Walters is a liar and sent Rosie a letter and all this, and Barbara's defending uh Rosie on the show today, calling Rosie uh uh fine and Trump a pathetic man, pathetic mean man, whatever.
But there was something happening.
It was earlier this week or late last week, uh Rosie reacted to being called a slob uh by Trump.
Uh she said, you know, it's just it's it that's really big to call somebody fat when they already know they are fat.
I mean, that's that's really big.
That that that's that takes guts.
And she said that she had letters and comments from hundreds of obese women who said they were personally damaged by Trump's comment.
Calling Rosie a slob.
That just is BS.
That is can you imagine?
Well, maybe it's not.
Stop to think of it now.
Maybe maybe they're it reminded me of after the Donovan McNabb incident with uh with me on on uh ESP and Tom Jackson.
Uh first comment was that he had little black kids in Cincinnati where he lives coming up to him, said does this mean I can't be in a quarterback in the NFL?
Little teenage kids are Mr. Jackson, does this mean I can't be a quarterback in the NFL?
This is just poppycock for Rosie O'Donnell to say that millions or hundreds or thousands or whatever American women were personally damaged by Trump's comments as though fat jokes don't happen.
Just a little side observation.
I just I don't believe this.
I just I simply don't believe it.
I think it's a classic liberal ploy.
You have hurt more than me.
You have hurt millions.
These women's lives are now destroyed, Donald, because you calling me a slob.
I can take it because I know us I'm a slob, but these other women don't like being thought of as slobs by people just because of the way they look.
It's um you notice liberals, you can't make fun of them about anything.
They can make all the fat jokes in the world they want.
They can make all of the any kind of human frailty or victim or character jokes they want.
You can't do that to them.
They come back at you and they make you out to be the biggest, most vile, insensitive, heartless, cold SOB walking the earth.
When they, of course, allow themselves to get away with all that totally.
It's a it's a in fact it's performance technique for them.
Here is Carl in Redlands, California.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
All right, thank you, Rush.
Um my suggestion, uh, under the circumstances that you've been talking about all morning, would be for George Bush and Dick Cheney to resign.
Immediately.
Sturdley, what are you doing to me here?
You really think that's gonna happen, Carl?
Well, I'm I'm talking about just as many of the things you talk about never happen.
Uh I'm just saying that this would be a good thing.
No, but my ideas, my ideas are from course to get the nation back together again.
You really think so?
Oh, I think so, absolutely.
For Bush and Cheney, why don't you put a sheer audience out there and have them call in vote?
No, because I don't do that.
Well, I'm here because I know what the result would be.
We don't know.
I don't I don't care what the result would be.
Oh this show's not about what the audience thinks.
It's about what I think.
And you're an idiot.
You think that you're more intelligent than George Bush.
Uh well, that'd be hard to say.
He's got a Harvard MBA.
He went to Yale.
I don't have those.
That doesn't mean anything, you know that.
Oh, really?
That's right.
Uh then it doesn't mean anything what John Kerry has done education.
Right.
He's an idiot too.
That's correct.
All right.
He is.
Oh.
Well, if Bush and Cheney resign, who do you think should be president?
Any any anybody out there that has a modicum of intelligence, could be president.
You be superior to this lame brain that we have heading our nation.
And and you're you're a supporter of this lame brain.
Well, because I know he's not a lame brain.
Oh, then you must be worse than he.
Well, now that's clever.
That's clever.
You are a regular listener to this program, and you know I am anything but a lame brain.
You know that I am qualified for Mensa.
Look, look, Rush, you blow yourself up so much that it's amazing that you don't explode or implode.
Oh, uh I have not blown myself up.
Oh, you always do it.
Your books, the books that you've written and your daily broadcast is just pumping yourself up as a big thing.
Oh, and you you're even the head of the bragging if you can do it.
Well, it is excellence in broadcasting.
I mean I don't lie about any of this stuff.
Oh, and I'm one of the most humble people you'd ever meet out there, Carl.
I am one of the most I am being serious.
You are making a you're making a mistake.
It's it's really not your fault.
Bush has an articulation problem, but uh that that doesn't mean he's an idiot.
He's not an idiot.
He is not stupid.
He's not dumb, he is not in any way unintelligent.
Well, then you know, I think it's very arrogant and condescending as somebody sitting in Redlands, California to presume that the president you you couldn't, you couldn't do one thing in your life.
George Bush has done.
You couldn't put up with one day of the abuse George gets from people like you.
You couldn't put up with dealing with the stress and the pressure of doing that job.
Look at this economy, look at this the state of this country today.
It is in great shape.
It's only because people like you don't want to see it that you ignore it.
You're the ones living in an alternative universe, and in the process, you are the one blowing yourself up to be something that you aren't.
Get this.
This is um.
I guess it happened in San Francisco on on New Year's Eve.
The Baker's Dozen, which is the all-male a cappella singing group from Yale, uh got pummeled outside a New Year's Eve party in San Francisco after singing the Star Spangled Banner.
The attackers alleged um allegedly include graduates from Sacred Heart Cathedral, one of the city's oldest and best known private schools.
Uh, more details on this coming up, but now in San Francisco you get stoned on New Year's Eve if you sing the Star Spangled Band, even if you're from Yale and the male acapella group.
▲
Export Selection