All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
January 25, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 Podcast.
What's that?
No, I can't.
I can't.
I can't.
Why does this stuff always come up at the beginning of the program?
I can't make a decision like that now.
Tell them I'll get back to them in March.
Sorry about this, folks.
Greetings, uh, ladies and gentlemen, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, uh, all across the fruited playing time once again for more broadcast excellence.
My gosh, already Thursday here, the uh fastest week in media rolling right on.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today is uh 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Just one day.
Just one day after President Bush implored Congress to give his Iraq strategy a second chance to succeed.
The uh Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution on Wednesday denouncing the plan to send more troops to Baghdad, setting up the most direct confrontation over the war since it began only four years ago, breathlessly writes the New York Times.
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat, chairman of committee said this is not designed to say, Mr. President, uhha, you're wrong.
It's designed to say, Mr. President, please don't do this.
Uh it's a non-binding resolution.
Biden says it is not political.
Uh this is uh this is this is just a a rebuke.
Well, uh rebukes don't start with the word please.
By the way, Biden wants to raise taxes.
Have you heard Biden wants to raise taxes for homeland security?
Where is the Homeland Security account?
There's no such thing it's as it's as uh mythical as the famous Social Security lockbox or savings account or whatever the hell it is.
The tax increase, if he ever got this, is how the Libs do this.
It's already January, and we got tax increases proposed for the children.
Where's the children's account?
How are we going to use tax increases specifically for the children?
That's not how tax increases work.
It's just designed to uh uh curry favor with the public.
Besides, I didn't know I had a problem with homeland security.
I didn't know there were any threats out there.
Uh the way the Democrats are acting, we're not at danger.
We're not at risk, so why why have all these taxes?
Folks.
I think this vote happened the same day that the same committee unanimously confirmed General Petraeus.
Is that right?
And you know what Petraeus said.
Petraeus said, you do this resolution, you're gonna harm troop morale, and you are going to you're gonna give hope to the enemy.
And yet they do it anyway.
You know, there's a great there's a great piece today in the Wall Street Journal that's it's I think it's an editorial specifically lays out why the founders were brilliant in naming one person the commander in chief.
You are getting a great look and a great example of the utter chaos that would exist.
These people have no power to do anything when it comes to the war, folks, other than defund it.
They have no power.
They have no power to direct strategy, tactics, mission, or details or any they have not, and yet they're trying to assert it.
Uh they're they're doing I mean, you know, the the Democrats, I uh everybody was worried that there would be impeachment hearings uh with the with the House of Representatives and House Dems after they uh after they won the election.
I think they know that Bush hasn't done anything illegal.
There's nothing they can impeach him for.
Articles of impeachment wouldn't get out of the out of the House Committee, the Judiciary Committee that would start those hearings, even with uh the Democrat advantage.
But what's really going on here is a de facto impeachment, and the drive-by media is leading it in uh uh I think concert with the Democrat Party.
There is no they they're literally trying to destroy this administration and everybody who has any semblance of power within it.
Since they can't do it via the uh constitutional process, there's no question that that is what's happening.
Uh and all the class exhibited by the president in the world and all of the good intentions and all the the new tones and all the desires to bring them aboard, make them part of the process is not gonna matter at all.
They literally despise and hate the guy.
Uh dating back to Florida 2000, and there are numerous things in between.
But I want to I want to comment more on this non-binding resolution, folks, because hear me on this.
This is uh part of a devious political strategy.
It's not just to embarrass and to attempt to disempower uh President Bush.
The purpose here is to force a bunch of scared Republicans to vote for it.
And if they so far Chuck Hagel was the only Republican on the uh uh committee to vote uh for the resolution.
Uh the the the other Republicans that I'm talking about here are in the General House caucus.
And what they're trying to do is to uh is to scare some of these Republicans to force them to vote for it, and if these Republicans don't, then the plan I think is for the Democrats to use it against them in the next election.
The liberals do not care that it feeds the propaganda mill of the enemy and emboldens them.
They don't care that the General Petraeus has said it will demoralize the troops.
In fact, they've told him to keep his mouth shut.
This is all about Democrat politics.
They are playing politics with the troops, and this is something that continually needs hammering.
I mean, our our news our new senator from uh from Tennessee, Bob Corker.
Here's a here's a classic illustration of what I'm talking about.
He is on the Senate foreign relations committee.
He's out there saying he didn't support the resolution, and the reason he didn't support us because it was non-binding.
Huh?
If you believe it, you believe it.
If you don't, you don't.
He didn't support it because it's non-binding.
It says this resolution isn't gonna have any effect on the administration.
So I'm not going to uh sign.
How can you say it's not gonna have any effect on the administration when General Petraeus has been out there saying it'll give hope to the enemy and demoralize his troops?
Of course it's gonna have an impact.
It doesn't have it it it's uh it what it ought to have impact with the American people.
The American people ought to be fed up as far as they can go with this.
Uh this is just outrageous behavior on the part of these people while claiming all along that they support the troops and they love the troops, and they want to do this actually to protect the troops so that they don't get hurt and get out of harm's way, and so forth and so on.
Here's a couple sound bites from Chuck Schumer.
He was on the Today Show today, fill-in host David Gregory was interviewing him and said, How can the public really buy that Democrats support the troops but don't support the mission?
How can how can you do both?
Well, that's the difficulty.
A resolution that says we're against this escalation, that's easy.
The next step will be how do you put further pressure on the administration against the escalation, but still supporting the troops who are there, and that's what we're figuring out right now.
Well, you what's what you're figuring out?
This is a fine time to be figuring it out.
Figure out how you can support the troops after you do this embarrassing resolution.
The fact is, uh, Senator, uh, it's not just difficult, it's uh it's impossible.
You cannot say you support the troops but don't support the mission, particularly when the troops are engaged in the mission.
How in the world can you do both?
You can't.
But they're trying to figure it out right now, folks.
They're behind closed doors, probably with George Lackoff rhymes with, uh, trying to figure out how in the world he can come up with the words to make you think they support the troops but oppose the mission.
Uh Gregory then said, well, if Democrats think that this is wrong for America, why not do what John Edwards is suggesting, and that is cut off the funding.
You want to defend the troops who are there.
And we cannot say we'll fund this battalion but not that battalion.
We have to set an overall number, and you have to be real careful to protect the troops who are there, but invece strongly against a escalation.
Invece strongly against an escalation.
So we support some of the troops, but we don't support the backups.
We don't support the reinforcements.
We don't we're not going to defund this.
Why aren't they going to defund it?
This is classic.
They tell you they believe this with all of their hearts and souls.
And they tell you this is important and they love the troops and so forth.
But when it comes to actually doing something to put into motion that which they really believe, they apply the brakes.
And that would be defunding it.
The fastest way to get these troops home is to cut off the money.
Bring them home.
They can't stay without the money.
They don't have the guts.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is all about playing politics with the troops.
This is all about Democrat politics.
It's designed to set up campaign uh TV commercials and so forth against a bunch of Republicans in 2008 who wouldn't join this resolution.
And uh the Republicans better be careful on this, because there's, you know, there's always the look at where the Democrats are.
The Democrats are convinced that it isn't going to work.
They are so cemented in defeat, they are so pessimistic.
It's already lost.
It's already over.
We don't have a chance.
We, the United States of America, don't have a prayer of winning.
What if we do?
What are they going to see?
You realize how far out in the cold they are, and that's another reason they want to bring Republicans along with them.
Another reason why they want to scare some of these little dainty wavering Republicans along with them so that they can uh say that the uh the blame or whatever the embarrassment was bipartisan.
Now, CNN uh begrudgingly, we talked a little bit about this poll yesterday.
Uh more than three quarters of the American people who watched the State of the Union had a positive reaction to it, although the reaction was muted from that in past years.
370 adults, 78% of speech viewers reacted positively.
67% think that Bush's policies will move the country in the right direction.
A CNN poll.
Positive numbers, not quite what they were in previous State of the Union years.
Uh, for example, 51% confident that the U.S. will meet its goals in Iraq, down from 71% in 2004.
And for whom do we have blame on that?
Could it be the never-ending drumbeat of pessimism, doom, and gloom from the Democrat Party and the drive-by media driving down the We're the United States of America for crying out loud.
The bottom line is Americans are not defeatist.
Unlike the Democrat Party, we are not defeatist.
They like the president's speech.
Bottom line is Americans want to win this.
They wanted to win it yesterday.
If they didn't win it, we can't win it yesterday.
They want to win it tomorrow.
And the American people not only want to win the war, they want to be told we can win.
And they want policies that represent an effort to win.
The American people in mass, in majority, probably do not support this resolution.
If they did, if the Democrats had such polling data, then they would defund the war.
But they don't.
And so they're not.
If the drive-by media and the Democrats would actually support the troops, as they say they do, and the war, and don't get me wrong, I know it's not going to happen, or at least if they would refrain from trying to dampen support for what's being done, there's a good bet that public morale would be high, and America's enemies would figure they were facing a stern and resolute adversary.
And that, of course, would help the soldiers win.
But of course, none of that is happening because the Democrat Party and the media is steadfastly invested in defeat, where the American people want to win.
They want to kick butt now, and they want it to happen soon, and they want to be told that it can happen.
And they're sick and tired, I maintain, of Democrats talking about how it's impossible and it can't be done.
It's the United States of America.
And the idea that we can't win is just anathema and offensive to a lot of Americans, a majority of Americans.
So is this this rhetoric.
You know, I've I've I've opined on this program that there are people, I've warned you, people in this country, Americans, who don't want us to win, above and beyond the Democratic Party, just average, ordinary Democrat liberal Americans who think we deserve to lose because we need to be taught a lesson.
America needs to find out how the rest of the world feels when it's oppressed.
America needs its comeuppance.
America needs to learn a lesson.
This is a popular refrain that circulates among average, ordinary Democrats and liberals in this country.
So it's a bunch of self-loathing, a blame America first people that are out there also fueling what the drive-by media and the Democrat Party are doing.
Uh Quick timeout, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll be back and roll right on unabated right after this.
All right, now this resolution, this resolution came out of the um the foreign relations committee, which is headed up by Senator Biden.
Now it goes to the full Senate.
We all know what General Petraeus has said.
General Petraeus, even though the Democrats descended on him and have asked him to revise his remarks, we know what he said in his first answer on these questions that this resolution would give the enemy hope and would demoralize his troops.
If after the battlefield commander has testified to that before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, if the full United States Senate passes this resolution, what in the world are we to think, and what in the world will the world think?
It it it it's that is more than a rebuke.
It is engaging in irresponsibility.
And make no mistake what this is.
This is a political maneuver.
This is not about the military, this is not about the war, this is a political maneuver.
They are doing everything they can to politicise the troops, playing politics with the troops.
They don't care that it feeds the propaganda mill the enemy, don't care that it emboldens the enemy.
They don't really consider Al Qaeda in Iraq the enemy.
They consider George W. Bush the enemy.
Ever since aftermath of the 2000 election here in Florida.
And they're going to try to get as many scared Republicans to vote for this resolution as they can.
But any Republican, I mean John Henson, I want I don't know if you're listening.
He's running the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
I'm going to tell you what's going to happen.
Every Republican, if there is one, any and all Republicans who vote for this resolution in the Senate, is going to cost you gazillions of dollars in campaign contributions from Republicans.
Especially those Republicans who are up for reelection.
No reasonable Republican is going to help those kinds of Republicans who would vote for this resolution get re-elected.
They're not going to send your RSCC any money.
Just as Liddy Dole didn't get as much money as she needed because the Republican base just couldn't fathom why you were going out of the way to re-elect Lincoln Chafee.
Nor could they understand why the White House was going out of the way to re-elect Lincoln Chafee.
It's going to be even worse.
More Republicans who jump ship and vote with Democrats on this resolution.
Given these circumstances, particularly since it is all politics.
It's not military.
If it were military and if the Democrats knew the American people were with them, they would go for it all and they would defund this.
But they haven't the guts because they know that's not where the American people are.
Robert Novak has an interesting passage in his latest column.
The Republican, a ranking House Committee member, said this.
Removed from realizing what happened in the election, quote unquote.
A Democratic state party leader said that Bush is in such bad shape that the result of the 2008 election is already decided.
In that atmosphere, please for consultation, go nowhere.
And I said, say what?
Nameless Republicans are complaining that the White House is out there not understanding what's happened, that the White House is out of touch and irrelevant.
Let me tell you who's irrelevant, ladies and gentlemen.
Republicans in the House of Representatives are irrelevant.
And I say this to you, not being critical of them, just giving you a quick political science lesson.
The House of Representatives, the majority has no power.
You should have no expectations from them on anything.
They don't have any power.
The Democrats didn't really have any power unless the Republicans gave them some, which happened.
The only reason the Democrats in the House had power when they were a minority because the Republicans didn't have the guts to govern as conservatives.
The Democrats will not show such a lack of fortitude.
They'll continue to be lib.
They're going to continue to break their promise to be bipartisan, a promise no Republican should have ever believed in the first place.
The minority, by definition, by structure in the House of Representatives, is powerless.
It can't stop anything.
Not the case in the Senate.
In the Senate, with 49 seats, the Republicans ought to be able to run the place by virtue of stopping anything the Democrats want to do.
Such as has happened on the minimum wage bill, which we will talk about more as the program unfolds today.
So these House guys start running around talking about Bush is out of touch and so forth.
Well, he may be out of touch, but he still has some power.
Republicans in the House don't have power.
Elections have consequences.
Deal with it.
Ha, how are you?
You know, you got this nameless House Republican saying the White House is irrelevant, not a touch.
You've got uh a House Democrat uh in Novak's piece saying the White House is so out of touch and so deceived that the 2008 election is already decided.
You've got the Democrats in the Senate spearheading this resolution that's non-binding.
If you ask me, a whole damn city of Washington, D.C. is out of touch.
The American people do not want a defeat.
The American people do not want to cut and run.
The American people are not in favor of that.
The American people want to kick the crap out of the enemy.
And get out of there.
The American people know that that's the history of the United States of America that can be done.
And the whole city of Washington, D.C., other than a couple of people at the White House, seem to be spinning around the axis of America failing, America losing, America retreating, America cutting and running, America abandoning allies, abandoning commitments, without any thought of the consequences involved, uh should they succeed with all of this.
By the way, a lot of people, you know, touting Jim Webb's speech, his uh uh response to the president's state of the Union.
Well, at the television poll of the state of Virginia, uh, News 7, Senator Webb's first job approval rating shows higher negatives than positives.
He has a 42% approval rating, a 47% disapproval rating, and an 11% not sure.
On the other hand, John Warner's 62% approve of the gig that he's doing, which is mystifying in some ways.
29% disapprove of the uh job Warner's doing 9% are uncertain.
By the way, we'll have this later down in the stack, but uh there was a there was a story at Salon.com by Joan something or other.
Uh I want to say Walsh, but I don't have when it printed out, it didn't print the first paragraph of her name.
So it's weird, weirdly formatted up there.
But they're all excited that finally there's a real man in a Democrat Party, and Jim Webb's the guy.
And I'm scratching my head over this.
I thought this was the year of the Queen Bee syndrome.
The Democratic Party is clearly being run by women.
Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.
And by the way, let me something else.
If if Jim Webb was the most qualified guy to give the Democrat response, because he's been in the military.
Then what the hell is Hillary Clinton doing leading in the polls when she hasn't been?
I mean, there's so many contradictions in this party, and it's so clear that when it comes to their own self-esteem, they don't have any, their own identity, they are still confused.
One day, one week, one month, it's all about the women and being mothers and grandmothers and being able to take care of the country at the same time they're taking care of their kids and their grandkids and so forth.
And then the next day, here goes Jim Webb out there making a speech with a big deep voice, talking about his family's military history, he's fired those guns before, he's pulled those triggers, he's killed the bad guys, and the Democrats are going on and on and oh, we've finally got a man.
They bombed out with Carey in that regard.
Well, in terms of military service, it didn't help him.
It was uh it was a big problem.
He in tears yesterday, by the way, on the Senate floor.
Uh announcing that he had decided not to run.
He is going to continue to try to affect the strategy in Iraq from the Senate rather than running.
We've got the audio of this.
We also have audio of Dick Cheney, slicing and dicing Wolf Blitzer on any number of things.
Uh so lots of things coming up on the program today.
But let's let's uh let's move to the phones.
Uh, David in Norfolk, Virginia.
Hello, sir.
Thanks for waiting.
You're up first.
Hi, Russia.
Um, you're very smart.
You're very popular among the radio state.
Okay, oh, excuse me, David.
David, just could you slow down in in uh honor of my hearing?
I want to be able to hear what you're saying.
Right.
Well, you know, I I listened to Tony McCrini's show.
Do you know Tony McCrini?
He was very elated about your uh show because they make a lot of money from your show.
But that doesn't equate to uh that you are popular among the public, you know.
If that's okay, then uh the the Republicans would win the.
Well, but it it it does.
What what what what what what what's the um point here, David?
I don't I don't actually know what you're talking about.
I'm a peace activist.
I I'm against this war, and uh I'm wonderful.
You're a peace activist, no, so you're for peace.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I'm a liberal.
What is I wanted to ask you a question?
Would you do you think would you define peace for me as as uh you see it?
Peace is uh if we have peas, we won't have any of these fightings, you know.
What the CIA and the United States has been doing in the past is we're trying to steal uh from other countries they're world.
Look, look, look, look, look, look.
I I feel like I'm in a New York cab here.
I cannot understand anything you are saying.
It's not his fault, it's my hearing.
All I I did hear him say that that uh uh having peace will end all of these fightings.
Um this is you know, folks, normally I'm very patient uh with our friendly liberal callers here and peace activists and so forth, but there has to be at least a starting point or a a foundation that would justify conversation, and it just doesn't exist here.
I'm sorry.
Snerdley, you and I you're gonna have to talk.
We're gonna we're gonna have to talk.
You're facing another suspension.
You keep throwing these and I know why he's doing it.
He thinks he can throw these people at me, and I will make chicken salad out of it.
And he's right.
I mean, sometimes we we enjoy having kooks uh on the radio, but I have to be able to understand them.
Doug in San Antonio, welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, thanks, Russ.
You bet.
Yeah, I was just curious uh when the Senate uh was gonna pass a nine body non-binding resolution against the Ethiopians for surging into Somalia and against the Taliban for surging into Afghanistan.
Which they do every spring.
I spent nine months there.
And uh can't think of any other uh Well, of course, this this only this only confirms the Democrats they they they they couldn't come up with a resolution for victory.
They couldn't come up with a resolution supporting the troops, Godspeed troops, godspeed Mr. President, God bless America, couldn't come up with any of that.
This is not about the military, other than they want us to lose.
This is about Democrat Party politics, pure and simple, as most every policy of theirs is.
You know, we keep hearing who was it the other day that was uh uh uh some s some senators some sense trying to sound erudite.
Uh the Democrat part party's defense on this, hey, hey, you can't you can't say we're not for the war on terror.
We're all for the war in Iraq.
And we think that's row the resources should be.
We're all for the war on terror.
You know, to which the reply is, when did Afghanistan attack us?
Afghanistan didn't attack us.
Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9-11, and they say Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and Saddam didn't.
Well, neither did Afghanistan, and neither did the Taliban.
Yet we went there.
Why?
Well, because the people that planned it were there.
That's where Osama was, place called Tora Bora.
We flushed them out of there, and we've uh turned that country over uh to a locally elected government, nationally elected government.
Taliban is disbanded.
They do every spring try to regain power, and that's one of the reasons why, by the way, the Al-Qaeda people are trying to move into Somalia.
One of the reasons they were in Afghanistan, they go for stateless regimes.
Countries with no governments, and establish themselves as the ruling force, which is what the Taliban was.
It's what they're trying to do in Somalia today.
And they've been rebuffed.
Not much help from the United States, and certainly no help from the Democrat Party.
The Democrat Party is obsessed with Darfur.
Wherever our enemy is gathering, somehow they don't want us there.
But if Afghanistan didn't attack us, what do we go there for?
Well, the enemy happens to be in Iraq.
The war on terror enemy happens to be in Iraq.
And the Democrats and some of these lame brains on the left want to sit there and try to say, no, no, no, Iraq had nothing to do with 9 11.
You don't this is just an argument to further their own anti-military bias, anti-victory bias.
It's outrageous to me as an American to watch this all come down the uh the way it is.
But you just you you will not see a resolution for victory from these people, other than you know, within a year or two after 9-11 was the last one.
Uh Steve and Monroe, Michigan, thanks for waiting, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Greetings, Russ.
Hey, proud father of a soldier currently in Iraq.
Comments that I had uh regarding them not allowing to change a tactics with the troop of crews increase, you know, and and not going to head and cut off funding and pull them out.
They're actually going to put them in a quagmire.
They're gonna take take the soldiers in a situation which we believe they can't win, vote to keep them there, not to take them home, not to make them not to give them the tools to win it.
Well, now let's let's assume that you're right.
Let's assume that your their their resolution here, that their uh their effort will actually put them in a quagmire.
Why do you think that they uh would do that?
It gets back to um, I agree with you, a lot of this is insane.
You know, I was talking to my son with uh, and he was excited about the trades coming aboard because he was attached to the 101st and the work in Mosul.
Well, now, you know, sort of off on a tangent, what are they gonna think there when they deny his his uh choice of tactics?
But why they do it, uh it goes back to, you know, anything Bush opposes.
Uh, forgot where I'd heard it recently, but they don't have a solution for Iraq.
They will admit that.
Well, there is there's there's a more specific answer.
That and there are two parts to it.
The first is, and nobody will convince me otherwise of this.
Liberals in this country rejoice at military failure.
They oppose its use anyway.
They are always undermining it.
They are always trying to undermine the morale and the purpose of the mission, particularly in the last six years.
They did it Vietnam, same thing.
Anytime the military fails, they can say, see, that's not the way to do this.
Diplomacy, political solutions.
Number two, they are now so invested in defeat politically that if we win this war, where are they going to go?
What are they going to do?
They can't permit this.
They are so far over the edge on this now that if victory happens, it is a profound embarrassment.
They are the ones who didn't give victory a chance.
They are the ones who have already concluded it is impossible.
They are the ones advancing political ideas on the basis of it's not possible.
What if we win?
They have to do everything they can to eliminate that possibility.
So sending troops over there that are demoralized and in a quagmire.
Don't believe all this garbage about how they love the troops.
Remember Dick Durbin and what he said about our interrogators and Abu Grab and Ted Kennedy and all these people.
They've got no respect.
Chuck Chuck Schumer, soundbite we played earlier.
He admits they know they can't say they support the troops and the mission.
They're trying to figure that out now behind closed doors, but they can't.
So it's despicable, folks.
The whole thing is despicable, and it may be tough to hear.
Some of you may not want to think that they're actually Americans who would want their country to lose a war.
But when it comes to the Democrat Party, if it takes that for them to cement power, then that's what will happen.
Quick break.
Back after this with much more.
Yes, America's real anchorman.
Rushlin bought a cutting edge of the societal evolution.
we go to Raleigh, North Carolina.
This is Lori.
Thank you for calling Lori.
Hey, how are you?
Fine.
Thank you.
I need your help here.
I wanted to know why you believe that the liberals truly want us to lose rather than just being misguided by their idealism.
And if they are that way, how did they get there from beginning idealists?
Uh from beginning idealists.
Okay.
Beginning ideas.
Now now wait wait.
Do you do you disagree?
I need to know what you disagree with.
Do you disagree with my assertion that uh that liberals want us to lose, or do you just uh you just disagree with my saying it?
I don't disagree with it, and I don't disagree with you saying it.
I'm just not sure I can follow how they became that so uh Lori, I would I would be glad, and I I I'll try to take you through the timeline of uh how these kind of things happen, but at this point in time, their motivation and reasons for it don't interest me.
Uh it it's the the there's not enough time to debate them about this and to call them on it and to embarrass them into changing their minds.
This is a this is a race for the hearts and minds of the American people and their representatives in Washington.
Now, some people might, and I know that people react harshly.
Like I said, uh people, some people listening to this program just don't want to believe that there are Americans who want us to lose.
How can you say that, Mr. Limbaugh?
And and and and the the the way to answer that is all right, tell me this.
If they don't want us to lose, how is their action any different than if they do?
Well, uh if they don't want us to lose, it's just stupid.
I mean, don't want us to win.
If they don't want us to w well, it's unfathomable.
It's not stupid.
It's beyond stupid.
It's unfathomable.
But to understand it, you have to understand that everything to them is about political power and the acquisition of it.
You have to understand that this resolution, if they really, really, really meant this.
If they knew they had the American people on their side, they would go ahead and defund, they own the Congress, they've got the votes to defund the war.
Or at least give it a good shot, but they don't go that way because they know the American people aren't with them.
So this is a th this is playing politics with the troops, and whether the intention here is to lose it or I'm telling you it is.
They're so invested in defeat politically, they have to get one.
Let's let's put it this way.
They cannot allow a perceived victory to happen.
Well, how do they get that way?
Pardon?
How do they get that way?
Um, well, it's I don't think it's anything new.
How old are you?
I'm I'm 46, and I don't know that it's new, but I can't comprehend how someone would get to be that callous.
Well, uh I can't I know it's difficult.
This is you know, when I was a little boy growing up watching a space shots, the Mercury and the Apollo space shots.
I would look at my dad and because I would keep hearing on TV how much all this cost.
And I and I I asked my dad, why does any why does it cost anything?
Why don't Americans do this for patriotic reasons?
I didn't understand market economics or anything of the sort.
I was just young idealism.
I think that's the same kind of thing that affects a lot of people.
How how in the world can there be Americans who don't like the country?
How can the how in the world can there be Americans who hate us?
How can how in the world can there be Americans who resent defeat and prosperity and power and success?
I mean, those are psychological questions.
And they're psychological answers.
And, you know, I've I've evolved my theories on this over the years, and over the course of the years I've explained them uh not in one big three-hour presentation.
It was part of the ongoing uh excursion into broadcast excellence here.
Write a book.
Pardon?
Write a book.
Write a book.
I'd love to have that dissected.
Okay.
I it's it's it's well, not okay writing a book.
I mean, I'm not committing to that.
I understand your I uh I under I understand your point.
Uh yes, it would be well received, it would be a best seller.
Uh but a lot of people have tried to explain liberals.
It's uh it's a tough thing to do because people who aren't liberal it's it's tough challenge to try to get outside yourself enough to understand these people.
Most of them are miserable, most of them are unhappy.
Uh uh, Most of them are don't really matter, don't don't don't amount to much, and uh resent anybody else who does.
It's all kinds of factors here.
Uh, but uh I'm out of time.
This frustrates me because I'd like to explain this so a lot of people understood it.
This actually would be a great cover for a future limb letter, Why Liberals Hate America.
We'll be back, ladies and gentlemen.
▲
Export Selection