All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 17, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:09
January 17, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I am shocked.
I am shocked at you people.
Okay, so for the people watching on the Ditto Cam, at the top of the hour break, I turned on the bars and the color bars you see sometimes in a watching a television network and they screw up and they'll throw the bars up there.
Using to balance color and all that.
And I said some things are going to be going on in here that nobody is allowed to see.
I am literally stunned at what some of you people are accusing me of having done here in the top of the hour break.
A nooner having sex?
Come on, you what do you what do you think of me?
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh Excellence and Broadcasting Network, second hour of today's excursion into broadcast excellence underway.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, if you would like to appear.
Email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
During the break, I was uh was talking with uh with Snerdley when I finished the super secret stuff that I had to do here, and he was telling me that uh the editrix of the limbaughter, Diana Schneider, was just uh uh blown away all of these stories,
not just on PMS NBC and uh CNN and other places, but throughout the print media, the wire services and newspapers about about this whole panic mode they're in over 24, and the fact that it's a propaganda tool for neocons to try to frighten people into accepting Bush's policy and the war on terror in Iraq and so forth.
And every story she pointed out snurdly mentions me.
And Snerdley said, you know what the real thing is here?
They're probably look at what happened with the path to 9-11.
You said you happen to know some of the people behind it, and that's when the whole thing really blew up and the media went nuts, and now they know that you posted a review on your website and that you got the first eight episodes in advance, and you know some of the 24 people.
And that Rush, if you put these two things together, what it is, the left is simply panicked and livid that you, meaning me, I have infiltrated the movie business.
That may be the explanation.
They may think that I'm actually influencing and writing television and movie episodes uh in uh in Hollywood.
It's it's folks, I can't it's a hoot.
This is why I say uh we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here.
It is so easy to tweak these people.
It is so easy to agitate them and to irritate them.
All it takes is the inclusion of my name in anything, and all hell breaks loose.
By the way, the stories keep uh rolling in here about the destruction of the citrus crop in California.
Seventy-five percent of the citrus crop is gone.
The uh the governor out there, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has asked for federal disaster aid over this.
I got a call here from Mike in Sterling, Kansas, who wants to weigh in on it.
Mike, what you say about this?
Good afternoon, Russ.
Afternoon.
Pleasure to speak with you, sir.
Thank you, sir.
You know, they want to put a windfall profit tax on the oil because the price of oil has gone up so much.
If the citrus price goes up three times like they predict, are they gonna put a windfall profit tax on the citrus growers simply because of weather conditions?
You know, all I want from my government is hey, let's be consistent.
What is good for one should be good for the other.
Isn't that correct, sir?
You don't have to call me, sir, although I understand why you do it.
Uh that's hilarious.
A windfall, because the the citrus price.
Have you heard have you heard what people the experts say it could go up three to four times.
Oranges and limes and lemons and uh all these things that have been destroyed out there, primarily oranges and and and if three to four times, that will become a windfall profit if I have bad luck with my oil wells, I'm a small oil producer here in Kansas.
If I have bad luck with my oil wells, the federal government doesn't come in and help me out like they're gonna do the citrus growers or the farmers.
Um why is one industry better than the other or worse than the other?
Could this be class envy, would you think?
Um no, but it well, partly.
I mean, there are a lot of a lot of explanations for it.
It can't be said for one thing that oranges are causing global warming.
Uh the citrus growers probably don't have a CEO that makes 400 billion dollars when he retires.
Um The uh uh people don't need oranges.
They can take vitamin C if they want to.
You need oil, you need gasoline.
But it's it's more than that.
It's it is the citrus growers agriculture essentially is not yet a target of the left.
Uh it will be it will be as quick as they get all these ethanol plants online.
Here in Kansas are going to put like another 60 ethanol plants online, and they were talking about the amount of corn it was going to be required to feed these ethanol plants.
Well, when the price of corn flake go up because let me tell you something.
You know what I read about that the other day, uh, Mike?
Not only the price of corn gonna skyrocket, it's gonna cause riots in the Southern Hemisphere in uh Latin America and South America because the price of corn for them is gonna skyrocket too, and they don't have the money to withstand it.
That was actually a prediction.
I did the story here a week or two ago that somebody's actually predicting, in addition to the things you mentioned, riots in poor countries that need you know corn is is a food staple for many rather than a fuel uh provider.
Uh and of course, anything that causes the price of food to skyrocket like this, this is gonna cause the uh the uh the third world and poor peoples around the country to hate us even more because we're just you're gonna corner the corn market uh for our selfish needs to drive our cars while these people are going to be starving.
Well, people in the U.S., the the price of feed for the livestock, you know, for hogs and cattle and everything, because of the demand for the corn for ethanol, all that feed is gonna go up, the price of meat's gonna go up.
Well, they're absolutely right.
And so they're gonna pay it either at the oil pump for oil-based fuel, or they're gonna pay it at the grocery store for corn-based fuel.
Well, don't leave out the fruit.
Don't leave out the uh the profiteering that's gonna be going on in fruit.
Oh, and citrus.
So but so what you're saying is that the American consumer should brace himself uh uh for skyrocketing prices out there.
By the way, this windfall profits tax, it's not really a windfall profits tax yet.
That's not what they're proposing.
Uh the Democrats are proposing eliminating some tax breaks.
Uh and actually what they want to do is correct a clerical error made in 1999 during the Clinton administration that allows for some leases uh uh to be operated without any taxes being paid, and they think they can collect 14 billion dollars, and that's part of the 100-hour agenda, too.
The interesting thing is that their plan, as the Wall Street Journal editorialized yesterday, their plan is going to do nothing but increase our dependence on foreign oil by punishing domestic oil that is produced, domestic oil companies getting into what what any time you get a windfall profits tax and domestic oil or or or something like they want to do, you just cause the oil companies to shut down production of that which is being taxed at a higher rate, and they'll go get their oil.
They're worldwide companies, they will get their oil from other places around the world, which allows them to escape the windfall profits tax, but you, the average American thinks the oil company's getting really slammed and you like it.
Is anybody wonder?
Have you paid attention?
The oil price is fifty dollars a barrel.
The gasoline price in many states is under two dollars.
Self-serve regular is under two dollars, and the Democrats are proceeding with this as though we still have three dollar gasoline.
Mike, I want you to grab audio sound by 17.
I want to take you back to the campaign.
This was October 16th of 2006.
Claire McCaskill, who's the newly elected Democrat senator for Missouri, said this in her debate with the then incumbent Senator Jim Tallant.
Just look at the gas prices.
Look at the manipulation of the gas prices.
I'm not sure anybody in Missouri believes these gas prices are going down for any other reason than that we're having an election.
And I'm sure most people know they're gonna go right back up after the election's over.
That is because there are five companies that control all of the oil in this country.
Yeah, what th this was one of the most lame-brained comments this woman made, and she made many of them.
That's because there are five companies that control all of the oil in this.
Have you forgot about OPEC, Madam McCaskill and Caesar Chavez and the Iranians.
You know what's really going on?
The oil price did not go up, did it, after the election?
This is after the election.
The Democrats have just been sworn in.
They're running the House and Senate, and the barrel oil price is now around fifty dollars and it's been plummeting.
Gasoline prices are coming down.
She didn't know what she was talking about.
She doesn't know what she's talking about now.
Here's a theory for you.
Try this theory.
One of the dirty little secrets is that the Saudis, the Saudi royal family, are worried sick about this Mahmud Ahmadinijad.
They're worried about this nut case.
The Iranian economy is nothing.
The Iranian economy is struggling.
The Iranians need to import gasoline.
They don't have any refineries.
They're oil rich, but they can't refine it, so they are a net importer of energy products.
But they do produce a lot of crude.
One of the theories being bandied about is that the Saudis, largely in control of OPEC, are willingly, purposely purposely allowing the oil price to plummet so as to harm the Iranians economically.
You know, the world price plummets, and everybody that produces it is going to be paid that price.
And the Iranians are among those that produce oil, and their economy is shaking.
Saudis, the Royal Family got enough money to withstand whatever temporary reduction in price or drop in price happens here.
It's interesting theory.
But we'll keep a sharp eye out for the windfall profits tax on big citrus shortly after these prices start skyrocketing for the product.
Thanks for the call, Mike.
We'll be right back and continue after this.
As you people remember, one of the first items on the agenda for the uh Nancy Pelosi Democrat House was legislation to expand the use of human embryos for stem cell research.
They passed that legislation on January 10th, the week ago today, 253 to 174.
It has to go to the Senate and to the president will be vetoed, but well, hell, I can't say it'll be vetoed, but it's got a tough road ahead.
But there's one inarguable fact about about embryonic stem cell research, and that is in order for scientists to manufacture the stem cells that they want for research, the embryo must be destroyed.
Notwithstanding that, the new House Democratic leader Stanny Hoyer claimed that the Democrats' legislation did not seek to destroy life.
No, no, we're not destroying life.
We destroy those embryos.
Well, what are they doing?
Well, he insisted that their legislation preserved and protected life.
He said, We have a moral obligation to provide our scientific community with the tools it needs to save lives.
So you see, this is how the Democrats define moral obligation.
You snuff out the embryo, you slice it up, you smash it, you kill it, you wipe it out.
You don't even bury it.
Just wipe it out.
And then you save lives in the process, even though no research indicates that will happen yet.
Six days after the Democrats passed their bill, the AP, and you've heard about baby Noah, they ran this, they ran this headline, embryos saved after Katrina is born.
The long and short of the story was that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, they extraordinary measures were taken to rescue 1400 embryos frozen in canisters of uh liquid nitrogen at a New Orleans hospital, which was flooded and was sweltering.
Now one of those rescued embryos was later implanted.
And yesterday, in the early morning hours, a baby boy named Noah by his parents was born.
And of course, everybody was all warm and fuzzy and touchy feely and oh, oh, isn't that wonderful?
He named him Noah after the flood of control.
That was just wonderful.
And it was, it's a beautiful thing.
Don't listen to me, I'm not making fun of anybody here.
A lot of people congratulated the parents.
A lot of people were moved deeply and emotionally by this.
But what had to happen?
An embryo was not destroyed, folks.
An embryo was implanted.
Embryo became Noah.
I can only imagine that our newly elected friends of the Democrat Congress have to be unhappy here.
I mean, Noah was a potential tool to cure diseases, and Noah, Noah was just stolen right out from under him.
Stanny Hoyer ought to be flipped out today.
The minute Noah was born when he found out that there were 1400 of these frozen embryos.
Look at the possible research tools there.
And instead, one of them was saved and implanted.
We got a human being named Noah, a little boy.
You've seen his picture on TV.
What does he represent?
The denial of a research tool to the Democrat Congress.
If they were honest in what they actually say and believe, they would be outraged today that Noah exists.
Here's Paul and Redmond Washington.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Great to have you with us, sir.
Hey, Rush, thanks for having me on.
Appreciate all that you do.
Um, I just I appreciate what you were saying earlier that you basically told off the guy who said you ought to have uh a balanced show.
Um I I just get furious that what mainstream media time.
You know, one of the things that amazes me is um shows like talk radio and thought boomed because there was a market need for a balance to the mainstream media.
Yeah, but you have to understand liberals hate the market.
Liberals despise them because the market votes against them a lot.
That what do you think trying to control the judiciary is all about?
They don't trust to throw their ideas out there into the arena of ideas, let them be debated.
They have to control what happens if they lose elections on ideas.
They get judges in there to claim that various things are unconstitutional or whatever.
Uh they're they're not they don't trust the market.
The market is something that has to be fought as well.
That's what the fairness doctrine is all about with them.
No, that's exact that's exactly right.
And and uh, you know, I hear some comments like that, and I wonder if any of these folks have ever taken a basic economics course in college, you know, just to learn about uh uh basic market uh forces.
And I you know, I don't either either those they're so taken up with um, you know, uh angry response to, you know, how dare this this top radio and this conservative.
They understand economics.
The problem, sir, is that the uh economic education of the general population the last 30 years have been woefully inept.
They liberals, they know what they're doing.
I mean, they have they have to understand the market in order to come up with ways to uh sabotage it and subordinate it.
They understand it full-fledged.
Well, that's why they they under they understand uh well to a certain extent, they understand how the market works and they resent it.
Uh and they're really fit to be tied now because they tried, they think they tried to get Lib Talk Radio in the commercial market.
And it's bombed.
I don't care where it's been, there may be a couple places where they have two or three people that listen, but it's bomb.
Bankruptcies, station cancellations and so forth.
But when they got into the commercial market, they didn't even run it as a business.
They ran it as a fundraising operation.
They ran Liberal Talk Radio as a 527.
They ran it as a pack.
They went out and got donors and investors.
Uh and and every one of those people has lost their shirts.
And so they're doubly angry that they couldn't pull it off.
So since they can't do it, nobody can do it, and they want to shut everybody up.
Scott in Independence, Missouri, welcome, sir, to the program.
Hello, Rush.
Welcome from Kansas City.
Thank you.
Wanted to bring something up that uh my mind goes back to seven or eight years ago when uh then Governor Bush was running for president.
I remember the pundits on the left using a term gravitas.
And at the time I didn't know what the word meant.
Well, you didn't.
Grav gravitas was actually applied to Dick Cheney when Bush chose him as V because they thought Bush is a lightweight retard, you know, the college frat boy party guy, so forth, but Cheney gave the empty-headed Bush gravitas.
Wait, substance, you know, that sort of thing.
Who might Obama pick that would give him gravitas if uh he were to be the nominee?
Oh, no, no, no, no.
Obama is gravitas.
If you look up Gravitas of the dictionary, Obama's picture will be next to it.
Oh, I thought Senator Bird might give gravitas to that signal.
But he's experienced.
Now that would be a hoot.
Rush, appreciate the work you do.
Just wanted to bring that up.
Have a good day, sir.
You bet.
Thanks a lot.
So there's Obama picking a former member of the cake.
He'd be 90 years old.
Obama won't need any gravitas.
Susan Page, USA Today says that Obama reminds her and a lot of people of Ronald Reagan.
Our old buddy Z Z top there, EIB network, El Rush Ball, America's real anchor man, America's truth detector, doctor of democracy all combined one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
And Dave in uh Fair Hope, Alabama.
Uh wow, that's even better than Hope, Arkansas.
Fair Hope, where you are.
That's cool.
Welcome to the program.
Well, thank you for taking my call.
Yes.
Uh wanted to jump back, if I could, just uh a couple of segments ago where you were talking about twenty-four, and there are two things that struck me.
Um, first of all, uh you know I'd never seen the show, and I had worked, uh, have worked as a federal prosecutor down here in South Alabama, did so for four years, and flipped on the show the other night and was just engrossed by it and thought, well, finally you've got a TV show that's not sort of pussyfooting around the issues that we've we've had to deal with.
And uh the other issue was the the segment you ran with the guy from CNN or MSNBC talking about Roosevelt saying we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Yeah.
Unless my I'm off on my history, we've never had a Republican president round people up and throw them in a concentration camp.
And I I guess what I I just it infuriated me to think that you know you've got uh it it's pretty easy to to be fearless when you've got all your domestic enemies rounded up and put in internment camps.
That was the brilliant Craig Crawford uh that that made that uh comment that he was on PMS NBC uh late yesterday with the uh the anchorette contested uh contestant brewer, and he said, Yeah, if Franklin Roosevelt say when he when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, this administration says give in to your fear and let us protect you.
I mean, this this guy is is a hundred and eighty degrees out of phase.
If anybody wants anybody to give their lives over to them, it's Democrats and liberals wanting the people of this country to give their lives over to the state.
And for this guy, you you're you you're you're right.
Republican presidents do not well, the liberals would say disagree with you though they would say, what about Abu Ghrab?
And what about all these prisoners that are being uh held without being charged?
Um and so forth.
Well, these are not American citizens.
Correct.
These are enemy combatants.
These are the enemy and so forth.
And notice who it is that the left champions here.
Exactly.
And it's it's it's just frustrating to sit back and watch the farther and farther we get away from the September eleventh attacks, that people just tend you know, it's like I don't want to say water off a duck's back, but it's just you know, another day, and we're not worried about it, and that's what struck me about that 24 show was you know you've had your movies and TV shows about Tim McVeigh and right-wing nuts, and finally you've got somebody addressing uh who we're fighting.
Well, this is their this sixth season of this, and uh all but one of those seasons have dealt with uh Islamic terrorists last year was uh Chechens and a corrupt administration, which still has yet to be dealed with uh dealt with this season.
I can tell you that will be.
I cannot and won't tell you how.
Um but look, keep keep watching you know, Dave, the the thing about twenty-four is everybody's gonna take whatever they want from it.
Uh the producers are not trying to get anybody to form any conclusion.
They're written, they just they want people to watch it.
They want people to enjoy it.
Draw from it what you uh what you will.
If that's how you interpret it, fine and dandy.
I'll guarantee you the libs are scared to death that that's how people are interpreting it.
Um look at there's no question Al Qaeda is our enemy.
Militant Islamists are our enemy.
What is it that so worries the left?
What is it that so worries the Democrats about that Fact appearing in a television show.
What is it that bothers them so much?
You answer that, and you will have come along.
I can answer it for you, but at some point, you are going to have to do some of the work here.
Answer that quote what in the world is so frightening to the left of the Democratic Party about a TV show that portrays our actual enemies.
And what they do around the world.
Why is that such a threat to them?
Mark in Finley, Ohio, your next sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Well, thanks for taking my call, Rush.
I was just sitting here listening to your show.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, about fifty years old.
And uh George Bush was the first Republican I had ever voted for.
And that's breaking the mold coming to where we're at.
But uh I I just heard on the news today that George Bornevich, a Republican senator, is throwing up some roadblocks for this uh surge that the president's proposing in Iraq.
That's true.
Now I just don't understand.
Well, I guess I do understand.
But here again, being a Democrat, uh I know what Bush is trying to do.
He's trying to protect us.
It has nothing to do with being a Democrat, Republican.
So why?
Why is it so doggone complicated in this mess?
Um fear.
They are going to be running for re-election someday, and Bush isn't.
They're looking at polls and they see polling data that tells them that Bush is hated by sixty percent of the country and disliked by another ten percent, that his policies are not supported at all, and they don't have the guts to rally around the president because they think doing so will seal their fate and doom them to defeat.
What they don't seem to understand is that if they lose Boinovich, one of whoever, and there's a bunch of people, it's not just Voinovich, I'll give you the list here in just a second.
Uh, but if it if if they if if if if they lose their their primaries or their general elections, it's going to be because Republicans defect.
Ask Mike DeWine in your state.
Well, I know we had uh a big shakeup in Ohio, and that was due to a lot of crazy things that went on here, but governor that was uh screwed up things, but here are the other here are the other Republicans.
You got Sam Brownbeck of Kansas, you've got the ever-predictable Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
You have Norm Coleman of Minnesota, you have Gordon Smith of Oregon, Voinovich, as you mentioned, and of course the two reliable, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.
Those are the seven, at least seven Republicans have said they flatly oppose the troop increase.
There will be a troop increase.
Some of the troops are already there.
This is a symbolic resolution that has no s no no force really behind.
They're not going to defund this.
This is just getting themselves on the record for future elections.
And this, by the way, thank thanks for the call out there, Mark.
It's great to uh hear from you and and and to hear a Democrat speak as you did.
It is refreshing.
And it provides hope that it can happen.
Tony uh blankly today, a brilliant piece in the Washington Times.
It's entitled Vulture Politics.
And we talked about this column that he references the day the column came out.
David Ignatius, highly esteemed journalist of the Washington Post, wrote a revealing column last week based on an extensive interview with Democratic congressional leader Rob Emanuel.
In fairness to both Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Ignatius, I'm going to quote the noteworthy last two paragraphs in full and unedited.
And these are they.
And here's what Emanuel doesn't want to do.
Fall into the political trap of chasing over-ambitious or potentially unpopular measures.
Ask about universal health care, and he shakes his head.
Four smart presidents, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton, tried that and failed.
That one can wait.
Reform of Social Security and other entitlements.
Nope, too big, too woolly, too risky.
If the president wants to propose big changes to entitlements, he can lead the charge.
Here's the second paragraph of Ignatius'piece.
The secret for the Democrats, says Rahm Emanuel, is to remain the party of reform and change.
The country is angry.
It'll only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen.
Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq.
It's Bush's war.
And as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.
End quote.
Mr. Emmanuel's thoughts in the first paragraph expressing an intent for the two years of the 110th Congress to avoid dealing with the biggest domestic problems, health care financing and social security.
While far short of heroic leadership, at least falls within the zone of conventional practical hack politics.
Talk about change and reform, but don't do anything.
Although it is quite something to read that Mr. Emmanuel's Democratic Party plans to let the first two years of their congressional majority pass without even trying to address the health care financing mess about which the Democratic Party has for long for so long spoken about so loudly and so earnestly, regretfully, too routinely.
Both parties fail even to aspire to genuine leadership, so be it.
But it is that second paragraph that sits up and grabs one's attention.
With America at war, and our troops dying regularly in battle with greater national danger and death in prospect.
Don't look to Emmanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq.
It's Bush's war, and as it splitters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces.
This is vulture politics.
It is so far from respectable that it brings to mind the admired liberal twice Democrat candidate for president against Eisenhower, Adley Stevenson's definition of patriotism.
What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times?
I venture to suggest what we mean is a sense of national responsibility, a patriotism which is not short, frenzied, outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
Emanuel's Democratic Party is so bereft of a sense of national responsibility, he apparently feels comfortable brazenly telling the Washington Post that his plans for his party is not even to try to stop things from getting worse in Iraq so they can pick up the political pieces afterward.
And that nails it.
That's exactly what they're doing.
You can talk, and it just infuriates us all the more when these idiot Republicans join this charade.
The Democrats don't have a plan for Iraq, and they don't intend to have a plan.
They have exactly what Emmanuel said.
They're gonna let it fall apart.
They hope it falls apart as bad as it can.
And they are the vultures and they'll sit around and pick up the pieces.
And of course, we have brave, courageous Republicans who want to get on board with opposing victory.
Opposing the effort for victory.
This, by the way, is understood in some quarters.
Mike Lupica, known as the Lip, at the New York Daily News, is their sports columnist.
But lo and behold, today he has a column with nothing to do with sports.
He has a column on all the Democrats do is talk, talk, talk, but do nothing about Iraq.
And it's quite simple because he misunderstands his boys.
He's a Democrat.
He's a very big liberal as most journalists, whether they're in sports, food, movie, and television, but every journal, the vast majority of them are lives, especially in sports.
It's almost 100% libs.
And he doesn't understand his team.
Doesn't understand his boys.
I'll explain it to him and you when we come back.
It's a great song to listen to at 5 o'clock in the morning.
Lowdown and Buzz Skaggs.
And we're here at the EIB Network.
All right, Mike Lopica, the Lip.
I call him that because he's got a column in the Sunday Daily News in New York called Shooting from the Lip.
All these Democrats do is talk talk talk.
Talk today about Sergeant Liam Madden, kid from Vermont, joined the Marines after Hascruel, ended up in Anbar Province, says that you can be a good Marine and a good American and still want Our war in Iraq to stop.
Talk proudly about Madden of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Took a petition signed by more than 1,000 just like him to Congress yesterday, who, just by walking up the steps of the Cannon House office building, did more than big Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are doing these days.
Clinton would rather be photographed with soldiers than doing anything for them.
The other day on Face the Nation, Obama looked like he wanted to hide under the desk.
When Bob Schiefer asked if he backed Senator Edward Kennedy's bill that would require congressional approval to fund the troop increases the president has planned.
Now, one of the reasons Kennedy can do what he wants at this stage of his career is because he's got nothing to lose.
Clinton and Obama are different.
They are the headliners of the party in power now, but all they do is talk and talk, but say nothing meaningful about Iraq.
Tells you everything about how much both of them want to be president, no matter what kind of mess they would inherit in Baghdad.
This isn't about ideals with them as much as ambition.
Maybe they can explain to the people on the ground now how important it is for them to find a safe place in this debate.
Madden says, I I'd tell you that the Democrats are talking good game, but they're not even doing that.
Everybody in Congress has to understand something.
If they continue to fund this war, it's not just the president who owns it, they own it too.
Now, uh what the Lupica goes on here to uh speak glowingly about the appeal for redress as yesterday's document is officially called.
It was signed by thousands of active duty military and National Guardsmen and other reservists.
And it was taken up to Washington to uh add pressure here to the Congress and administration to pull out.
Just get out of this, isn't it?
Not going anywhere, it's silly, it's stupid.
Now, Lupica has, you know, I I I guess he has some expectations, much like the kook fringe left out there in the liberal blogosphere have.
And that is the Democrats actually mean what they say.
They ran on, we're gonna get out of Iraq.
They have no intention of pulling us out of a rock.
And the Mike's piece here may indicate that more and more Democrats are wake.
Wait a minute.
This is just talk.
It's just talk.
They're not going to do anything.
In fact, we know they're not going to do anything because Rom Emanuel says so.
They're gonna sit around and let the whole thing fall apart just as badly as it can and try to distance themselves from it with their rhetoric by saying they opposed it, but they're not gonna do it.
They want it to get as bad as possible.
That means you have to include as getting as bad as possible, whatever.
Risks, dangers, accidents, deaths befall uniform personnel.
The liberals, the Democrats seem perfectly content for all that to happen.
So Mr. Lupica, I think he does partially understand, but it's a rude awakening.
We're talking vulture politics here.
It's about power.
It's not about solutions.
The idealists in the left of the Democratic Party have been fooled again, as m many of them always are.
The Democrats in power, because they thought they were going to really get in there and force Bush, pull everybody out.
Now they learn that there's no effort to do that at all.
Just a bunch of meaningless resolutions.
Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk.
What you have to realize, Mike, is it's not because of fear.
And it's not because they're afraid to do anything about it.
It's a strategy.
It's a strategy oriented toward making sure this mess gets as bad as it can, so that Democrats can run for the office of president and everywhere else in 2008 and score huge.
It's vulture politics, it's cynical, and this from the people who claim they support the troops.
Before we go to break, a warning for you, a little disclaimer on the video of the 24 Heritage Seminar from last June that we're going to put on our website.
The heritage video was not the best quality.
We eventually replaced it with a C-SPAN version, but we got a lawyer's letter from C-SPAN because they sell a DVD of this of their video for 2999, which is war profiteering, according to Craig Crawford of Gentleman's or Congressional Quarterly or whatever.
So we had to take down the C SPAN version of the video.
The video we have works.
It's just not the best quality, but there is audio if you don't like the video, and you've got to read transcript as well.
▲
Export Selection