All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
January 11, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hi, folks, and welcome.
Great to have you with us.
We've got broadcast excellence.
And I know that you have been eagerly awaiting the final authority on what all that uh was said last night means.
And you have come to the right place.
That is once we finish today, you're not gonna need to hear anything else.
That's what you've come to know and expect on this program, and it shall be delivered to you today.
Hi.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist Rush Limbaugh here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Telephone number, it'll be a while before we get the phone calls, unless something really, really, really pops up at me from the roster of calls.
We got Tony Snow coming on uh an hour from now.
We'll talk to him about uh things, have a little soundbite from Paul Bagala, uh, the forehead uh talking about Tony to play to Tony to get Tony's reaction to it.
Yeah, we'll talk about um what's happened since speech last night and some other things.
If you want to be on the program, the uh the number is 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
All right, before the speech last night, I got uh uh an email, I got a request from someone to say, Look, I'd really be interested in your thoughts of this on this when it's over.
Would you mind uh sharing with me your thoughts?
This person said, I said, sure, we'd be happy to.
So I watched the speech, and I, you know, we can comment on this speech, uh, but the the speech itself, I mean, the way it was delivered, whether you like it or not, it's not relevant.
Uh what's happening and what will happen on the ground in Iraq is what's relevant.
The plan is what's relevant.
Uh I the speech was good.
I mean, I'm not trying to deflect attention from it.
It was pretty steady and serious.
Uh I like the setting in the White House library as and standing up as opposed to sitting.
Uh and I thought it was I thought it was uh steady.
I think it's very courageous, actually.
And there's one guy.
You people understand the force of the political winds arrayed against George W. Bush.
I mean, it would have been so easy just to punt.
Uh in a in a in a in a personal sense, it would have been disastrous strategically, but of course, uh he's he's he's running and walking full full-fledged and full on into the enormous political headwind that he faces.
Here are the questions that I had after watching the speech.
Why has it taken so long to recognize the problems that were admitted to last night?
Uh why were these terrorist neighborhoods in Baghdad that we cleared not secured and instead abandoned?
Why did we cleared a neighborhood?
Why do we move on without securing that neighborhood, which just allowed the terrorists to return as we moved on to other places?
Why did it take so long to recognize the need for more troops?
Why so long in deciding that the commanders in Iraq who said we don't need any more troops were wrong, which necessitated new commanders.
Now, I I know that Lincoln changed his generals, McClellan, the U.S. Grant.
This isn't unprecedented.
In fact, this happens in every war, which I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here.
Uh but but still I had the question because General Casey was often quoted by the president as saying that we didn't need more troops, that he had everything on the ground that he needed, and others said the same thing too.
So what was the catalyst for concluding that two years of operations were wrong?
The wrong policy, the wrong strategy, and so forth.
Uh the one thing, and if you if you go back and look at the history of Iraq, you remember, and I remember talking about it on this program.
After the first couple series of elections in Iraq, all the columnists, there was one in Chicago, a couple in California, writing, maybe Bush was right.
Uh it seemed that everything was on an uptick.
There were congressional delegations, both Republicans and Democrats who'd gone to Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, came back.
You know, it's not as bad here as what the media is saying.
There was an uptick, and it something happened.
And uh what it was was the uh the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara, and I think that was in February of 2005.
That uh that that just infuriated uh some and the sectarian violence ramped up from that point, and and of course, that was not something we did, but we got blamed for it.
It was a terrorist move that uh that we got blamed for.
But after I asked these questions, and after I after I uh uh sent these questions off uh hoping somebody could answer them for me, I realized something.
These questions could be asked during the course of any war.
And I understood these questions that I asked could be the same ones that I thought the Democrats would pounce on last night and today.
I also knew that they would pounce on the fact that the president uh used the word failed in his uh in his speech.
And in fact, one of the networks, it was ABC went out to some diner somewhere, did a focus group.
And they they had these people meters on them, and they were raving people's reaction to the speech.
And by gosh, folks, you know, we did I did a thing uh a couple weeks ago about how sorry is the most important word in American society today.
You do anything, you say you're sorry for it, and people love you.
It's an excuse to get away with an I'm so sorry.
Just run around and apologize.
Just apologize all the time.
You will be loved and you'll be thought to be enlightened and you'll be thought to be sensitive and so forth.
And lo and behold, according to this focus group that ABC put together, the high point for them was when Bush admitted mistakes and said he was I don't know if he said he was sorry, but he admitted mistakes and so there were two instances, and and according to this focus group at ABC, that those two points were the high point for them.
Which just illustrates a point that I have been making for months now that we're becoming just a nation of passive wimps with a focus all on the wrong thing.
At any rate, these questions I just asked, these questions could be asked and were asked during the course of any war, including the greatest wars the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War II.
These are not unprecedented questions.
This is not unprecedented behavior by a commander in chief.
Here's what we have to remember, ladies and gentlemen.
As we get to first things first on this.
Above all, don't ever forget this.
The liberals are not interested in winning this war.
And that's not just an assertion, it's something I know.
How do I know this?
Nothing we do or have accomplished is ever supported.
When John Kerry ran for president, he illustrated this.
First he wanted more troops and then less troops.
First he voted for supplemental funding and then he voted against it all the time, criticizing anything we did, which he is still doing today.
As for decisions on the battlefield, those questions that I asked a moment ago, the president relies on his generals.
I I bet I bet Hillary and Obama would rely on their generals as well, given they have zero experience in fighting wars, and that is if they committed us to one, but I imagine they would rely on their generals as well.
It was only one year ago that a new government came to Iraq, and it took some time to see how it was going to function.
It took some time to see how training of the military and the police would function.
Here's what we know for sure.
This is what I know for sure, ladies and gentlemen.
We could destroy these countries without sending any more troops.
We could do it even if we withdrew the troops.
We could destroy these countries, and you know it, and I know it.
And we could win this and solve this rather quickly without sending any more troops.
We have the air power, we have the naval power to obliterate these societies such as they are.
So if the issue is winning, there is no question we can.
The question is, would the liberals support that?
And the answer is no.
And this becomes a major obstacle for the president in conducting this policy.
The president is not willing to do this either, by the way, he's not willing to obliterate these societies.
He's trying to win the war without obliterating these countries, which means it's going to take more time, and that means also more U.S. casualties.
The liberals don't want to use overwhelming force, and they don't want to give us time.
And they're now trying to destroy every aspect of the strategy.
They're going to unleash investigations and hearings aimed at the civilian support structure, private companies that supplement the efforts over there.
They want to paint them as profiteers and unpatriotic.
They want to deny our forces in the field the reinforcement they need on the battlefield.
I mean, this is something Lincoln was never denied.
FDR was never denied this.
Truman was never denied this.
It would have been unthinkable.
You ever This is being categorized as a surge.
Look at it as reinforcements.
Look at it as a changed policy with the focus now securely on winning.
And you still can't get the Democrats to go along.
And that remains a major problem.
It is an obstacle that the president has to overcome, and it's going to be very difficult for him to overcome it.
What is happening is unthinkable.
The Democratic Party is against victory.
They are invested in defeat, and they're doing what they can to sabotage this sending of reinforcements.
What they want to do is distract and smear the diplomatic and military leaders who are trying to win this war, from Condoleezza Rice to Robert Gates.
They want to destroy Bush, the commander-in-chief, and they do this by uh by using political tribunals, congressional hearings to advance propaganda about Bush being a liar, being incompetent, being heartless, and all the rest.
So we have to face, as we uh enter the aftermath of the speech last night, is that we have two enemies.
We have one foreign and one domestic.
And this is not the first time that I have said this.
You uh you you will not hear.
I make this prediction to you.
You will not hear uh any Republicans or Democrats calling for removing the Hitlerian regime in Iran, which is the surest way to win the war.
Why doesn't Bush call for this?
And a lot of, and and some people are thinking, you know, he sent the he sent them the message last night, the deployment of this uh of this aircraft carrier is that we're gonna block any shipments and troop movements from Iran and Syria.
That's as close as he's gotten to indicting them in this.
But the and by the way, there there are some Republicans here who give the president problem too, such as Chuck Hagel, uh, such as Olympia Snow and a couple of others.
It's not just Democrats here.
There are some Republicans that won't join him uh in his efforts here either, for a host of reasons.
Now we all know that the surest way to win the war is to remove the regime in Tehran.
Why doesn't Bush call for it?
Because he knows what the political reality is.
He can barely muster the political support to put down the murderers in Baghdad, ladies and gentlemen, the same media and the same Democrats who lost the Vietnam War, who watched as millions were butchered, are at it again.
Now it's easy for people like you and me to demand the toppling of the regime in Iran, which ultimately, I don't care how many years or decades from now it takes, but that will be crucial to winning the wider war on terror.
But we we fool ourselves if we think that that is on the agenda here.
The Democrats, with the help of some weak Republicans like Hagel and Luger and Warner and Collins and Snow and Gordon Smith and even even Arlen Specter, would stop it.
Any effort to really get to the heart of this matter would be stopped by Republicans just as Ted Kennedy and company cut off funds and cost us Vietnam.
So why is Iran a peripheral here rather than a central focus in the wider war on terror?
I can only guess, but that guess is that President Bush knows full well that uh anything such as that would lead to defunding of the entire effort in Iraq.
That's something that he fears would happen if he ordered any action on Tehran, and right now he can't afford for that to uh happen.
Uh but it's, you know, it it's it's just it's axiomatic here that uh we we we live in some unprecedented times.
These questions I asked are not unprecedented, but having a domestic enemy that is intent on losing this war is.
And this is something that the president has to deal with in the way he conducts operations in uh in Iraq and even in the uh in the wider theater over there.
I've got to take a break here a little long.
We'll be back, though, and continue with this in just seconds.
Stay with us.
As watching as many networks as I could last as many as I could take.
And uh over at NBC, uh, there's Tim Russert and there's Brian Williams here.
Russert quoted himself as saying a few years ago that Bush's presidency was on the line, and then he said last night that the president has just doubled down.
Now look who we've got in the media.
You got Brian Williams, who I like, is a nice guy, but he wrote it was an intern in Carter's White House.
Chris Matthews, who wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter and worked for Tip O'Neill.
You got uh Tim Russert, who was who is Mario Cuomo's guy, you've got you've got a you got a Cuomo guy at ABC, you got George Stephanopoulos at ABC, ABC and NBC have become the media DNC.
And this is who's giving us our news and commentary now, all the while maintaining that they have no objective, that they have no bias, they're not interested in outcomes, they're just trying to be fair.
Let me let me put this to you in a in a in a in a way in which I see it.
Right now, uh George W. Bush, whatever you think of him about anything else, is the only person in Washington who is standing up to the enemy, right strategy or wrong strategy, he is the only person standing up to the enemy.
The liberal media never ever talks about the consequences of withdrawal and defeat.
The Democratic Party doesn't, in fact, they talk about how everything will be peaceful and light, and it'll just be cool and they have no consequence or share none of the consequences with us about withdrawal and about defeat.
Let me just give you one.
We pull out of there now as they want us to.
They defund this now if they ever succeeded, and by the way, Mitch McConnell says he's gonna filibuster any attempt to do that, and uh Dingy Harry's gonna need well, he's gonna need ten votes because Lieberman's on our side in this, so Dingy Harry's gonna need ten votes to break the filibuster.
There aren't that many Republicans willing to throw Bush under the bus on funding, so uh whatever defunding action Ted Kennedy wants or they get in the House is gonna be thwarted in the uh in the Senate.
That's why they're gonna go to investigations.
That's why they're gonna go to hearings.
They're gonna do everything they can to continue to browbeat the American people into not supporting this.
They're gonna continue with the propaganda.
This is a losing proposition.
Bush lied, people died, all of that stuff is just gonna be front and center.
Get used to it, get ready for it.
The question needs to be asked to all these people what is their plan?
What is their plan after the enemy swarms all over Iraq, takes the oil fields, and creates more killing fields, and then begins to threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Israel.
What the hell is their plan?
Damn it.
What are they gonna do?
What is their plan for the consequences of their withdrawal?
And that precisely by by the way, if we pull out of there now, as an American army that can't win, where are we ever going to get allies again?
And anybody thinks this is the last armed conflict the United States is ever going to have because war is obsolete.
I've been hearing that all my life too.
This remains a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
It always has been, and it always will be, because that is the nature of evil men.
It is the nature of tyrants and dictators, and we are always going to have them.
You can wish it away, and you can pretend in an instant culture where things are resolved in 30 or 60 minutes on television that mega changes can be made in this area, but I guarantee you, human nature is human nature, and it isn't going to change.
There will always be war because this is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
I would like to ask for any liberal media member of the Democratic Party to tell me what the hell is your plan for stopping Iran from getting nukes.
And don't tell me talking to them.
Because that isn't gonna work.
I want to know what your plan is.
Where is your plan?
You know, it's easy for those of you with no accountability and no brains to sit around and challenge the intelligence of George W. Bush and to say he should resign.
It's easy for you to sit around and say, bring the troops home, let's defund the war.
Easy for you, you don't pay the consequences directly.
You don't have any accountability, and neither does Pelosi, and neither does Harry Reed.
Neither does any Democrat, neither does Ted Kennedy.
Now, this speech last night is gonna pass, folks.
It will be forgotten.
And whatever success results is gonna be very hard for us to learn because the media over there is not interested in showing us this.
The Democrats are poised to drive us out of Iraq.
This remains the biggest enemy we have in this country that you need to remain focused on.
The Democrats are poised to drive us out of Iraq one way or another and destroy as much public support for whatever is happening in Iraq as they can.
And that's what these hearings will be all about.
Look at folks.
Prior to 9-11, we followed the liberal prescription for dealing with the enemy.
All through the 90s.
We didn't do anything except chase them down with meaningless indictments.
We didn't deploy at all.
And what happened?
We lost 3,000 people in two hours.
Not in four years.
Yes, a man, a living legend, a way of life, America's real anchor man.
America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy.
Here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Folks, I kid you not.
We keep asking what's the Democrats' plan.
We know what the Democrats plan.
We have the Democrats plan in action all through the 90s.
Nothing.
Maybe issue some meaningless indictments for people live half a world away that we're not even trying to capture.
When that person who is indicted is offered to us by Sudan, I'm talking about bin Laden.
I don't think we have enough.
Holy God, I don't want to deal with this.
I really don't want to.
I don't want to get anything lower than 65% number when I go back to where are we going, Hillary?
Not Arkansas.
Chapqua, whatever.
We know what the Democrat plan is.
We asked this question rhetorically, what's their plan?
Because we know what their plan is.
Their plan, the liberal prescription for dealing with the enemy, do nothing, resulted in our loss of 3,000 people in two hours.
And yet, what do we hear?
We've lost 3,000 American soldiers in four years.
As though this is something that's unacceptable.
You know what?
This makes as much sense as what Schwarzenegger's doing in California.
Have anybody stop to think about this?
He is cutting welfare benefits for California kids, regardless what you think of welfare.
Forget that for a moment.
He's cutting welfare benefits in order to pay health care insurance for every illegal kid in California.
And in the same Christine Gregory, or however she pronounces her name in Washington, is doing the same thing.
She is now getting on this bandwagon of health care insurance for every illegal immigrant.
They are these two governors are acting like they are more interested in illegal aliens and their welfare concern or whatever than American citizens.
It's a sight to behold.
And you no matter where you find a Democrat, and Schwarzenegger's not a Democrat, but uh Christine Greguari is, and wherever you find them, it it it's there's so many misconceptions about these people.
They have so successfully typecast themselves as something they are not.
We all sit around and get fooled into believing that uh liberalism is about compassion, that it is the ultimate in compassion, that it cares for the less fortunate, that it focuses on the little guy.
Well, tell that to the people at Waco.
We lost more people in the Waco invasion than we lost soldiers in Iraq in December.
The liberals didn't care about that.
The idea that their first and foremost concern is human lives is a myth.
It is propaganda.
It is a stereotype that they have successfully foisted on everybody.
If you doubt me, look at what happened in Cambodia when they successfully pulled us out of Vietnam after defunding that.
Ever heard of Pol Pot, Dick Durbin certainly has.
Look at what happened in Vietnam after we pulled out.
Look at the slaughter, the genocide in Rwanda.
Look at the Soviet gulags.
People need to understand this about liberalism.
It is not about compassion.
It is one of the least Compassionate philosophies known to man.
What liberalism is about is the concentration of power in the hands of a few who use the force of government to extinguish individualism and the rule of law.
They look at their enemies list.
They attack big business anything.
They attack big oil, big pharmaceutical.
They attack profitable private sector regimes, companies small and large.
They attack religion.
They attack the military.
This is not an ideology of compassion.
This is an ideology that feels threatened by free markets.
And entrepreneurism.
This is an ideology liberalism that fears independence and the ability of human beings to triumph over the obstacles in life on their own.
Liberalism is about the concentration of power in the hands of a few who then use the force of government to extend and including the judicial branch to extinguish individualism and the rule of law.
They suppress free speech.
They suppress property rights.
Some might say this is a mild form of tyranny on the road to full blown tyranny if they ever actually succeeded in all that they want to accomplish.
I have been on this program talking about liberals and how they've been sabotaging the war on terror since Tom Dashel was the majority leader in the Senate, since before the war in Iraq.
People forget Tom Dashell held up the defense bill before 9-11, trying to pressure George W. Bush to raise taxes.
Bush resisted.
We cut taxes and we see what kind of economy we have.
Now, as for these hearings that are coming up, that's where the battle is next going to be fought in addition to the sewers and the alleys in the neighborhoods of Baghdad and Anbar province.
And by the way, my prescription for Anbar province, we ought to clear Al Qaeda out of there.
Time for the buffs.
Time for the buffs and the bones, military jargon for B-52s and B-1s.
If Anbar province is an Al-Qaeda nest, obliterate it.
We are going to send 4,000 additional troops in there, but uh this is if we're serious about this, we're serious.
These hearings, though, aside from what's going on in Iraq, these hearings are going to be the battleground.
Administration officials are going to have to fight back during these hearings.
They can't go up there and play defense.
And folks, I'm going to tell you something else.
We can't, in this instance, we should never have to anyway, but those of us who consider ourselves grassroots conservatives can no longer accept the cowardice of Republican politicians who throw in with the liberals who are trying to sabotage our military.
And there will be some.
They will be the usual suspects.
I don't care their motivation, I don't care their reason.
I don't care to discuss why they're doing it.
The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party is going to be on a search and destroy mission of its own.
It would be so wonderful that these people would actually join a real war to defend this country, as well as they conduct a war against conservatives and Republican presidents, as they have perfected over the years and over the decades.
When it comes to me, I mean party means nothing to me when it comes to liberalism or those who would embrace it.
I don't care.
I don't care if the greatest conservative Republican in the world came around and started embracing the liberals on this pfft, out the door for me.
Party counts for nothing.
Now, I mentioned earlier last night that the president admits in his speech last night, admitted that he made mistakes.
And boy are they ginned up about this.
Are they so excited about this in the drive-by media?
They keep saying, do libs ever apologize for the mayhem and the inhumanity they cause?
Does anybody ever demand that they apologize?
Why do we allow ourselves to constantly be on defense about this?
Who says that our very existence requires an apology?
Hey, Libs, how's that war on poverty going, huh?
How many casualties in the war on poverty?
How many casualties from from being weak on crime?
How many how many casualties to our culture and society from liberal judges who slap criminals on the wrist?
How many how many uh inner city families, Libs, have you busted up?
You feel bad about oh, I'm sorry.
we're not supposed to look at liberals' results, ladies and gentlemen.
No, we're supposed to examine their good intentions.
But when it comes to George W. Bush and the war on terror to defend and protect the country, and the U.S. military charged with the actual uh responsibility for doing this, we're never allowed to examine the good intentions.
We're never allowed to look at Bush's heart and understand maybe he just wants the best that he sees.
No.
No.
Not only and we don't look at results either.
We make up results.
We lie about what a failure Bush is.
We lie, the liberal Democrats lie about his policy and how it's a failure.
Well, we never ever hear them apologize for diddly squat.
How about the cost of taxpayers for all these failures in the great society, Libs?
How about uh how about apologizing for the judicial appointments that Carter and Clinton have made that have so gummed up the works attempting to fight the war on terror?
How about apologizing for some of the abominations that have been put on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California?
If there's ever an embarrassment in liberal land, that's it.
How about some apologies for what you've done?
Why should they apologize?
Their arrogance and condescension is such that they are never wrong.
Where's the handring?
Where are the graphics?
Which takes me to a couple of audio sound whites.
Uh last night that the President Bush addressed the nation.
Here's a portion of what he said.
This is the line the drive-by media begged for, and they just they're just they're having orgasms over it.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people.
And it is unacceptable to me.
Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely.
They have done everything we have asked them to do.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
All right, so now let's go to this morning.
Good morning, America, Claire Shipman in Chicago in a diner with a focus group.
Chicago, home of Barack, watch me walk out of the ocean like Ted Kennedy did Obama.
And she reports, we are still debating the speech here in Lou Mitchell's diner here in Chicago with some hearty members of our focus group.
Overall, do they like the war?
Not really, but many did give the president points for thoroughly explaining his dilemma.
The verdict, not bad.
Here's a montage of her report.
Every part of his plan registered on this graph, the green line reflecting the war supporters, the red line, war critics.
And one thing everyone liked when President Bush accepted blame.
Where mistakes have been made.
The responsibility rests with me.
See both lines shooting up.
It was good to hear.
This is the first time I ever saw George Bush actually admit that there's a debacle there in Iraq.
Although some were looking for more emotion.
I think he should be either a little angry or a little I mean, show some emotion.
He had no emotion.
This wasn't an emotional.
Well, I felt that he became accountable.
And here we have, ladies and gentlemen, the um Oprah eyes society that loves apologies and loves emotion.
They wanted him to cry, or they wanted to see a tear, or they wanted to see a bitten lower lip a la Clinton.
Look, people.
He is president of the United States.
It was a speech delivering facts.
It was a speech informing the country and the world of what had gone wrong and what was now being planned to fix it.
This was not about making you feel good first foremost and only.
I wish he'd have had more emotion.
Probably would have been a better acceptance rate if he had, but he is who he is.
And I don't think his view of the presidency is that people want to see the commander in chief in any kind of an emotional display.
Trust me, that's not a measure of strength, folks.
We'll be back in just a second.
I saw a story last night, uh, what was it, AP talking about war weary Americans?
And I just I just threw my hands up in frustration, as if any of us Have some kind of direct role in prosecuting this war.
If you are a war weary American and you are not a military family, and you have not been sent to combat, then grow up.
What do you mean war weary?
What are we becoming here?
A nation of linguiny spine pacifist wimps?
I don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable.
That's why I'm war weary, Mr. Limbaugh.
On the one hand, all the libs are out there saying that we um we don't sacrifice.
We're not making any sacrifice.
So how in God's name can we be war weary?
The same people say we need to sacrifice and we're not sacrificing, and in the same breath, they then claim that we are war weary.
War weary Americans?
This is the media to describing you.
This is the media.
This is a news story in which you are described as war weary Americans.
As if you have some kind of direct role in prosecuting this war, as though you're tired of being shot at.
Tired of spending times in military hospitals.
They are projecting their reality onto you and all of us again, and their reality isn't reality at all.
They may be war weary because they don't like war and because they're afraid that we might win this.
This is this is what I say when when when we have become a nation of pacifists, we delude ourselves as if we are suffering so.
Who among you who is not a member of a military family and hasn't been sent to any theater of military operations?
Who among you can say that you are suffering?
I want to hear from you.
I want to hear about the virtue of your suffering when you're not a military fan.
I don't hear the military families complaining.
I don't hear U.S. military people, we are weary of this war and we want to come home.
I hear the exact opposite.
They're frustrated, they want to be turned loose, they want to kick butt, they want to win.
I know many of them now.
I've gotten to know a lot of them.
I get email from them.
People are there now, people have been.
Now all of a sudden, average Joe six pack and his wife Mary Joe and the 2.8 kids and the white picket fence in the back and the two SUVs in a garage, are war weary and are suffering?
We got the economy chugging along, we are surrounded by luxury.
We don't even realize how good we have it.
We are so self-indulgent and we are so affluent that we can this is this is exactly what I mean when I say we have a generation here who has had to invent its own traumas to convince itself that it is living through tough times like our parents and grandparents did.
So now we are war weary, eh?
Oh, that's a morale booster.
You want to talk about war weary.
Talk to people who actually fight them.
And ask them what war weary is.
And you know what they'll tell you?
They'll tell you that war weary is being fed up with their morale constantly assaulted, with having to hear on the news that they're losing and that they can't win and that what they're doing is not worth it.
That's what war weary is.
War weary, I'm sorry, is not you sitting watching the evening news or a movie or going to a movie or whatever you're doing, or walking around in a mall feeling uncomfortable about it when you have no involvement.
Back in just that real that frosts me, folks.
This of all things I read last night.
It's time for this nation to grow up and become adults.
But it's gonna be hard to do with the liberals now running Congress, Oprah off in South Africa, spreading Oprahization to Africa now if she's done it here in America.
We got Dr. Phil out there and all these other touchy feel good things.
Anyway, a little break here, we'll be back.
I will collect and gather myself.
Tony Snow's coming up at the top of the hour, although I don't know what he can add.
You know, folks, I actually feel like shutting down and heading home, and what else is there to say?
Actually, I still have some things I haven't gotten to that I put down on paper last night, just notes to remind myself of things.
Plus we got Tony Snow coming up at the uh top of the hour uh next hour.
We'll talk to him uh in the in the opening segment about uh various aspects of this things that have happened in the White House too uh today.
I'm sure he'll have some uh new information for us too outside of whatever questions that I might have.
We'll take a brief time out here at the uh top of the hour.
Your phone calls, as I promised at the opening of the program, will be thrown into the mix here.
Um it'll happen sooner rather than later.
▲
Export Selection