All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 11, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:24
January 11, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
You're tuned to the most listened-to radio talk show in America.
It has been for quite some time and will always be until I leave.
And then it can't possibly be.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB network.
And the number if you want to be on the program today is 800-282-2882.
And if you want to go the email route, that is rush at EIBnet.com.
As promised, we have Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, on the phone with us.
Tony, how are you doing today?
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Well, I couldn't be better.
I'm doing well, and I hope you are too.
Let me start with a series of questions that I know a lot of people have, and then you can take it from there.
Why did it take so long to recognize the problems admitted to last night?
Why were these terrorist neighborhoods that were cleared not secured and instead abandoned, allowing terrorists to return as we moved on to other places?
Why did it take so long to recognize the need for more troops?
On and on and on.
What happened to bring about last night's speech?
Okay, a couple of things happened.
Well, the main thing that happened is you had an explosion of sectarian violence, primarily in Baghdad, but in other parts of the country as well.
And it really began to pick up during the months of August, September, October.
As recently as June, you had congressional delegations going to Iraq feeling pretty confident that things were moved in the right direction.
You had an election, you had a democratically elected government, and people were coming back saying, you know what, we think you may be able to be taking troops out of Iraq by the end of the year.
As a matter of fact, you may recall, Rush, that in some of my press conferences during the summer, reporters were saying, we hear that you're going to draw down to less than 100,000 troops.
We hear it's going to be 90,000.
Remember those conversations?
Those are a reflection of the fact that at the time, people thought, okay, things are moving in the right direction.
It became clear during the summer that the Samara mosque bombing way back in February had ignited the kind of sectarian passions that had been laying dormant for a long time, and the level of violence took off and took off rapidly.
There had been a couple of attempts to try to build a coordinated effort to create peace in Baghdad.
They were called Operation Forward Together 1 and 2.
In one of those, in the second one, the Iraqis promised to provide six police brigades.
They provided two.
There were not enough boots on the ground.
The U.S. approach at the time was, let's train up the Iraqis.
Let's put them in the lead.
Our guys will come in during the day.
At night, we'll return them to barracks, and we'll try to clear and hold neighborhoods.
Well, what ended up happening is we did not have enough people there.
So we could go out and clear out a neighborhood.
That wasn't a problem.
But our guys would go home at night.
You wouldn't have enough Iraqi forces to stay there and keep the area subdued so that you could go in and build businesses and so on.
So what would happen is neighborhoods would be quiet for a while.
The forces would leave and they'd get rowdy again.
So the president and a lot of key advisors were really actually pretty quick to pick up on it and said, we need to figure out what's going on here.
We need to fix it.
That led to a series of deliberations that really began late in the summer.
And during the fall, the president said, we need to put together, he basically said, I want everybody who's involved in this, from the intel to the defense sides, to take a good, hard look at it.
And let's figure out the way to fix this problem.
Because what we want to end up with is a democratic Iraq that can stand up on its own and also can help fight the terrorists side by side with us without American forces having to be there.
And that's how the president got into it.
So what ended up happening was in Baghdad, didn't have enough boots on the ground.
And furthermore, sometimes when our guys were going after bad guys, they'd get a phone call from a politician who'd say, nope, we don't want you to do it.
Back off.
Or he captured a bad guy.
You know what?
Family's friends of ours.
Let him go.
You can't do that.
It's not only demoralizing to troops, but the people in the neighborhoods, it sends them a message that law enforcement is incredible.
People are going after me.
I guess I'm going to have to pick up sides.
I think I'll go with the Mahdi army, or I think I'll go with a criminal gang, or I think I'll go with some Saddam rejectionists because those guys got guns and they can protect me.
Those are the choices people were forced to make because the law enforcement wasn't working.
So you've got to make the law enforcement effective.
Well, no question about that.
Is the number of troops we're sending sufficient to get this done now?
Yeah, look, the president isn't going to be suggesting an insufficient number of troops.
You've got to keep in mind how this one works, which is the Iraqis got to send the troops first.
So what we're talking about is a commitment of 50,000 or more Iraqis within Baghdad, supplemented by 30 or more thousand Americans, including the 20,000 who are going to be in there.
And there's the possibility of supplementary forces from time to time coming in to do special missions.
The point here is that you may have 70,000, 80,000 forces within Baghdad proper to deal with the business of building peace there.
That's a pretty credible and sizable force.
But the other thing that's going on now is that you're going to have people there 24-7.
You've got an Iraqi brigade, that's 3,000 or more, in each of nine districts.
You've got a U.S. battalion, 600 or so, that are working with them, and they're there 24-7.
They're going door-to-door, building confidence, but they're also going door-to-door if they have to, going after the bad guys.
And this is not something that is being crafted by political considerations.
The president asked the military guys.
By the way, everybody talks about the generals who oppose this.
The generals created this.
The generals are the ones who said, what troops do we need to fulfill the mission?
And what you ended up is the five brigade plan that the president laid out for Baghdad, plus an additional 4,000 Marines for Anbar province.
Okay, a couple more things.
Now, I don't want to put you in an uncomfortable position here, but you are the White House spokesman.
Yes, sir.
You've got an ongoing effort here by the Democrats to symbolically defund this particular surge or reinforcements.
And it's going to be symbolic because they're never going to get 60 votes in the Senate to approve of the defunding.
That's, Tony, that's going to lead them to hearings.
They're going to have investigations and hearings, and that's where the real war in this country is going to be fought.
And I mentioned this in the first hour.
I sincerely hope that the Republicans and whoever testifies before these hearings that the Democrats are going to call about the House and the Senate, don't go wimp on us.
I hope they understand what they're up and don't go defensive.
I hope they are able to stay on offense, and I hope you guys, I don't mean to sound this way, but I hope everybody there understands what's ahead here in these hearings and how important they're going to be into shaping public opinion about this.
There are two parts to it.
Rush, we absolutely understand.
And, you know, people who say that they oppose this and that they want to use financial measures, they've got to answer a question, which is, what is it going to be like?
Because this is going to be part of what they call a supplemental request.
This is a supplemental request for ongoing military operations.
What they're going to have to do is they're going to have to cut off all military funding.
And the question is, so do they really want to say to the people that they say they support, you know what, we've just cut off your ammunition, your fuel, your food, your clothing, your support.
Oh, they're not going to do that.
This is going to be symbolic.
They're threatening to, but you know they can't.
Well, if you're doing a symbolic resolution, the other thing you've got to ask yourself is, do you really think troops are going to say, man, I'm really glad they did that?
If you're supporting the troops, what message does that send to the troops?
And what message does it send to the enemy?
I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even do their resolution because they're going to realize that.
They're going to do everything they can to damage this war effort in their hearings.
But the thing is, Democrats now, you know, I've been in a lot of meetings with Democrats who say, look, we believe in success in Iraq.
Okay, so take that as your baseline.
Then the question is, if you believe in success and you don't like the plan, let's hear yours.
They're not going to do that.
They don't have one.
We saw their plan in the 90s, Tony.
This do nothing.
Their plan leads to 3,000 Americans dying in two hours.
Well, again, there's a burden of proof on both sides.
We understand that everybody's going to be watching.
And there's a lot of skepticism about the Iraqis.
The president's already laid his cards on the table.
This is what he thinks is necessary to succeed in Iraq.
And if people have better ideas, it's time to put them on the table.
Let me tell you something.
I know you can't respond to this.
I'm not asking you to.
But the Democrats we're talking about here are not interested in victory.
I can't find any evidence from anything any of them except Lieberman have said that they're interested in any success there, much less victory.
One more thing before I have to let you go, and that's Iraq and Syria.
The president said more about Iraq and Syria last night than he has.
There was some gulping in the throats of drive-by media and Democrats last night when he did this.
What's that about?
Well, I think it's pretty obvious.
Iran is busy trying to destabilize the government in Iraq.
And the Syrians are not being helpful either.
There are supplies moving from Syria into Anbar province.
We're going to cut those off.
That's part of the military operation.
And the Iranians, we've had a number of Iranian officials who have now been apprehended in Iraq, apparently trying to aid and abet those who are trying to kill Americans and destabilize the government.
And furthermore, they've been sending in some fairly advanced weaponry, new kinds of IEDs that are incredibly fatal.
So the question is, you know, we have got to make it clear to them that there's going to be a price to be paid.
Now, this does not mean that we're going to be rolling troops into Iran, but it doesn't mean that we don't have ways of making it clear to them that this is unacceptable.
And the other thing that's interesting, Rush.
Wait a minute.
How are we going to stop the movement of IEDs, other weapons?
Well, you can do that with military action within Iraq.
Yeah.
What is that planned?
Well, look, I'm not going to tell you exactly what or how things are planned.
We never answer questions like that.
Not even for me?
Not even for you.
And we're buddies.
Yeah, I know.
I wasn't asking for specific plans, but are there to do this, there's going to have to be what we call engagement.
Of course.
Of course.
And people who are look, the new rules of engagement are this.
If you are acting, quote, outside the law, that is, if you're part of a militia, if you're part of a criminal gang, if you're part of an armed outfit that is busy trying to go after Americans or disturb the peace, it is now, you know, you're not going to be saved by a politician's phone call anymore.
And that's the important thing to understand.
Are these politicians' phone calls coming from Iraqi politicians?
Yes.
Yeah, you're not.
Okay.
I was prepared to blow another gasket here.
No, Omadini Ashad is not placing phone calls into Baghdad saying open up the jails.
So, no, what you have now is look, the Iraqis realize that their survival is at stake.
And what's happening also is that there's political pressure on Prime Minister Maliki because the Iraqis are sick of seeing their own people getting killed because somebody thinks that bloodshed somehow serves their long-term political interests.
So people are getting very serious about this.
And what the president's saying is give this plan a chance to work, and we're going to know real quick whether the Iraqis are serious about it.
They're supposed to have one Army brigade into Baghdad by February 1st, two more by the 15th.
So people who say, you know what, we want to see them prove that they're serious, you're going to be able to see pretty quickly.
All right.
I appreciate your time.
It's always fun to talk to you.
What about one final question?
Trump or Rosie?
Well, I hear Rosie's leaving the show.
I guess Trump wins by default.
Is Rosie's leading the show?
I don't know.
That's been one of the.
This is one of these things where you just stand back and watch.
It's sort of grim and appalling, but you can't take your eyes off it.
That's exactly.
Tony Snow makes news.
Rosie leaving the pew.
We won't stake you to that.
Have a good day.
I know you're having challenging times, but you signed up for it, and I know you're ready for it.
You're doing a great job at it.
It's always a pleasure to hear from you.
Well, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
Thanks, Rosh.
Tony Snow from the White House.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back and roll right on after this.
And we'll get to your phone calls here, folks, in the next segment.
Maybe in the last few minutes of this segment, just a couple more things that I want to mention here in reaction to last night's program, and particularly something Tony Snow just said.
He reiterated.
We all know this, though.
He reiterated that whatever action that we plan against Iran and Syria does not involve invasions, does not involve troops or any other kind of military movement into either Iran or Syria.
And a lot of people are, why?
I mean, if this is the focal point of the war on terror and this is a wider war that we've got to actually deal with these countries at some point, why not do it?
Now, folks, there are some realities here that we have to face.
Elections have consequences.
They mean things.
And all of you people who thought it'd be best for the Republicans and lose to learn a few things, keep this in mind.
Elections have consequences.
Bush is in a position now where he just simply can't launch attacks against these regimes.
The Democrats just took the Congress.
The Democrats are threatening to cut off funds, even for a relatively small increase in troop levels.
They are threatening to cut off funds for reinforcements.
What do you think they would do if Bush launched attacks against Tehran and Damascus?
How many congressional Republicans do you think the president could count on to stick with him to prevent the cutting off of funds?
I can tell you right now, overboard would go Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snows, Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, John Warner.
Any number of them would go overboard.
And then we'd get the impeachment proceedings after they defunded Iraq.
You know, you could say this is something that should have been done a couple of years ago, but we have to deal with the here and now.
You can go back and play TiVo all you want, but all we can do is deal with what exists to now.
You might want to be able to criticize the president for not taking action or talking about these external threats, Iran and Syria, more often and over a long period of time, but he hasn't done that.
He started last night.
And I haven't heard any other politician in Washington do it either, including McCain.
Man, there have been a couple, but I mean, they're not prominent.
And I know this is what's so frustrating because we have the military power and the competence to stop all this right now, but we don't have the political will.
I mean, look at folks, can we be honest?
Again, the Democrats today are so craven in their demand for defeat.
It is an incessantly, increasingly loud demand for defeat.
They won't even support the president sending reinforcements to the troops on the ground, and they all at the same time claim that they support the troops.
And frankly, not enough has been done outside of talk radio to expose their sabotaging, and that's exactly what has been going on.
The Democrat Party has been sabotaging this war effort as soon as they felt comfortable making the move.
They were always going to.
It just required a little work in advance on part of their buddies in the media to start ginning up anti-war support.
And they could make it look like they were reacting to the American people.
That's what all those polls way back 2002, 3, 4, and 5 were all about.
Creating enough anti-war sentiment, Democrats could pretend that they were listening to the will of the people, when in fact it was all a strategy designed to give them the freedom and the opportunity to make statements which are for them honest and who they really are, no matter what the time frame.
So there has been an effort here to sabotage victory, and nobody talks about it.
They drew the line in Iraq years ago, and they drew the line in Iraq because they don't want us to win this war at any level, because they don't want us to win a war at any level.
They draw the line in Iraq because any successful military incursion, while George Bush is president, just dooms them in the future in one of their fundamental beliefs, and that is that the U.S. military is the focus of evil of the modern world.
They're doing the same thing when it comes to internal security from external threats.
That's why they've taken the ACLU's litigation agenda, adopted it as their own policy.
So anyway, I mean, I totally agree.
I understand we need to take out the Iranian and Syrian regimes, but it's hard to see how that's done when the Democrats, who would most certainly be joined by Luger and Warner and Collins and Hagel and Snow and Specter and several other Republicans, would cut the executive branch off.
That's the problem that we need to overcome now.
And I think I've got this figured out.
I think I know what's going to happen.
It's going to be left because we've got a Democrat Congress now with all the threats and all the hearings, all the investigations coming up.
It's going to be left to another Republican president, maybe 10 years from now, to take care of this.
It's going to fester all this time.
Democrats aren't going to take care of this.
We know how they deal with this.
And after these 10 years or so, that we get another Republican president, problems are going to have gotten worse after we've left, after we've gotten out of Iraq, after we are attacked again.
The reality will set in and not before.
And then we're going to have to go back.
We're going to have to go back somewhere.
Iraq, I don't know where, at a far greater cost to us and our allies in the region, such as they are.
It's going to be far more dangerous.
Right now, neither the Democrats nor some queasy Republicans or the public accepts generally the enormity of what we are dealing with, despite 9-11 having happened.
Which is what's so frustrating to those of us who see this clearly.
In fact, it may take a Democrat president to deal with this.
Years and years and years now.
Back in a sec.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, weariness, tumult, chaos, torture, humiliation, and even the good times here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Now, let me explain something to you.
When I said it may require a Democrat president to ultimately deal with the enormity of what we face, I don't say that because they are better.
They are not.
I say that because the Democrats, they will throw everything out in order to deny victory.
They'll do that at all costs.
They will go to take all costs to deny any victory to any Republican president because they put party and power above all else.
You think if Bill Clinton were president right now, they'd be they'd all be for the same things that they're going to be calling for pulling out.
Do you think they'd be conducting hearings against Clinton?
Do you think the anti-war movement would be as strident as it is?
Do you think John Conyers and Kennedy and all these guys would oppose supplemental funding requests for reinforcements?
Do you think that would happen if Bill Clinton or Hillary or take your pick if any Democrat were president today?
Of course it would not.
And guess what?
There wouldn't be any Republicans doing it either because the Republicans would join with the Democrats in facing the enormity of the problem.
They would support a Democrat president under these circumstances.
The Democrats simply will not do it.
They supported FDR.
They supported Truman.
They supported Clinton.
I mean, there was some talk about Republicans opposing Clinton when he used NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia.
But there were no resolutions, and there was no legislation introduced threatening cutting off funding.
The voices of dissent in Congress were in the minority, and there were hardly any public voices of dissent when Clinton was bombing the former Yugoslavia.
Anyway, that's my summation.
That's my total analysis and the reaction I wanted to share with you after last night watching some of the drive-by meetings.
Oh, there was one more thing in the drive-by meeting.
Howard Feynman, I guess he filed a story about an hour on MSNBC's website last night after the president's speech.
George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup.
Now, this stupid AP story last night talking about war-weary Americans, let me tell you what we're weary of, AP.
You.
We are weary of the drive-by media.
We are weary as Americans being deluged with a bunch of propaganda about how we can't win.
We are sick and tired of being treated every night to you people telling us you're not liberal and that you're totally objective and that you have no agenda when in fact you're aiding and abetting the Democratic Party and securing the defeat of this country because you are so desperate to secure the defeat of George W. Bush.
And that's what we're weary of.
And I know when I say that, I speak for gazillions of you people.
All right, to the phones.
We'll start in Tampa.
This is Hank.
You're up first today, Hank.
That's an awesome responsibility for the first caller of the day.
Don't blow it.
Well, not at all, Rush.
And it's an honor to speak to you.
And also, you hit a nerve when you talked about the war weariness.
Just because I'm not on the front lines, I am a Vietnam vet, as a matter of fact.
But at that time, it was the same thing happening all over again.
And yes, I'm war weary in this particular instance of having to foot the bill for all this stuff and having to pussyfoot around and play a little baby game of not letting these troops do their job.
You get out there and you let them go.
And all of them, the taxes continue.
You look at my payroll checks, payroll taxes and stuff, and it's killing me.
And we're getting none of the spoils of war.
We go over there and we win these wars if we win them because we're not being kow-towed by this government that's in here.
I don't know if you think they're so wonderful, but I'll tell you what, they're not doing the job that we put them out there for.
And it's the taxpayers getting hosed.
And that's where the war is coming because we're paying the paychecks to all these people out there that are trying to do the fighting for us.
And don't get me wrong, I feel really bad that we are even there.
And whatever happened, let's go in there, do our thing, and get the hell out.
Get out now.
Well, you're echoing the sentiments of millions of Americans.
That's why some people are encouraged by this change in tactics that was announced last night.
You know, there's no time limit, and there's no timeframe on wars, and there's, of course, no law that says you can't change tactics or strategy when you realize something's going wrong.
Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War was so depressed, he was convinced God had turned against this country.
He was devastated.
He thought it was hopeless.
He went through a month, I think, in 1863 or 64, where he thought it was absolutely hopeless.
It was Sherman, well, he got rid of McClellan.
It was Sherman marching through Atlanta all the way to the sea that changed things around, among many other things.
But, you know, if you sit there and say, and I sympathize with you, as you're Vietnam vet, so you're actually, you know, I wasn't talking about you're entitled to be war-weary.
You are military.
I don't care what war.
But I'm talking about people.
And really, I don't even know how many war-weary there are.
It's the drive-by media associating that with the American people.
They write in their stories that we are war-weary.
To the extent that we are, we need to be slapped around for a while.
We're living lives of luxury.
The war is not affecting us personally unless you're military or military family.
And to sit around, go, and you say that you're tired of the money.
I'm sympathetic to that.
But I'll tell you what, I am sickened.
Do you know that we spend every year twice on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid what we're spending in the entire defense budget?
And do you know how much fraud's there?
You know how much I feel being ripped off on all these other.
The military budget is a pittance compared to the whole budget.
And I am, you know, you can sit there and say your paycheck is being wasted or the paycheck, whatever, your taxes are being wasted because of this.
You better focus on where the real government money is being spent.
And you better focus on where it's really being spent inefficiently.
At least the money being spent in the U.S. military goes to the distinct constitutional purpose.
And your brethren and sister and your brothers and sisters in uniform over there are doing everything they can to defend and protect this country while half of this country is doing their best to sabotage them.
And if anybody's not being paid enough, it's them.
You want to talk about financial priorities all out of whack here?
We're about ready to bestow health care insurance on every illegal immigrant and child in California.
I'm sorry, California.
Yeah, we've got misplaced priorities.
They're a little bit out of whack, but not as you describe them, in my humble opinion, which is what the final opinion on this show is.
It's mine.
Brett in Reno, you're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine, sir.
I'm calling to say that we are winning the war in Iraq, and that Dick Durban even said so last night, and I'm here to point out his hypocrisy.
He said that we've enabled a Constitution, free election, as well as deposing the dictator and trying him in front of his own countrymen and executing him.
And then he had the golf to turn around and say that we are losing the war in Iraq, and the American people know it, and George Bush just admitted it.
You can get a soundbite from last night.
It was said.
I saw Turbin, and I've got a little soundbite here.
I didn't choose that one.
But look at the thing about, because I don't care in the substance of last night, since when do the Democrats get to respond to a presidential speech on revised military tactics in the middle of the war?
Now, we've already, I can understand responding to State of the Union or whatever the hell else.
But I mean, that just illustrated to the Democrats, this is a purely political matter.
Anybody think the president's fighting this war politically?
If the president were fighting this war politically, we'd be gone.
He'd have an approval rating of 68% on the way out the door to Crawford.
It's the Democrats who are fighting this war politically and demanding equal time last night is the surest evidence of it.
And who do they send out?
They send out the guy who called American interrogators no different than Pol Pots thugs, the guys that ran the Nazi gulags, the Soviet gulags in the Nazi prison camps and so forth, and all these other reprobate regimes around the world.
So he goes out there and he praises the troops.
You see, these guys know that they've got one foot in the quicksand on this.
So Turbin goes out there, praises the troops, talks about some of the great work they've done, and then says, but it's time to bring them home.
We're not ready to ramp this up.
It was, to my mind, it's pointless.
I know that many of you think it's not because it's relevant.
These people influence the American people, but I can only take so much of it.
You know, and I know what they're going to do before they do it.
I know what they're going to say before they say it.
I know these people, like I've said, countless times, like every square inch of my glorious naked body, and I'd rather look at that than live.
Back in just a second.
U.S. troops raided an Iranian consulate in northern Iraq late yesterday, actually late last night, and detained several people.
Iran's main news agency reported this.
This, of course, prompted protests from Tehran just hours after the president's pledge to crack down on Iran's role in Iraqi violence.
What happened here is that U.S. forces entered the Iranian consulate in Erbil.
That's in Iraq's Kurdish-dominated north.
They seized computers and documents and other items.
The report said five staff members were taken into custody.
So that little message sent to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Somebody said to me last night, I was emailed, I was an instant message flashing all over the country last night with people desperate to know what I thought.
And I was talking about action in Iran and Syria, and one guy said to me, you can't do it.
The president has not laid the foundation.
I said, I don't care.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has.
My gosh, if there's somebody who's laid the foundation for making himself a target, it is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
So don't kid yourselves about this, folks.
This is, you know, this guy's prattling along, either as an insane lunatic or he means it.
But one is the same as the other, if you ask me.
Mike in Fort Hood, Texas.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
Mega Fort Hood, 101st Screaming Eagle, 3rd Brigade, Raqqa San Dittos.
I just came back from Iraq.
God bless you, sir.
Welcome home.
Well, thank you very much.
I've been a longtime fan of yours.
Started listening to you right after I got back from the first Gulf War.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
Hey, Rush, I just wanted to make a couple comments.
It seems to me, I just came back, like I said, from Iraq.
I was in Samarra.
I was there when the Golden Mosque was blown up.
I was watching.
Yeah, tell me about that.
Who actually did that?
We were accused of doing it, but we didn't do it.
No.
Actually, I was at a checkpoint on the guard tower at the time, and several vehicles came screaming across the Tigris River at the time.
It turned out it was Al-Qaeda, and they had infiltrated the mosque area, which was guarded by police.
And there may have been some collaboration there.
Right.
So that happened in February of 05.
And this is what The terrorists blew this thing up intending to get us blamed for it, which succeeded for a while.
Absolutely.
And it did have the effect of reversing some really good success that was being made in the so-called sectarian violence.
What's the main point of your call here, Mike?
I'm sorry I distracted you.
Oh, that's okay.
One of the things I wanted to let you know that actually happened was that our rules of engagement changed.
And I feel like political correctness has crept into the Army, all branches of service, for that.
Well, there's no question about it.
Yeah, we had 13 different rules of engagement.
And I'm an NCO.
I'm experienced.
I've been in the military for a while, but you get some young private that's 18 or 19 years old, and they're told to perform a job, but they've got all these different rules of engagement.
They have to make a life-changing decision within a matter of seconds.
I understand.
Let me ask you a question about that.
Last night, the president addressed this in a way.
He did.
Are they substituted, do you think?
I hope so.
I pray to God.
If they'll just let us do our jobs over there the way we're trained to do, this war is definitely winnable.
Oh, of course it is.
That's what's got so many people frustrated.
It's winnable in any number of ways, including without putting more troops in there.
They could obsolete the place and genuinely show American power.
But that's not the proscribed way because we'd also take out a society.
We're not interested in taking out a society here.
We want to build one.
So, anyway, well, God bless you, Mike.
Thanks so much for taking time to call us so soon after you got back.
Chris in Vancouver, Washington.
Thank you for waiting.
You're next on the EIB network.
Mega Dittos, Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, I was just curious.
Last night the president mentioned Patriot missiles going into the theater.
I was wondering if this may indicate to you that possibly we know a strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities is imminent and will conveniently have the resources in place to stop any kind of response by Iran.
You know what?
I have no clue.
The idea of an Israeli strike on Israel is something that Israeli newspapers have said has been planned and so forth.
I try not to deal in analyzing these kinds of things before, especially when I don't have enough information or input.
Patriot missiles have many different uses.
To me, it's just another weapon that's being introduced.
It has a specific purpose.
But I don't think it's anything to do with Israel doing something with Iran.
It probably has to do with things coming from Syria and Iran into Iraq.
Mark in Moran, Pennsylvania.
You've waited a long time.
I appreciate it.
Hello.
You're welcome.
And I got to say, George Bush is a man's man.
He should have, there should be a poster out there with George Bush's head and Arnold Schwarzenegger's 25-year-old body.
Because I'll tell you what, George Bush is the only man in Washington that's standing up and doing the right thing.
We haven't been attacked since 9-11.
And if the Democrats, these pencil-neck waste of human life, would get on board, maybe our troops would be home already, as well as the UN, as well as France.
Maybe this damn war would be over if everybody would quit blaming us and just go in there and kick some ass.
And how can the Iraqi people be expected to stand up and say, okay, we'll fight, when the politicians made us bail out on them once?
Who are they going to fight when we're not there to protect them?
Well, you're making a dangerous error, a false assumption.
And if I heard you right, you are indicating to me that you think Democrats might be concerned about the Iraqis.
I don't know what they're concerned about.
They're concerned about power.
Concentrated power in the hands of a few.
Therefore, they are focused on themselves and their party.
It is a myth that liberalism is the ultimate in compassion.
It is not.
I got to go.
Quick time out.
Back after this.
Okay, on to other things in our next hour.
You can continue to call about Iraq and the president and the strategy if you wish, but I must move on, and you shall follow me.
▲
Export Selection