All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
January 23, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh, you know, Snowdly, I still can't find anything on that.
PMSNBC all over the place the last half hour with the story that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, in his opening argument, has really come down hard on Cheney, that Cheney was responsible for the leak to Libby and told Libby to destroy a piece of paper or some such thing.
And I'm in getting this sporadically.
It's being treated as a bombshell.
And of course, everybody said, well, wait a minute.
If Cheney did this leak, we all thought it was Armitage.
If Cheney really did this, why wasn't he indicted?
Why isn't he at least an unindicted co-conspirator?
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It is the Rush Lindbaugh program, this The Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Happy to have you with a little hoarse, ladies and gentlemen, up very, very, very late last night.
And I'm a little hoarse because of that.
So bear with me.
We have lots of stuff to do on the program today.
Present State of the Union is tonight.
We get audio soundbites about that.
General Petraeus has been testifying all morning today about the surge in Iraq, and it is most revealing.
It is incredible, particularly when you listen to him and then look at the, it seems, the rising tide of opposition from the Democrats on this committee and even some Republicans.
We will go through that.
Al-Qaeda and Ayman Al-Zawahiri mocked President Bush's plan to send 21,000 more troops to Iraq and said, just send the entire army.
Why don't you send the entire army?
You're going to lose whoever you send, so why don't you send the whole army?
We'll beat you no matter how many you send.
We have that audio soundbite coming up as well as the fact that I wonder if this would change a Democrat's attitude about anything.
Mimicking the hijackers who executed the September 11th attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al-Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.
Lieutenant General Michael Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of his safe house, believed to house Iraqi members of al-Qaeda six months ago, revealed that al-Qaeda in Iraq was planning terrorist operations in the United States.
Several sources told ABC News the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas, the identical method used by the 9-11 al-Qaeda terrorists.
There were 19 of them.
For the Democrats, probably another reason we should leave.
Oh, no, they're coming out.
Let's get out.
It's amazing.
Let's get to General Petraeus first.
This is really interesting.
I'm watching his testimony this morning.
It was tough to find.
It's on C-SPAN 3, and the networks jipped it now and then.
They didn't go wall to wall with it.
His strong and compelling stuff that he said, he got a question from McCain.
Basically responded to the question by saying that a congressional resolution of disapproval will not have a beneficial effect on the troops.
And then Lieberman pushed a similar line of questioning, this time on the effect of a Senate resolution would have on our enemies.
And, well, you just have to hear this.
Here's Lieberman's question.
I want to ask you, what effect would Senate passage of a resolution of disapproval of this new way ahead that you embrace?
What effect would it have on our enemies in Iraq?
This is a test of wills at the end of the day.
And in that regard, speaking purely as a military commander, if confirmed, albeit one who frankly does understand enormously and treasures the value of free and open debate, free speech, who has put himself in harm's way to protect those great features of our democracy.
Nonetheless, having said that, a commander in such an endeavor would obviously like the enemy to feel that there's no hope.
And a resolution, a Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy at Iraq, would give the enemy some encouragement, some feeling that, well, some clear expression that the American people were divided.
That's correct, sir.
You understand the impact of this, ladies and gentlemen.
Lieberman basically asked a question to which Petraeus' answer was, yeah, you do this resolution.
Well, we love free speech here, and we defend it, open debate, this sort of thing.
But you do this resolution, and you are giving hope to the enemy.
You are extending hope to the enemy.
You know something, folks?
As I listened to Lieberman today, I couldn't help but compare him to these Republicans who are now wandering off the reservation for whatever their reasons.
I mean, we can discuss that, cowardice, fear, principle, whatever, whatever their reasoning is.
But, you know, if these Republicans weren't wandering off the reservation, I wonder it's probably a long shot.
Lieberman wouldn't change parties, but it would be a little bit easier for Lieberman to come full board on our side of things here if there weren't Republicans wandering all over the place.
By the way, Petraeus was being praised by everybody here, including Senator Kennedy.
But you have to listen to what he said.
He's saying that he believes we can win, but he needs the additional troops with a new strategy to win.
And he's saying a congressional resolution of disapproval would send a harmful message to the troops and a hopeful message to our enemies.
You know, McCain asked him if we send Petraeus over there.
We send you over there, sir, but don't send you any additional troops.
Can you get your job done?
He said, no, sir, I can't.
I need the additional troops.
And so we're going to have this resolution.
We're probably going to get this resolution.
We're going to get the troops, have the resolution sent, and it's going to demoralize the troops, according to Petraeus, and give hope to the enemy.
And this guy has unimpeachable integrity on both sides of the aisle.
So to the left, I mean, we simply say here, give Petraeus and give victory a chance.
Are you so committed to American defeat here that you won't even allow Petraeus the opportunity to win?
I mean, look, they are invested in defeat, and they're really feeling their oats here.
Got the State of the Union coming up tonight.
When this news gets broadcast about Patrick Fitzgerald opening argument today about Cheney, it's going to be a feeding frenzy.
You're going to see headlines.
Maybe they're out there already.
Bush fighting for political life, not just Iraq.
Bush fighting for survival in Washington.
The last two years of his administration going into the State of the Union tonight.
By the way, as far as the State of the Union is concerned, tax increases on your health benefits, ladies and gentlemen.
Have you heard about this?
Yes, here's how it's going to work.
The average benefit, and 150 million Americans have health insurance through their employers.
And right now, that's a benefit.
It's income that's not taxed.
You don't see it, but that's what it costs the employer to pay you.
And so you're not taxed on it.
And I knew that.
I've been predicting.
I can't tell you.
I just didn't know a Republican would come up with the idea, but I've been predicting this for the longest time.
Here's the deal.
Average American health care plan, 150 million of you supposedly have your health care paid by your employer, which is it's being paid by you.
You just never see it.
Bottom line is, is $11,500.
The tax will be on employee benefits over $15,000.
And there are some of those.
The average is $11,500.
So, for example, if it costs your employer $17,000 for your health care plan, you will pay a tax on $2,000, every dollar above the $50,000.
Now, oh, it's not bad, Rush.
You know what happened with Social Security when it started out versus where it is.
You know what happened to the income tax when it started out versus where it is.
It won't be long before that $15,000 is down to 10 and then down to 8.
Once they start increasing taxes, folks, I told you two weeks ago we are probably living at a moment where our taxes will never, ever be lower than what they are.
In addition to that, the president is going to propose a 20% reduction in the use of gasoline.
How's this going to happen?
Well, they're going to raise the cafe standards.
We went through that in the 90s with Clinton and raised the cafe standards and promote conservation and alternative fuels and the like.
No mention of the speed limit.
Gosh, I hope I don't do that.
And by the way, there's no, I can't find it.
I haven't seen the text of the whole thing.
I can't find any added impetus to start drilling for our own oil.
Democrats want to prevent that wherever and whenever they can, while claiming that they want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Your phone calls are coming up as well as the audio sound bites and lots of other stuff in these stacks.
Sit tight.
You know, all these at the General Praeus hearing today, all of these pro-resolution senators, all these pro-resolution people are insisting that their resolution of disapproval will not demoralize the troops, nor will it encourage the enemy.
No, of course not.
No, no, no, don't.
That's not the purpose of our resolution.
Our resolution won't do that.
It won't hurt the war effort.
We still support the troops.
We are.
We are.
We want to win.
We want to win.
And they do.
But we're not going to give the enemy any hope.
They're protesting too much.
They know what they're doing is wrong.
They know what they're doing is ill-timed.
Here for, you know, as we make one push for victory.
And I'll tell you something else.
The Lieberman line of questioning has really agitated him because it's flushing them out.
You know, I mean, Lieberman, on the Democrat side, especially, the only guy who asked, what, is this resolution going to hurt your effort?
You know, that's not supposed to question these people.
And Lieberman's doing it.
And I'll tell you, he's going to be savaged on these kook fringe blogs like you can't believe.
Here's the Cheney story.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald used his opening statement in the CIA leak trial today to allege that Vice President Cheney's chief of staff lied and destroyed a note showing Cheney's early involvement.
Fitzgerald said that Cheney told his staff, Scooter Libby, in 2003, that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and Libby spread that information to reporters.
When the information got out, it triggered a federal investigation.
When the FBI grand jury asked about what the defendant did, Fitzgerald said he made up a story.
Fitzgerald alleged that Libby in September 2003 destroyed a Cheney note just before Libby's first FBI interview when he said he learned about Wilson from reporters, not the vice president.
Fitzgerald told the jurors that that clearly was a lie because Libby had already been discussing the matter inside and outside the White House.
You can't learn something on Thursday that you're giving out on Monday, Fitzgerald said.
Libby says he didn't lie, but was simply bogged down by national security issues, couldn't remember details.
I still remain confused over this.
There was no crime.
Fitzgerald did not charge anybody in this leak.
This is a process crime.
Now he's alleging in an opening statement that Cheney's deeply involved, but Cheney's not indicted.
He's not even an unindicted co-conspirator.
So what goes on here?
Okay, he says there's a note that Libby destroyed and so forth, but it was Armitage that was the leaker.
And this was known a week after Fitzgerald took the case.
And it was also known that she was not covert.
Otherwise, he could have charged Armitage or whoever with a crime for this.
So while no crime was committed, we got Libby accused now of destroying a note that Cheney was more deeply involved in this than anybody knows, but he's not indicted.
He's just being savaged in an opening statement by Patrick Fitzgerald.
We, of course, will keep a sharp eye on this.
Let's see.
To the phones, we'll start with Greg in Worcester, Ohio.
Greg, thanks for waiting and welcome to the program.
Hey, how you doing, Rush?
Hey, never better, sir.
Thank you.
I want to say, Rush, I want to ask you a question here.
Yeah.
Why do you push so hard for this New World Order agenda when they sent people to Iraq to die by the hundreds?
It seems like every day.
And all these Iraqis that suffered and lost their lives for this war, that's unjust.
And will you stand with me and take a stance and join the Resistance Manifesto against this war?
No, I will not.
No, I am not going to join you in the defeat of the United States of America.
I'm not going to join you in your distortion of what is happening in Iraq.
If you're so concerned about death, will you join me in banning the automobile?
If you're so concerned with death, will you join me in holding doctors accountable for poor writing?
Faulty prescriptions lead to 7,000 deaths a year.
If you are so concerned about death, will you join me and ban emergency rooms where many, many people die every day?
You, sir, are an embarrassment to me.
You are an embarrassment to the country.
You have a brain, but you don't even use it.
It's a sponge for a bunch of anti-American garbage and guilt that you soak up, and then you spew it back, making yourself feel important and big and better and smarter than everybody else.
When the truth is, if people like you ever end up in control of the country, we are finished.
You will give it away in order to make yourself feel good that you are against death.
3,000 Americans died in two hours on September the 11th.
You have forgotten who did it.
You have forgotten that they want to continue doing it, or you don't believe it, or you think we are to blame for it, or what have you.
But I'm not going to join you in any move that would ensure the defeat of the United States military and this country.
Tawana in Atlanta, you're next.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
What the hell is going on?
Are you being attacked out there?
I'm here.
Where are you?
I'm in Atlanta.
Are you in the men's room at Hartsfeld?
The noise out there was incredible.
Sorry.
Anyway, can you hear me now?
Yeah, I hear you now.
Yeah, I don't even want to know what was going on.
It might be obscene.
Sorry.
Yes.
Well, my point is, in light of what the president plans to talk about tonight and adding it another element of government growth, you know, Rush, I've been a card-carrying Republican since Reagan, and I am completely bamboozled by this guy.
I don't know where he stands on the conservative issues.
And to be honest with you, let's just say that the minority in the Congress and the Senate comes up with a plan to try to win in 08.
It seems to me they're going to have Bush to overcome.
I'm so irritated by this.
I'm having trouble.
If the minority in the Congress and the Senate come up with a plan to try to win in 08, you mean the elective office or some piece of legislation?
No, if they try to take back the Senate and the House of Representatives in 08, you know, their Republican base is still having to look at what Bush is doing to increase government.
Have you noticed a trend out there, though, Twana?
Have you seen what's happening in California to Arnold Schwarzenegger?
Do you know how seductive liberalism is?
Here's Arnold Schwarzenegger giving away the state, giving away the farm, health care benefits and insurance for children of illegals, paid for with tax increases called loans.
Of course, the Democrats out there are applauding this.
Liberalism is seductive as it can be.
When you're in government, your job is to spend money.
And when you have unlimited amounts of it to throw around, it's a temptation, I guess, that some can't resist.
But this business of taxing benefits, I'm surprised it's taken this long to do it.
It is an income, and you are not being taxed on it, and we aren't.
There are a lot of other circumstances where this kind of thing does result in independent contractors and so forth having to pay tax on it.
It's treated as income.
Like, for example, a gift, the maximum you can gift anybody in a 12-month period, I think, is now $12,000.
It may go to $13,000 this year.
Anything above that, you pay a tax on.
You got an exemption of so much for your life, but if you surpass that, the tax rate on gifts over there is 49%, something like that.
So there's precedent for this.
I'm just surprised that it's taken this long.
As far the effect on Republicans and their electoral chances in 08, it's not just the president who has wandered off the reservation on some of these things.
Back in just a second.
Thank you.
This I know.
It's Rush Lindbaugh, the EIB Network, America's real anchor man here on the radio, a real radio announcer here at 800-282-2882.
Do you people know that this is National No Name-Calling Week?
It is.
It is National No-Name-Calling Week.
It's an annual week of educational activities aimed at ending name-calling of all kinds and providing screws with the tools and inspiration to launch an ongoing dialogue about ways to eliminate bullying in their communities.
It's January 22nd through the 26th, National No-Name-Calling Week.
That means Democrats are going to be hard-pressed to respond to President Bush's State of the Union address tonight.
They're going to violate National No-Name-Calling Week.
And of course, if the Libs abided by this, we get a week off from being called Nazis, racists, bigots, homophobes, and the like.
Sexists as well.
Here is Matt.
He's on the phone from Wiesbaden, Germany.
Matt, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
You bet.
Rush, I'm a member of the military, and I have to go along with, I totally agree with General Petraeus that if the resolution against the president's, even though it's a non-binding resolution against the president's decision to send more troops to Iraq, I believe that would help our enemies.
I was wondering if anybody would possibly propose in the Senate a resolution that we actually defeat our enemies as opposed to one that hogties the president.
You know, that is an excellent point.
Where is the resolution's godspeed, U.S. troops, in your new mission?
Godspeed, Mr. President.
Where is the unity of purpose on this?
Where is the resolution demanding and supporting victory?
Of course, there have been a couple.
I just returned from Iraq back in September.
And I can tell you that the troops, we see the, I mean, we get Armed Forces Network over there.
We see bits and pieces from Fox News Channel, from CNN, from MSNBC.
And the troops are a lot more informed than everybody gets them credit for.
And we take all the criticism to heart.
We really do.
Yeah, no, I was stunned.
I went to Afghanistan two years ago next month.
And all three cable news networks are in all the mess halls and rec rooms.
They're everywhere I went on every base.
And, you know, the question I got from troops in Afghanistan at the time was, well, how come they're not talking about us?
They're always whining and moaning about Iraq because at the time, Afghanistan had quieted down and there was no bad news there.
And that's what I told them.
But look, there were a couple resolutions here, Matt.
After 9-11, the Democrats demanded one additional one showing that they were tough on crime and they're tough on terrorism and they supported the war on terror and blah, But as usual, they pull out.
The going gets tough and they scram and they head for the tall grass and they do engage in these resolutions.
Now, there's some Republicans joining them too, but it's the Democrats who got this started.
And it is, I mean, if you're not going to believe General Petraeus, who are you going to believe?
And this guy is universally praised on both sides of the aisle.
And he says this resolution is giving the enemy hope.
So why isn't there a resolution for victory?
Matt, are you still there by any chance?
Yes, I am.
Are you listening on Armed Forces Radio or on the web?
Actually, I'm listening on Armed Forces Radio, so I get my one hour a day.
Oh, I appreciate that.
Now, look, I want you to listen to the next call, because if you're infuriated by this resolution, listen to this next call.
In fact, you know what I'll do?
I'll put you on hold so you can listen to it on hold.
Do not get rid of Matt.
I want him to be able to.
Are you listening to the program live right now or is it delayed on our?
No, it's actually live right now.
We get the first hour.
In Germany, we get the first hour live.
Okay, they do it.
Well, okay, then you'll just keep a radio on and listen to what's coming next, okay?
Yes, sir.
Thank you much for the phone call.
I appreciate it.
God bless you and Godspeed.
Thanks for your support, Rush.
You bet.
And now on to Sholo, Arizona, which is one of my all-time favorite names for a town.
I love Sholo, Arizona.
This is Mike.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you on the program.
Mega Ditto's Rush, and God bless the soldier who was just on.
I'm calling in regards to an article that's on the front page of Foxnews.com, and it's titled GIs Wanted Mats, but Got Insults Instead.
Basically, what happened was some GIs requested some floor mats so that they could sleep on from a big company called Discount Mats out of Wisconsin.
And they got a response back from them after they requested these mats to sleep on.
And the response was, we do not ship APO addresses.
And even if we did, we would never ship to Iraq.
If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.
Bargain SuppliersDiscountmats.com.
Yes, I have that story right here.
I'm holding it on nicotine, formerly nicotine stay in Kingdom.
Despicable.
Well, let's do the rest of the story.
And I want to repeat this because I think some of you might not have really believed what you just heard.
But it is true.
An American GI assigned to one of the harshest posts in Iraq had a simple request last week for a Wisconsin mattress company.
Please send some floor mats to help ease the hardship of sleeping on the cold, bug-infested ground.
What he got instead was a swift kick from the company's website, which not only refused the request, but then added insult to injury with the admonition, if you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of Iraq.
Army Sergeant Jason Hess, who is stationed in Taji, Iraq, with the 1st Cavalry Division, not the all-American 1st Cavalry Amazon Battalion, this is the 1st Cavalry Division, said that he emailed his request at discountmats.com because he and his fellow soldiers sleep on the cold ground, which contains sand mites, sand flies, sand fleas, and other disease carriers.
In his email on January 16, 2007, he asked the web-based company, do you ship to APO military addresses?
I'm in the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Iraq.
We're trying to order some mats, but we're looking for ships to APO first.
Same day he got this reply.
We do not ship to APO addresses.
And even if we did, we would never ship to Iraq.
If you were sensible, you and your troops would pull out of there.
BargainSuppliersdiscountmats.com.
Now, discountmats.com is a web-based company.
It's registered to an American Muslim of Pakistani descent.
His name is Faisal Khatani.
Don't know if he wrote the email.
Email is not signed.
This is bargainsuppliersdiscountmats.com.
Katani on Monday told Fox News the person responsible for the email had been fired.
The website, meanwhile, has been temporarily taken down.
Hess emailed he has since found two mat suppliers willing to ship to an APO address in Iraq, and they'd have to go through bargain suppliers.
But this is all too common in this country with renegades taking stabs.
And that's why when I mention that the left is not only sabotaging victory over this particular enemy, they are actually invested in defeat.
And I get emails and I get people, right?
You're really going a little far.
Do you really think their Americans want us to lose?
Hell yes.
They're all over the place.
And they're all liberals.
And that means that most of them are probably Democrats.
They most certainly do.
And of course, these are the people that have flip-flopped all over the place.
In terms of elected Democrats, these are the ones that couldn't wait to get on board for the first series of resolutions after 9-11.
They wanted, they flexed their muscles and they wanted everybody to see how tough they were because they know what their image is when it comes to national defense and the use of force in Vietnam.
They're doves.
They are reluctant doves.
And hey, after 9-11, we really wanted to show everybody how pumped up and tough they are.
But now the going gets a little tough, and so they want to back out.
And they just want to act like they never supported it in the first place.
I find it repugnant.
It has enraged me ever since this sort of thing began happening in this war.
It enraged me during Vietnam, by the way.
And they seem hell-bent on recreating the exact same scenario as happened in Vietnam in Iraq.
Anyway, I got to take a quick time out here, folks.
I'm looking for something that dovetails with this story, and it's got to be buried in the stack here somewhere.
I'll find it during the break.
We'll be back and continue.
Mike in Sharlow, Arizona, thanks much for the call.
Sit tight, folks.
EIB and Broadcast Excellence right around the corner.
I feel so bad.
I feel so bad.
I played a trick on you people.
And I must now apologize for it.
I only told you half the story about the tax increase on health care benefits.
And I did this on purpose to get your attention.
Judging by my email, it has worked.
Because I want you to listen.
I want you to know what the other half of this is.
I don't like the fact that there's a tax increase in here, but I'm just, I'm just, with the level of taxation we already face, I'm just, I'm universally opposed to it.
It's none of that.
We've got so much money being produced by the people of this country that there's just fraud and waste and redundancy all over this budget.
It's obscene.
But that aside, in addition to proposing a tax increase on health care benefits above $15,000 per employee,
the president is also going to propose a tax cut for those of you who purchase your own medical assurance, and he would finance that tax cut you're going to get by buying your own health insurance with an unprecedented tax on a portion of high-priced health care plans that workers receive from their employers.
The initiative, which the president briefly previewed in his radio address on Saturday, I guess it was, yeah, has a dual purpose.
It would create a financial incentive for the estimated 46 million to 48 million Americans who lack health insurance to buy it.
And it would rain in...
Wait a second.
Now, see, I thought they didn't have it because it was so expensive they couldn't afford it.
But see, they don't tell you that many of these uninsured are uninsured by choice.
They're young.
They have no concept of illness, catastrophic or otherwise.
They don't plan on dying tomorrow.
They don't plan on being in a car wreck or any of that.
You know how many young people are.
And so they just, they're running the risk that they're not going to need it.
And they're looking at the actuarial tables and they're finding that taking the risk is pretty sound.
They're not the kind of people that spend every day in the doctor's office and then at the emergency room.
They're just, and I don't know what percent, I think, I'll bet you close to half.
I think I read close to half of these 46 to 48 million estimated uninsured or underestimated or uninsured by choice on purpose.
The president said today the tax code unfairly penalizes people who do not get health insurance through their job.
It unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive gold-plated plans.
The result is that insurance premiums rise and many Americans cannot afford the coverage that they need.
Now, I'm sorry for tricking you on this, but the reason I wanted to do that, the reason I decided to do it is because this is a really robust and perhaps it actually is like Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts where he's requiring everybody to have it and buy it.
They've got to have it like auto insurance.
And the incentive is if you buy your own, you'll end up shopping and you'll get better prices and you maybe won't buy as much.
You won't go for these gold-plated things so that you don't have to worry about it.
You'll just buy what you need.
And this will introduce market forces into the healthcare system, which we've all agreed needs to be done decades ago.
And when you introduce market forces, you lower prices.
And for you people who choose not to go out and pay for your own insurance, welcome to tax increases because you're going to get soaked.
You continue with these gold-plated plans.
You're not going to get sulked, actually, because the entire amount is not going to be taxed.
It's every dollar over $15,000 in your annually in your healthcare benefit package at work will be taxed.
Don't know what the rate is.
So it's ultimately an attempt here to introduce market forces and privatize as much of the health care system as possible or get it started because that is the fix for this, just as it is with Social Security.
Now, the Libs are going to fight this tooth and nail.
I don't care if it's no name-calling week or whatever.
They are going to go bananas with this.
Oh, I know.
They're already saying it's dead on arrival, but after he does the speech tonight, when most Americans hear it for the first time, wait till you hear the response and wait till you hear the drive-bys tonight and tomorrow.
They are going to go bonkers.
The only way to fix health care rushes is for government to pay it for everybody.
And for you and everybody else to us to be dependent on government because government cares.
And government can do it the best, Mr. Limbaugh.
Blah, So, dead on arrival, it's an attempt to introduce market forces.
The thing I don't like about it, and it's a small part, and this was the trick.
It's one of our guys proposing a tax increase.
I just, I just, you know, the way it can be spun, Bush proposes tax increase, period.
And it can be just like I did when I tricked you.
Again, I'm sorry for that, ladies and gentlemen.
It won't happen too many more times in the future.
We have audio soundbites.
Here's more from General Praeus talking to Vice President Lindsey Graham.
Graham says, I just want to associate myself with Senator Lieberman here.
No matter how well-intentioned, a resolution being opposed to this new strategy is a vote of no confidence in you.
If you think it's Vietnam, if you really believe we're in Vietnam, you should cut off funding.
Not one other person should die in this cause.
Not one American should lose a limb.
No one should get hurt.
General, is this Vietnam?
Sir, Vietnam was Vietnam.
As a student of lessons of history and someone who did a dissertation that focused on those, every case is unique, and Iraq is Iraq.
And then they had this exchange.
Who's the biggest winner?
Name some winners of a failed state in Iraq.
Well, certainly al-Qaeda, the greater al-Qaeda network, those who want states that embrace extremist ideologies, those states who wish the United States and perhaps the Western world ill.
Well, that's surprising.
Of course, that's what happens if we lose.
The biggest winner if we fail in Iraq.
Now, Hillary didn't take kindly, folks, to having her integrity questioned here.
Beyond my statement of joining in the comments with Senator Collins and rejecting those of our other friends on the panel who think that statements of disapproval are somehow going to undermine our effort, when I think they will send the clearest message, we are going to do everything we can to send a message to our government and the Iraqi government that they had better change because the enemy we are confronting is adaptable.
It is intelligent.
It learns.
It got a hold of our military uniforms, went through those gates after having cleared all those police checkpoints, killed five of our soldiers in a meeting talking about security in Iraq.
I disapprove of the policy.
I think it is a dead end.
But don't tell me I don't support the troops and don't tell me I'm invested in defeat.
Well, I will, Senator, because you are.
Back in just a second.
This is going to get nasty.
Schooner Libby's lawyer opening statement.
I'm not taking the fall for Karl Rove.
That's what Libby, lawyers said that Libby told Cheney.
▲
Export Selection