All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 10, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
January 10, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, here we go.
Revved back up.
Another hour of broadcast excellence.
Executed and performed flawlessly by me, your guiding light.
Living legend, Rush Limbaugh.
Not puffing myself up, by the way, just stating things as they are.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, here are the details of the San Francisco story.
It's it's uh members of the Baker's Dozen, this is the renowned all-male a cappella singing group from Yale University, got pummeled outside a New Year's Eve party in San Francisco after singing the Star Spangled Banner.
The attack happened outside the home of two prominent San Francisco police officers, former mayoral bodyguard Reno Rapagnani, now retired, and his wife Liana Daid uh uh uh Dodiac, uh both accused and later cleared of leaking internal SFPD personnel documents during the Fahita Gate debacle.
As if that weren't enough.
The Dean of Yale College is weighed in, as has one of the victims' fathers.
Sharar Aziz, a prominent New York banker whose son's jaw was busted in two places.
He's not only called the mayor's office and the police chief, he's retained the law firm of Gonzalez and Lee to help the keep the heat on the cops and make sure the individuals behind this heinous assault are apprehended.
Now, as Rapagnani tells it, his 19-year-old daughter was hosting a New Year's Eve party at the family's Richmond district home for the Baker's dozen, the a cappella group, who were in town as part of a West Coast tour.
There's sixteen of them.
They showed up late to a party, wearing their sport jackets and ties.
They launched into the Star Spangled Banner when they got there.
A couple of uninvited guests started mocking them, and allegedly the words faggot and homo were tossed around, so were a couple of punches.
So people from San Francisco started calling the Yale All-Male Acapella group a bunch of uh slurs.
The Yale kids, most of whom were staying with a family a block away, began heading home.
But witnesses said one of the uninvited guests, who happens to be the son of a prominent Pacific Heights family, pulled out his cell phone and said, I'm 20 deep.
My boys are coming.
The Yale kids barely made it around the corner when they were intercepted by a van full of young men.
They were surrounded, then tripped, and when they were on the ground, they were kicked.
According to police reports, the cops arrived about 1240 in the morning to find 20 people fighting in the street.
But uh the Rapagnani says, This is not a fight, it was an attack.
All started by a bunch of guys from Yale singing the Star Spangled Banner.
My question is, what are students from Yale doing singing the Star Spangled Banner?
I mean, that what gets back to the people on campus.
They're gonna get beat up again.
If they have it already, when they uh when they show back up at the campus, they probably have already.
New York Sunday Josh Gerstein has uh this is a really distressing story, and it confirms something, a suspicion of mine, and I have held for many years.
A lack of cooperation from one or more intelligence agencies has led the FBI to abandon several recent criminal investigations into leaks of classified information to the press.
In January of 2005, a top FBI official asked the Justice Department to close three pending leak inquiries because the victim agency repeatedly refused to assist the probes.
The FBI's contact at the agency has been uncooperative with the investigative field office, and on numerous occasions failed to return phone calls or provide the case agent with requested documents.
Now, let me translate this for you.
We've had all kinds of leaks to the news media and other places, many of them criminal in nature.
The FBI began an investigation.
The agency that was the victim of the leak.
The agencies involved refused to participate.
And now the FBI is saying if they won't participate, we got nothing we can do.
There's nothing we can do.
If they won't help us here, then there's nothing we can do.
Now this is This is stunning.
And I'm going to tell you, I have long thought that there is a like a shadow government operating in some of these agencies that has been out to destroy this administration and its policies any way possible.
And that some of these people, they're all career people, Clinton holdovers, and they're at the top of these play.
I think this is one of the reasons Porter Goss was summarily dispatched under cover of darkness, because he was cleaning out the CIA.
And there are a lot of people that don't want the dirt of the CIA made public.
So Porter Goss, after being promised that he would be able to hang in for the rest of Bush's terms, gone.
He's just he's he's out.
And uh uh a lot of people looking at John Negropony, who was the intelligence director as being the one of the henchmen in this.
Nobody knows that uh for sure.
Uh but what this means is is that the victim agencies don't feel corrupted.
The victimade, the agencies from whom these documents secrets were leaked.
They're not worried about it.
It's almost as though they're happy.
They don't want investigations into what happened because they already know what happened.
They don't they don't want the culprit.
They don't want the leakers known or uncovered.
They're in on it.
They have to be.
This makes no sense otherwise.
This is all about protecting the culprits.
Um, you know, and look at folks, it's become more and more obvious that there is a symbiotic relationship between these agencies.
We're talking about state, we're talking about the Pentagon CIA.
Um there's a symbiotic relationship between these agencies and the and the drive-by media now.
Uh and and they're not going to let an election get in their way, such as the election of George W. Bush to be president, they're not going to stand for that.
They've got their own agendas.
It's a left-leaning agenda, and even if there's a Republican president, they're not going to let that stand in their way.
And if they have to destroy the policies of a particular administration, they'll do it via leaks.
And then when these criminal leaks are investigated, they don't participate.
How else would you sum this up?
What what other explanation for this could there be?
Joe de Genova, this is later in the story, former prosecutor who is uh accused career CIA officials of waging a leak campaign to undermine President Bush, Joe Degenova, uh said that he suspected the resistance to the investigations was part of that effort to undermine President Bush.
He also questioned why the leak cases were dropped.
He said stopping a leak investigation, assuming it's a serious leak, just because the victim agency won't cooperate, is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life.
A grand jury subpoena should issue.
It seems to me that there should be some sort of congressional investigation of these instances.
The disclosed records also suggest that many investigations into leaks of top secret data are abandoned without pursuing some obvious, if intrusive investigative techniques, such as seeking testimony or phone records from members of the press.
Other components of the Justice Department have recently used those tactics in less sensitive cases, like leaks about planned federal raids of Islamic charities and about a grand jury investigating steroid use in baseball.
The Genovist said there's a stunning lack of balance in the way all these cases are approached.
They're going after, you know, little jump change cases, but the real big criminal cases involving leaks, uh, they're not interested in.
The FBI didn't even see him following up, and nor does the Justice Department.
By impaneling a grand jury and issuing uh issuing subpoenas.
Uh, and then that this takes us to the Sandy Burglar story.
Uh, you know, we've I find this fascinating.
Tom Davis and the Republicans on the uh government oversight committee released their report on Sandy Burglar after the election and after the new Congress is in power, when they are in the minority.
Uh and and the the bottom line is this that is that uh what we were told originally about Sandy Burglar is not complete at all.
We were told, look, it it doesn't matter what he did because the the originals are still there, and with the notes on them, he didn't do anything to make copies.
That's not true.
They can't find some documents that were originals.
They can't find them.
Uh also Burglar uh promised as part of his uh plea deal to uh take a polygraph test, but he's never been administered that test.
Nobody's ever given him that test.
Uh it it's uh this isn't this is just like the leak investigation.
Getting to the bottom of what burglar did, nobody really seems interested in, even the Justice Department when it came time for punishment, you know, a little slap on the wrist.
If there's ever a guy who didn't who deserves his security clearance being permanently uh uh denied, it's burglar, but he's gonna get it back in two thousand eight, just in time to be part of another Clinton administration if uh if that happens.
So there's there's a there's an ongoing effort, and I have suspected it for the longest time.
When all these leaks right before the Iraq war started, all the battle plans, all the war plans that Joe Wilson and Valerie Plaim thing, that that still stings to high heaven, the way that thing played out.
Uh by the way, you know, nobody wants their book.
Uh the uh the two publishers have turned down their book, and now they're claiming that the White House or the CIA is trying to limit what they can say.
That's just a covered excuse for the fact that nobody wants her stupid book.
But if their mission was accomplished as far as they're concerned with the last election going to the uh Democrats congressional and Senate races.
All right, quick timeout, folks.
We'll continue here in just a second.
Stay with us.
Let's go to the audio sound butt roster.
This is um Senator Dick Durbin yesterday, he's on the floor of the Senate uh talking about uh our troops.
Listen to this.
Our hearts go out to those families.
Our prayers are with them and the troops as this decision is made to escalate this war in Iraq.
These troops follow these orders because they are the best and the bravest.
Yeah.
They march off to war, risking their lives away from those that they love because they are sworn to protect this great nation.
I'm starting to cry here.
We can never thank them enough.
No, we can for what they are doing.
You should start.
And every moment of debate that we have on the floor of this Senate about the policy, right?
Of our government toward Iraq, yes, should not diminish or detract from our great debt of gratitude to these men and women and their families.
Well, little guilt there pouring out of the mouth of Senator Durbin.
Can we go back to June 10th of 2005 on that same Senate floor?
If I read this to you and didn't tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime, Paul Potter others that had no concern for human beings.
Sadly, that's not the case.
This was the action of Americans, you know, in treatment of our their own prisoners.
Well, now, which uh which Senator Turbin are we going to believe?
First off, we have Senator Turbin who is doing everything he can to defeat this new surge, this new presidential policy, doing everything he can to cut every the funding.
He's part of the Kabbalah wants to cut the funding from the troops that Ted Kennedy and the gang are talking about.
And we owe them a deep gratif debt of gratitude.
This is as in disingenuous and phony as anything he's ever said.
He knows that he is about to participate here in a symbolic vote that would cut off funds from the troops, but yet he knows the riskiness of that position, and he wants it well known, he wants it on the record of his debt of gratitude and his appreciation and his understanding for what these troops do.
It's what I told you in the first hour, this one thing that that the even I don't care how opposed to this the American people are.
And I don't know that I don't have seen too many conflicting polls on this.
I don't know what the real pulse of the country is on this.
But the one thing I do know is that if you do anything that that punishes the soldiers and makes them look like they're the guilty ones, you cut off funding.
You may as well cut off their legs, and the American people are not gonna put up with that.
And Durbin understands and Chuck Wrangle these guys, they understand what a real vote to cut the funding would mean.
So he has to go out on the floor and practically cry about how much he appreciates these people.
I'm sorry, Senator Durbin, it's too little too late.
We needed to hear this from the outset of the war, and we need to hear it within the context of your confidence that these brave troops can achieve victory.
But you can't bring yourself to do that because you can't stand for victory on the table as a possibility, because that would make George Bush look good, and Bush Remains the real enemy of the Democrat Party today.
One more from Senator Durbin, and this is this morning on the Senate floor, uh talking about the troops again.
President Bush has reversed a position which he took early on.
His position was that he would heed the advice counsel of the men and women in uniform.
The President told us over and over again, he would only dispatch as many troops as they asked for.
But clearly that has changed.
Wait a second, I can't handle the rest of it.
Stop this.
The whole time Bush was listening to the generals, you were telling him that the generals needed to be fired.
You were telling him that Rumsfeld needed to be fired because Rumsfeld was the architect of torture.
Rumsfeld was the architect of troop levels.
You wanted him firing everybody to whom he was listening, and now all of a sudden these guys come forward and disparage Bush for not listening to the generals and now increasing troop levels.
This is an illustration no matter what Bush does, and you Republicans someday, I hope it's my lifetime.
You are going to learn this no matter what you say to try to curry favor with these people.
It will not matter.
They will lie and twist and misrepresent what you've said to fit their own interests because they know they have the megaphone of the drive-by media to get away with it, and they will not be called on it.
Here's the rest of what he said.
More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
Those are the words of the commanding general in Iraq just a few weeks ago.
Those were words which the president told the American people repeatedly would be his guidance and making decisions about whether to send more troops into battle.
Those are words which the president tonight will ignore and reject.
Yeah, because everybody was saying this isn't working.
Bush gave it time to work.
He decided to change generals.
He got sick and tired of listening to generals telling they didn't think that this policy was going to wrap up quickly enough.
He's changing generals.
He's getting some kick-ass generals in there that give him a different point of view, just like Abraham Lincoln switched generals.
McClellan, Ulysses S. Grant.
Oh, Not all generals are alike, but that's not the point here.
The point is that when the generals are saying what the Democrats don't want to hear, they'll rip Bush to shreds when all of a sudden Bush changes generals and they start saying things that Democrats again don't want to hear, they'll act like they agreed with the first set of generals when they were demanding that whole structure quit and be fired.
Now once again we see from Senator Durbin here, there's no mention of victory.
There's no mention of winning.
There's no mention of triumph.
There is no mention of national unity.
There's no desire to come together and win this as a nation.
Even with what's going on in Somalia with what's going on in Afghanistan, this threat is real.
There is no recognition of it.
I have said over and over, these people are not ready, not fit to be trusted with uh with national security.
And uh the the as each day mounts, each day passes.
Evidence of that continues to mount.
Ryan in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, you're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, thanks, Rush.
Hey, I let me preface this by saying I do believe victory will be achieved.
I just wanted to ask you, uh, with the Democrat leadership taking the stand against victory.
Can you predict for us how this leadership's gonna take credit for the victory once it's achieved so we can prepare for the spin?
Because they they always seem to do that, take credit for they obviously don't it's not due, but I I I believe in victory.
I think it's gonna happen.
What are they gonna say when we have it?
They will claim, if uh if you're right about this, what they will do is claim that all of their criticism and caterwalling and hearings force the president's hand into doing the right thing and achieving the victory they always knew was possible.
And they'll they'll characterize the victory as one of diplomacy, uh as one of negotiation.
It'll it'll fit their template and uh and mindset.
But you know, it it's uh they they've got two years that they gotta hang on here.
If they do win the White House in 08, it'd be interesting to see whoever their president is and who their nominee is.
Um see, right now they still have the ability to go out, say whatever they want with no accountability.
They may run the Senate and the House, but they are not running the war.
They are not commanders in chief.
George Bush still is that George Bush has the ultimate power for military strategy and decision-making.
All they can do is cut funding and they won't dare do it.
I think if a Democrat does end up in the White House in 08 and this is still going on, we should take bets on how soon that Democrat just pulls the troops out.
Because I'll bet you when the Democrats are in the position of accountability on this, their whole attitude about it would change.
When you're not president, you can change your mind on a dime on a whim, whatever, and say whatever you want.
Presidents cannot do that.
We'll be back.
Don't go away.
As usual, uh my good friends, half my brand tied behind my back.
You should see it.
Uh just to be fair.
800-282-2882.
Here is uh John in Dublin, California.
John, welcome to the program.
Mega Levinite Ditto's rush.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, you don't stuff you don't puff yourself up.
That that's for us to do.
That's exactly what I told the guy.
Absolutely.
Exactly what I told the guy.
Doing a great job.
Hey, just a quick one.
In reference to I'm a retired military officer, twenty-two years in the Army.
Fought in Desert Storm, trained these the many of these troops who've gone over for this current conflict.
But right from the beginning, and it's in reference to your cut-and-run seminar callers from last hour, but right from the beginning, I've been for this war.
I'm still for it.
Yes, I would like to see some changes.
I'd like to see us untie the hands of the troops who are over there.
They have to go through a seven-step process to be able to engage somebody.
Unless they're being fired on directly.
Even then, these guys are going to hesitate because of the political correctness that we have injected into our military.
It is absolutely abominable, abominable.
God, I came to speak today, what we've done to them.
But also I want to mention if this is becoming a Vietnam rush, it's not because of George Bush.
It's because these liberal Democrats and their lapdogs in the media that have turned it into Vietnam.
Yes, and that has been an objective of theirs.
Absolutely.
It's like they want the terrorists over here blowing up our people instead of going after our troops who are ready and willing and able to take them out.
Do you just think about it?
Wait a minute.
Do you really think?
See, this is a I want you to stop and think about this.
Do you really think that the the liberals uh both in the in the Democratic Party and the drive-by media actually want terrorist attacks in this country?
You know, no, I don't think they consciously want it.
But with what they do, the way they are just putting out all the I think you said it yesterday.
That all you hear is all the bad that's going on.
You know, another car blown up.
You see that on the news.
You see all this about how bad our troops are over there.
You never see, well, how many are we killing?
We're killing a lot of them over there.
I still have friends who are there.
I get emails from these guys.
I hear what's going on.
Plus, you know, you can see all their websites out there that are supporting the troops, that we have troops talking about what's going on, and it's positive.
We are rebuilding that country.
The Iraqi people like having us over there.
Sure, they want us to go eventually, but they know that that we're in a necessity there right now.
Yeah, but but that's that's all I think that's a given.
That's just up to people to believe or not, and a lot of people are not going to choose to believe it on the left because they don't want to believe it.
That's but you said something you you you said that they are the Democrats and Liberals are content for there to be attacks in this country as a result of pulling out of Iraq and maybe uh Afghanistan and then not doing anything uh in Somalia any further.
You know, Rush, I don't think that like I said, consciously, I don't think they want that to happen, but by everything they are doing, that's what it's going to lead to.
Therefore, it seems oh can I say therefore?
You got kicked off a radio station for that one.
Yes, you can.
Therefore, it seems like that's what they want to do.
And it dri I mean, they they're just absolutely nuts in my book for taking this position.
They are tearing the country apart.
I just I wanted to give you a chance to clarify that because that's that's a serious charge to say that they want terrorist attacks in this country.
Um the uh what?
I don't under.
Oh, yeah, well, I know the Clinton reaction was uh the some of the Clinton people, after 9-11 happened, uh were all upset that this didn't happen on their watch because it would have given their guy a uh Bill a chance to really define himself as great.
It gave Clinton uh didn't get the big issue, Bush did get the big event to uh mold his presidency around.
There was there there were the word Democrats that said that, but that's a different still still than saying that that uh they actively want to pull us out of Iraq so that we will have terrorist attacks in uh in this country.
I when you say that, I wanted to give you a chance to deny it because that's a you know, that's a pretty serious charge.
I think rather the cases they're just not trustworthy with national security.
They do not see the threat.
They see us, they see their own country as creating the circumstances that lead to the threat and the terrorism.
They don't have any idea.
They have no concept that we are hated and despised.
And to the extent that they will acknowledge that we're hated and despised by people around the world, they will agree to a certain length that we deserve to be hated and despised because look what we do.
We plunder the earth, we pollute the planet, we cause global warming, we steal all of the resources of all of these great nations and continents around the world and convert it to our own selfish use.
We have so much more than our share of the world's wealth.
And so they think that there's a there are reasons to hate us because they do.
And if they hate the country, it's not a stretch to imagine that others would hate the country, and if they feel justified in their own hatred for the country, then how can they blame anybody else for hating the country?
They've got to embrace it.
And so in the process of that, they actually see terrorism as an outgrowth of U.S. imperialism in the postmodern post-Pelosi era.
And they believe that they have the ability to reverse this with the power of their elitism, the power of their uh, shall I say, intellect, and their ability to talk with these after who is it that's a suggestion we go talk to these people?
They're and who's off running around doing it.
Democrats, senators, democracy running all over the world talking to Basher Assad, led by the brilliant Bill Nelson, right after the Iraq surrender group report came out.
So it's like I told you once, folks.
During the 1960 presidential campaign, I'm nine years old.
And my dad is really highly, highly critical of uh JFK.
And of course, I'm this young kid, and I see my dad animated like this, and I'm nine years old, I'm I'm on the fringes of starting to pay attention to politics.
And I said, What why are you getting so upset about this?
And he proceeded to tell me that it was all about my and my brother's future.
And he said, Son, I'm afraid that this guy is too young and he's he's he's gonna start a war.
I said, You think you do it on purpose?
No, I He said, No, imagine if I got up on a chair underneath the kitchen light bulb there and started swinging a baseball bet around, I might accidentally hit the light bulb and break it.
I think that's how he's gonna do it.
I think he's gonna start some not intending to, not understanding the ramifications or or or or consequences.
I just don't think he's competent.
I remember those are my my words.
I don't remember that's also not exact quotes from my dad, but I never forget the analogy of somebody standing on a on a chair to get closer to the light bulb swinging a baseball bet around.
Obviously, if you're gonna swing a baseball bet around, you don't want to blake the bulb to stay on the floor.
If you get on the chair and do it, you're you're putting yourself in risky situation.
Lo and behold, uh, we had the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation.
By the way, if you want to see a great example of cut and run.
When things got tough, Bay of Pigs, and then what did that lead to?
It led to the famous now Cuban missile crisis, in which our martyred president has been given all kinds of credit here in his martyrdom uh for courage in the face of what led to it.
What led to it was was uh was Khrushchev realizing he could take advantage of of uh of somebody after watching the Bay of Pigs and how fast we ran out of there.
I mean, there's so many analogies in the past in history that you can bring forward to What to today.
In fact, the Wall Street Journal has a great editorial today on no exit in Somalia.
This time the U.S. stays on the anti-terror offense.
Their point here in this editorial is that Somalia shows that if you leave before terror is stopped, you'll have to fight there uh or here again.
Same thing with Afghanistan and Iraq.
The strikes in Somalia by our AC 130 gunships are also a reminder that in the war on terror, there is no exit strategy short of victory.
The last U.S. military venture in Somalia is broadly remembered as the military fiasco Blackhawk Down, in which eighteen U.S. servicemen were killed in part for want of adequate armor.
Yet America's sheepish withdrawal from the country had consequences.
Bin Laden viewed it as yet another sign that America can't take casualties and will retreat when hit hard.
Somalia descended into anarchy and became a haven for Al Qaeda operatives and affiliated terrorist groups.
Last June, the capital of Mogadishu fell into their grip, and the rest of the country surely would have fallen as well had it not been for the timely military intervention of neighboring Ethiopia.
And then we got involved.
Um and it less by the way, uh, who is it?
The Somalian guys asking for U.S. uh ground troops now.
The deputy minister in Somalia is asking for U.S. ground troops.
Mr. Deputy Minister, do you don't think there are some there called special forces?
This was a th th this is more like it.
What happened there with the AC 130 gunships wiping out the Al Qaeda leader in Somalia?
That's more like it.
This is what the American people want to hear.
The bad guys getting killed.
We're taking the battle to them.
Uh and of course, there there are now Democrat liberal critics, what are we doing?
This is it.
We're widening the war.
No, which is precisely what needs to happen if we're serious about this, but that's for another time.
Because to pretend that what's going on in Iraq does not involve others like Iran and Syria's wishful thinking.
But uh, we probably have some special ops forces on the ground in in Somalia to get this operation done.
As the journal concludes, U.S. interests are well served by putting terrorists on the run wherever they may be.
We will be better served still if we take the lesson that the only exit for us in the war against terrorists, whether Somalia, Afghanistan, especially Iraq, is to make sure there's no exit for them.
It is the terrorists who were on the run in Somalia and they were run out by Ethiopian forces, and they tried to hide in uh you know forlorn areas, just like what happened in Iraq with the Bathists and the others hiding in places, Afghanistan as well.
Um, and they thought we'd leave and the Ethiopians would leave, and they'd come back and they'd just start their process of taking over the government once again.
We went after them.
And we found where they were hiding and wiped them out.
And it's they who were on the run, and it's they who now know that we're gonna fun them down wherever they are if they've had any involvement against us, and that's what this attack was about.
That some of these people that were killed were involved in 1998 embassy bombings uh bombings in Africa as well.
The journal is exactly right.
Exit strategy is victory.
Uh you you you leave before the terror is stopped and extricated and put on the run, and you're st you get to go back.
You're gonna have to deal with it somewhere because it isn't going away until it's vanquished.
It's easy.
Back in just a second.
They would.
Right oh, back to the phones we go on this, the most listened to radio talk show in history and in America.
This is Lewis in Atlanta.
Welcome, sir.
Hey, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
I can understand.
Thank you.
I'm calling because I heard the last two callers, and I hear all these Democrats always talking about the cost of the war and the cost of the war.
I don't hear anybody talk about the cost of the hit on 9-11.
I'm looking at an article from Strategic Insight.
It said the cost of the building losses alone was twenty-seven and a half twenty-seven point two billion dollars.
Doesn't matter.
The cost in two thousand three to the economy was a half a trillion dollars.
Doesn't matter.
The cost to the insurance industry was fifty-eight billion dollars.
That's good.
The more it costs them, the better we like it.
We hate the insurance companies.
Well, my point is what's what are we supposed to do with our money that we pay for tax dollars?
I mean, the primary purpose of the government is to defend the country from uh enemies foreign enemy.
No, no, no, not not to some people.
The primary purpose of the government is to provide benefits.
Well, that's what I was gonna say.
Are we going to use this money to tell us again not to smoke and not to supersize our value meals?
Absolutely all that and more.
Anyway, I just feel like um I don't feel I know that uh this is you know, defending America from terrorists is the best use of our taxpayers' money, and I just can't believe that this is a winning combination for the Democrats.
Well, they won.
They they they won, and you can argue about why and what led to it, but they won.
They they won the the House back and they won the Senate back.
Well, I don't know what that says about us in the um overall picture.
Maybe we're losing our nerve.
Won't matter what it says about us, it'll be framed by the media and the Democrats, they will say what it meant, as they're doing.
It means the country wants out of a rock.
It means the country wants to get rid of the notorious tax policies of the Bush administration.
It means the country wants minimum wage.
It means the country wants uh uh uh the 9-11 Commission uh uh enacted all their recommendations.
It means that the country wants a minimum wage rate.
The Democrats ran on nothing on purpose.
And now they're claiming a mandate, and they will define what it meant.
Now, look, I'm being facetious with you on purpose because of course you're right.
Nobody talks about the cost of 9 11 because the Democrats would just as soon people forget that happened.
They would love to be able to return us to a pre-911 mentality.
They've been doing everything they can to affect that.
All they can look at the the the the counting of the um troop deaths in Iraq.
Three thousand and counting now, they get excited about this.
Because they think they can use that to turn public opinion, and maybe they've succeeded.
In terms of the money, they want the money we're spending in Iraq to be able to spend themselves on social programs and programs to expand the size of government and create even more dependency among as many people in this country as they can achieve.
They this this is um uh it's in fact they're they're out there complaining about the fence.
The uh the fence that was uh is to be built or was to be built along the California Mexico border and Arizona Mexico border say, Well, we we can't build this fence.
Why why it could cost 25 times as much as the original projection.
Well, what what about Medicare?
What about any liberal social program?
What about its end cost versus the original projections?
If that's the basis for not doing it, then we can shut down every damn one of them.
By the way, you know what the I did see a projected figure for the fence.
Forty-nine billion dollars.
Not including the land that they would have to buy to build the fence.
Forty-nine billion well, you could bring the price down a little bit if you hired illegals to build it.
But come on, 49 billion dollars for a fence.
By the way, speaking of billions of dollars in federal money, the guy who had the announcement, the sign I forget his name, Alata or something, Alata, who had the announcement that there are worthwhile and maybe similar stem cells in amniotic fluid.
This guy has put out a re a statement today, hey, hey, hey, a lot of people are misinterpreting my research.
I I wasn't talking about my amniotic research, amniotic fluid research being a replacement for embryonic still stem cell.
No, no, no, don't misunderstand me.
No, I I'm I believe we got to continue full bore into our research on embryonic stem cell.
I I wasn't trying to say this is wrong for people to say that my research is a now what happened to this guy, do you think overnight?
Well, one thing that happened to him was he got a phone call from somebody or a series of somebody's and they said, Do you like funding for your research?
Because if you do, you're gonna go out there tomorrow and you're gonna say that people are misinterpreting your research.
You can't do that on the eve of an important Senate debate when we're not gonna debate it, we're just gonna ram it through.
You can't you can't put that out there.
And if you want to continue to get funding from private sources, government sources for your little penny anti-amniotic fluid research, then you better get out there and say that you are not working on the substance.
You better get out there and plug our research.
I don't know that that happened, but um it's it would be easier to believe something like that did happen than this guy all of a sudden had a come to Jesus moment a couple days after his research paper comes out.
Anyway, quick timeout.
Don't go anywhere, folks, and be right back.
Hey, this is interesting coming up in the uh in the next busy broadcast hour, USA Today story.
Young people's views are far different from baby boomers.
It's a mixed bag of good and bad.
▲
Export Selection