All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 26, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
January 26, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Okay, is everything ready in there?
You got your new keyboard drawer installed and everything's done.
Only these last minute emergency engineer projects, right before the program starts.
Anyway, folks, we've already arrived at one of the most exciting days in major media.
A Rush Limbaugh program on Friday, live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Oh yes!
Yes, you never know what we're gonna get here, and that's good.
Open line Friday.
For those of you relatively new to the program, here's what's different about Friday than any other day of the week.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things that I care about.
But on Friday when we go to the phones, the program is all yours.
You want to talk about something I don't care about, I'll do it.
So you can whine, you can moan, you can play and you can say you're offended.
You can ask a question, you can bring up a subject you think needs to be discussed that hasn't been.
Be creative.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
Well, have you seen the latest uh story on on uh smoking and how maybe to cure it or curb it?
Damage to a silver dollar size spot deep in the brain seems to wipe out the urge to smoke, a surprising discovery that may shed important new light on addiction.
The research was inspired by a stroke survivor who claimed he simply forgot his uh two-pack a day habit.
No cravings, no nicotine patches, not even a conscious desire to quit.
The quitting is like a light switch that went off, said Dr. Antoine Bachara of the University of Southern California, scanned the brains of 69 smokers and ex-smokers to pinpoint the region involved.
This is very striking.
So brain damage can uh can ease smoking cravings according to this study.
What are the odds that people are going to be going into the hospital now and wanting lobotomies?
They're gonna be going to the hospital and asking doctors to inflict brain damage so that they forget that they have a smoking cabin.
I think that there probably is something to this.
You know, folks, for all of the uh uh uh talk and for for all of the uh appreciation we have for our abilities as human beings.
Uh and and all of the discussions that we uh engage in regarding free will and discipline uh and and this kind of thing, the brain is an amazing thing, and there are ever when I read research about how um uh the hypothalamus, for example, is where the appetite control center is.
Uh, and and some people's hypothalamus is hyperactive, some uh not at all.
Uh various brain chemicals pathways, neurons that fire and don't fire.
Uh and you know, in a lot of ways, uh we are we are you know, I wouldn't say prisoners, but uh we are prisoners the way things happen in um in our brains over which uh we really don't have any control other than lomotomize those parts of the brain that are causing us uh problems.
Uh everything from weight control to any other kinds of uh of addiction uh is is uh is subject to brain chemistry, and it's different from person to person to person.
So there may be something to this.
I mean, I when I hear somebody say that after a stroke and part of the brain died, I don't I don't have a desire to smoke anymore.
Uh maybe certain uh addiction receptors in the brain are dead, and and it it would make it would make total sense.
Uh I've often thought about this in terms of weight loss.
You know, the uh uh people that have a tendency to overweight do eat more.
There's no question.
I thought most of them don't think they do, but they do.
Uh people don't there's and there's difference in appetites.
And and that probably is a brain function more than it is discipline.
Uh it's hard for me to believe, for example, at every person who is skinny or thin or reasonably in shape, not every one of them is practicing day-to-day discipline.
Some of them just don't care about food as much.
Uh, and they get full quicker and so forth.
The fool uh fo food to them is a fuel.
It's not it's uh and nothing else.
And it's uh uh these these kind of things do intrigue me, just from the standpoint of creation, if I may put it in such a a way.
But nevertheless, people will laugh about this.
There probably is something to it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Now, isn't this rich?
Nancy Pelosi has traveled to Iraq.
She's there now for a quick fact-finding visit that'll include a meeting with uh the Iraqi Prime Minister Al Maliki, the Maliki, the congressional delegation traveling with her includes Tom Lantos, uh Democrat from San Mateo, Ike Skelton of Missouri, Jack Mertha and a couple of others.
They are they are scheduled to return to uh to Washington on Monday.
Now, what is this really all about?
We know these people are trying to to lose the war.
They are invested in defeat.
They want to bring the troops home.
They want to make sure that there's nothing solved, and they want this to happen by May, by the way.
Uh don't ever forget that.
These people continue to play politics with the troops with their little resolutions.
Republicans, by the way, are sort of hanging tough, except for Hegel, about whom more later, but they're refusing to compromise with uh with the authors of this resolution on the Democrat side.
Uh but regardless, politics with the troops is being played here.
Pelosi and this bunch that's over there meeting with uh with the Iraqi Prime Minister.
Do any of you really think that they're going over there with an open mind, and if uh the Iraqi Prime Minister says, you know, we're making a lot of progress here, and we can wipe this insurgency out.
And uh we got Mukey on our side now.
Mukey is triangulating, by the way.
Mukta al-Sadr has surprised everybody by saying he is too in favor of getting rid of the insurgents.
Well, he is the insurgency.
He's so he's telling us he's in favor of getting rid of himself.
That tells me he's worried it's going to be successful.
He's trying to buy some time for his own life.
Uh, folks, when Mukey says, hey, you know, I like this plan.
I I want to get rid of the insurgents, too.
It's a sure sign he thinks that it might work.
But come on.
Pelosi and Mertha and Lantos and Skelton are going over there and might come back with the change of heart.
Don't be fooled, my good friends.
This is nothing more than liberals traveling to Iraq for photo ops.
They're gonna come home, and because they've been there and they will have the pictures to prove it, they will claim to know even more what is happening on the ground as they plot to undermine the war.
That's all this trip is about.
There's no open-mindedness on their part.
This is totally to further their attempt to undermine and sabotage the opportunity for victory over this enemy in this war in Iraq.
And I'm sure they'll come back with the uh the requisite stories uh from the troops, selected troops who don't believe in what we're doing and think this surge is silly, and so forth.
And it will be a classic attempt to once again divide not only the military, but the uh the American people as well, and to continue to gin up all of this support for defeat.
Meanwhile, Senator Feingold, who couldn't wait to shake President Bush's hand after the State of the Union speech, out in the hall, have the uh outside the House chamber, couldn't wait to shake his hand, tell him he's doing a good job.
Senator Feingold is scheduled a hearing next Tuesday and his Judiciary Committee subcommittee to explore whether Congress has the authority to cut off funding for uh the U.S. military campaign in Iraq.
The move comes as the Congress prepares to vote on a congressional resolution opposing the escalation of the war.
Feingold obviously a fierce war clinic critic, and he's gonna force Democrats to consider an option that many consider politically suicidal, denying funds to the military and U.S. soldiers to force a quicker end to the war.
Meantime, yesterday, some fireworks, the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Carl Levin and John McCain had this exchange about the troops in Iraq.
The significant amount of the troops that are there Want us to change the direction in Iraq.
So it's not us sending a wrong message.
The troops themselves and their families have indicated very strongly in large numbers that the message that they want to get to the Iraqis is get on with their own government, get on with their own nation.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think I'm familiar with the sentiment of many of the troops, and the fact is they want to win.
And that's what they want, and that's why we're changing the strategy, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sorry you don't support the strategy.
It's a strategy which has failed.
Get that.
McCain just essentially said to Levin, look, I you can't tell me what the sentiments of the troops and their families are, because I know what they are, and the fact is they want to win.
And Levin says, Well, we all want to.
No, you don't want to win, and McCain said, and that's why we're changing the strategy, Mr. Chairman.
And I'm sorry you don't support the strategy.
He's saying, I'm sorry you don't support victory, Mr. Chairman.
And Levin says it's a strategy that has failed.
Uh it you you when you when you it hasn't failed yet.
It hasn't been implemented yet.
That's what this is all about.
Also, ladies, the d there's uh there's a guy in Germany by the name of uh what is his name?
Henrik Broder, and he has written a book.
What's the title of the uh uh well title of book uh uh in uh in in English the translation and title of his book is Hooray, we're capitulating.
And the and and the Der Spiegel, or I'm sorry, Der Spiegel.
Every time I call it Der Spiegel, I get emailed.
You're not pronouncing it right.
It's a Der Spiegel.
Anyway, Der Spiegel has translated a chapter of this book to English and put it on their website.
And this guy, you know, folks, I uh uh we'll we'll link to it at Rushlinbaugh.com.
This is it it is amazing because this is a German.
When the Germans start calling us a bunch of wimps and wusses, it tells me things have gotten pretty bad.
He doesn't just focus on us, he focuses on the entire uh uh Western societies, Western civilization, Western nations.
Uh and and he says it's not been published in English yet.
That's why this uh excerpt of the book in English on Der Spiegel is uh uh so valuable.
He takes on the West's reaction to the uh uh Dutch cartoons of Muslims portraying Muslims.
He just he's fed up.
He is really concerned that the West is just a bunch of passive cowards and doesn't have the fortitude above or below the waist to do anything about this enemy that is making it clear what their intentions are.
Anyway, have some excerpts from this for you as the program unfolds, in addition to lots of great audio sound bites.
Since it's open line Friday, theoretically we'll take more of your phone calls.
So sit tight, we'll come back and resume right after this.
Amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic, first, second, and third hand, it's all good.
Premium cigar smoke, I am Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man.
Uh here behind the golden EIB microphone on open line Friday, 800-282-2882, the phone number.
Get this little excerpt from the book, Hooray, we're capitulating by Henrik Broder.
Not translated to English yet, just one chapter on the Der Spiegel website.
The West seems to have no trouble offending the Muslim world these days.
What should we do about it?
Well, we might as well surrender.
After all, we're already on our way.
You know, this is to me, it's time to really examine who we are and where we are when nothing against the Germans, but I mean, for crying out loud, folks, they wouldn't go with us to Iraq.
They wouldn't, they wouldn't join any of these uh coalitions when a German author starts criticizing the fortitude of Western nations, including the United States.
It's time to stand up and uh and take notice.
Anyway, Chuck Hagel was on uh what is it, a today's show, today's show, today's show.
Every Washington Post has a story.
Hagel ponders White House run as war criticism raises his profile.
His Republican colleagues regard him warily.
The White House barely speaks to him.
He is reviled by his party's conservative base.
Looks as though Senator Chuck Hagel is on a roll.
What a conclusion.
Both parties have their Iraq war contrarians.
For the Democrats, it's Lieberman.
Uh For the Republican version is Hegel, a career maverick from Nebraska, the only GOP senator to call for an end to the war.
You want to listen to a little bit of this?
The Washington Post is holding this, and the rest of the drive-by media holding this guy out as a legitimate, genuine presidential.
I'm I told you yesterday.
Everybody in the city of Washington, D.C. is so woefully out of touch.
It is striking.
Chuck Hagel has launched himself to the top of the Republican presidential list with this stance that he is taking on the war in Iraq.
Let's go to Meredith Vieira on the Today Show today.
Senator, at this point, do you believe that we are fighting and dying for nothing?
Congress needs to take a look at it, and each member of Congress needs to go on the record and need to address the issue in a very clear way so that they can go back to the constituents and say, yes, I either support an escalation of putting 22,000 more American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war, or I don't.
Take a stand.
That's why we're here.
Uh go ahead and take your stand, but you are not a commander-in-chief, and neither are the other ninety-eight or ninety-nine members of the U.S. Senate.
Uh but this this this unspeakable.
Undermine the war effort here.
And of course, all of this fawning coverage is exactly the point.
Senator Hegel, I'm sure would love us to believe that this is his principal position.
And if it is, we're in even bigger trouble than I thought.
But part and parcel of this is getting precisely this kind of adoration from the drive-by media.
It is a classic Republican script.
They live in Washington.
They are dominated by the liberal social and political class structure there.
And they don't like it.
And they want to be considered important and big.
And they want to be big men on campus, so to speak.
And the only way to get fawning coverage is to come out against your own party, your own president, particularly on an issue so wired like this that all of the media will love you for it because it's their position too.
I.e., America must lose.
Meredith Vieira says Senator, do you believe that we are fighting and dying for nothing at this point when you answer the question?
When you say dying and fighting for nothing, well, what are the parameters?
What's the definition?
What is it that we are seeking?
Men and women are dying.
And when men and women are dying, the American people require, they expect us to do these kinds of things.
That's part of our job.
We're not trying to hurt the president.
Nobody wants to defeat America.
That's not what we're trying to do here.
If he really means that, then it's worse than I thought.
We're not trying to defeat America.
We're not trying to hurt the president.
That's not what we're trying to.
If you were trying to secure defeat for America, Senator, and if you were trying to hurt the president, tell me what you would need be doing differently.
I dare say it wouldn't be much.
So he can go out and try to negatively impact the war effort and victory, and he can go out and he can undercut the president as commander-in-chief in his own party, and then he can say, that's not what I'm trying to do.
No, no, no, no.
It's not what people are dying.
Yes, 7,000 a year die from faulty prescriptions that the pharmacist couldn't read.
They give the wrong medicine to patient, and they're pushing up daisies a short time later.
7,000.
How many people die in automobile accidents?
This business of death in Iraq.
I guess automobile accident death, that's okay.
And I guess these 7,000 deaths every year because of faulty prescriptions, that's so we can put up with that because we're not doing anything about it.
But somehow, a number of deaths involving U.S. military in the middle of what they say is an insurgency civil war.
Somehow that's just not tolerable.
Why?
We cannot put up with that.
We must change that.
I'm telling you, there's a whole sense of proportion missing here.
The next soundbite, Vieira says, Senator, let me let me tell you what Senator Hatch had to say about you recently.
He said, I really don't understand, Senator Hagel, but playing around with resolutions and we all know we got to stay and get the job done doesn't make any sense.
Most Republicans want us to win over there.
What do you mean win?
This is not a matter for the U.S. to win or lose.
This is not a prize.
Are we going to just blindly continue to feed more troops into this situation?
A sectarian civil war that American troops cannot win.
We put these young men and women in situations where they can't win.
So somebody's better ask some questions.
Keep asking them, Senator, and if your presidential perspirations will continue to evaporate.
Can't win?
There's nothing to win.
Let me ask you for do you think a defeat of the insurgency and securing of Baghdad and an end to all of these explosions and burning cars on TV at night would be considered a victory.
Would you consider the U.S. military effectively stomping the insurgency a victory?
Senator Hagel does not.
He doesn't even think that victory is possible.
This is the United States of America.
This is a man now being lauded as a potential great presidential candidate.
It's embarrassing, folks.
What are you people in Nebraska eating or smoking the last ten years or so?
Okay, back to Senator Hagel for a moment.
And this is unspeakable.
This is intolerable.
We can't have this.
Even though in war, may I speak brutally and bluntly?
In war, death happens.
It's in fact one of the ways in which you define who wins.
There is a statistical expectation that when you get in a car, you could be in an accident and you could die.
But by definition, the automobile was not invented so as to be able to limit the population by assuring that X numbers of thousands of citizens every year will be wiped out using them.
I I I got I get so uh confused and curious about this this preoccupation with death in a war.
When there is no similar preoccupation with it, say in abortion.
There's no similar preoccupation with death in these automobile accidents.
Uh we we uh we don't take steps to ban some of the equipment that we have that leads to lots and lots and lots of death.
Somehow in this case, whatever number of deaths there are is intolerable.
Too many.
But it's a war.
And the people who, God bless them, it's why we revere them so volunteer and sign up know full well what they're getting into.
Which is why some of us in this country genuinely do have awe and admiration and respect plus support for the troops, and thus knowing full well what they are getting into, we support their mission.
Because we know what their mission is.
Do you think the troops are in this to lose?
You think people sign up for one of the branches of the military to lose, to be sent off to some foreign place and to lose?
They want to win.
The American people want to win.
Somehow the Manhattan, DC, Boston Axis, this corridor of media has got itself convinced that the troops think they can't win, and that the American people don't want to win, and that we've got to get out.
It's a huge disconnect.
Uh I want to ask you to play a little little game here, folks.
And this will give you some indication how you have been manipulated by the drive-by media.
How much media manipulation has clouded your judgment?
Uh I want to ask you a single question in this little test.
And in your minds, you have to give an instant response.
And you have to be honest with yourself after you give that response as I tell you what your response means.
You cannot think about it.
When I ask you this question, you go, uh you have your instant reaction is what I need.
If you are to properly play along with this test and illustration, no thinking, no googling, no talking it over with friends, no cheat sheets.
Your instant response will tell you and only you, if you are being manipulated, and how much that manipulation is affecting your judgment.
Now you got to do this with no distractions.
If you're driving, pull over.
Well, that's not practicable.
But if you're driving, it's gonna be tough because you've got to be focused on this.
No coffee, no smoking, no doodling while this is happening.
Remember, I'm going to ask a single question.
You will answer with an instant response.
There's no right or wrong here.
Just an instant answer.
Don't worry about telling me what you because I'm not going to be able to hear you, and I can't read your minds.
Don't worry about this is not a polling question where you have to worry about what the pollster's going to think of you.
You're thinking the answer.
Nobody will even know what you're thinking unless you blurt it out and tell somebody.
So don't worry about what somebody's going to think of you after you answer the question.
Just respond in your mind instantly, no thinking.
Here we go.
Five, four, three, two, one.
Here's the question.
How many of our troops died in Iraq last year?
What is your answer right now?
What's on your mind?
Keep that answer in your mind.
Don't start thinking about it.
Don't recall what you've read.
What's in your head?
We're talking about manipulation and how anybody and all of us can be manipulated.
Now let's interpret your answer.
If you answered less than 500 deaths in Iraq, troop deaths in Iraq last year, you have not been manipulated.
And you are healthy.
And you're in good shape.
If your answer to the question, how many of our troops died in Iraq last year is more than 1,000, you have been manipulated.
You have bought into it, hook line and zinker.
If you answered more than 2,000, you have not just been manipulated, you have been programmed.
You have been co-opted.
Your mind is not yours anymore.
It belongs to the drive-by media.
If you answered more than 3,000 deaths, troop deaths in Iraq last year, you are not just manipulated or seriously programmed, you have been brainwashed.
And you are hopeless.
If you answered more than 4,000 troop deaths last year in Iraq, you probably subscribe to the New York Times and watch a combination of CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS.
And you have gone beyond being brainwashed.
You are the enemy.
How many troop fatalities did we have in 2006?
6.
Last year.
The correct answer is 821.
821 of our bravest gave their lives in Iraq during the calendar year 2006.
Any answer between 800 and 850 tells you that you have followed the news, you've been informed by the news, and not manipulated by the liberal media.
And you would probably be on the EIB Institute dean list if we had one.
821.
821.
Now, 821, depending how you look at it, yeah, pretty big number.
But in a war?
In a year.
821 in a year, and for this, we are roiling the country with stupid debates over resolutions to engender defeat.
In a war, we lose more than this in a training exercise for the average World War II D-Day invasion or what have you, the Battle of Bulge, and you veterans of the greatest generation know exactly what I speak of.
821.
Senator Hegel is beside himself, as are all the liberals and most of the Democrats.
821.
The source for this, by the way, is a website.org.oIF.
And if you look at it, they they classify deaths in five periods every year.
Period five deaths were 915 from December 15th of 05 to January 21 of 07.
If you take out the late 05 deaths and the January 07 deaths, you are left with 821 in calendar year 2006.
821 troop deaths.
For this, we're going through all of this origimerole in the United States Senate.
For this, we're talking about cutting off the funding of the troops.
The three year total is just over three thousand.
So the figures the number of U.S. deaths must be declining because it's uh it takes over a thousand a year to average out or to total more than three thousand, and yet last year eight hundred and twenty-one.
My point is not to diminish the eight hundred and twenty-one.
My point here is to A, illustrate for you how you may be in the process of being brainwashed, propagandized, or manipulated by the drive-by media who want you to believe that many are dying every day.
The second thing is to try to put some perspective in all this with ways in which Americans die while not at war.
Wouldn't you say that if uh if 821 Americans out of a troop force of 150,000 died in one year, haven't worked up the percentages on this, but you might have a better chance at living going to war than living in certain cities where the crime rate's out of control.
I put this in context because the purpose of this war is to protect U.S. national security.
This is not just about stabilizing Iraq.
This is about protecting us and and defeating an enemy that is scattered around the globe.
And somehow that's irrelevant.
That doesn't matter.
We we've got to abandon that.
They've got to bring the troops home so no more of them die.
Let me read to you an excerpt from the book here by Henrik Broder called, Hooray, We Are Capitulating.
thing.
Objectively book was published last year.
It's not been translated into English yet, just one chapter of it on Der Spiegel's website.
Objectively speaking, the cartoon controversy was a tempest in a teacup, but subjectively it was a show of strength.
And in the context of the clash of civilizations, a dress rehearsal for the real thing.
The Muslims demonstrated how quickly and effectively they can mobilize the masses, and the Free West showed that it has nothing to counter the offensive, nothing but fear, nothing but cowardice, and an overriding concern about the balance of trade.
Now the Islamists know that they are dealing with a paper tiger whose roar is nothing but a tape recording.
As different as the West's reaction to the Muslim protests were, what they had in common were origins in feelings of powerlessness and helplessness.
Critical souls who only yesterday agreed with Marx that religion is the opium of the masses, read liberals who agreed that religion is the opium of the masses, it's it's no good, it's not it's not to be trusted or invested in.
Those same liberals now suddenly insist that religious sensibilities must be taken into account when they are Muslim and when they are accompanied by violence.
The representatives of open societies reacted like the inhabitants of an island about to be hit by a hurricane.
Powerless against the forces of nature, they stocked up on supplies, they nailed the doors and windows shut, and they hoped the storm would soon pass.
Of course, whereas such a reaction may be an appropriate response to natural disasters, such a lack of resistance merely encourages wacko fundamentalists.
It completely justifies their view of the West as weak, decadent, and completely unwilling to defend itself.
Those who react to kidnappings and beheadings, to massacres of people of other faiths, and to eruptions of collective hysteria with a call for cultural dialogue, don't deserve any better.
And he is exactly right, and so Senator Hegel and the rest of the Democrats who are joining in this resolution have to be counted as those who are willing to portray a lack of resistance, Which is encouraging the fundamentalists.
It justifies their view of us as weak, decadent, and completely unwilling to defend ourselves.
So from Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murpha on down to Chuck Hagel and whoever else, as General Petraeus said, the people at Witha with whom we are at war look at resolutions like this and appearances like Senator Hagel's, and they laugh and they rub their hands together in glee because they realize what it represents is we don't have the guts anymore or the fortitude to defend ourselves.
Instead, we have the Iraq surrender group, which suggests talking to these people.
The Muslim cartoon controversy.
They cowed the wave of burning effigies of the Pope.
The West coward in fear sought summits.
We must come together and understand why they hate us.
We are sowing the seeds of our own defeat if this kind of reluctance to face the truth continues to grow and permeate.
So far it's just in the Senate and half of this population.
But who knows after 19 or 2008.
A little long here, so the next segment's gonna be short.
I apologize in advance.
Back in a second.
Hi, welcome back.
El Rushball.
America's real anchor man with talent on lawn from God.
The phones, time to start the phones.
It's open line Friday and all that.
Uh Matt in Norfolk, Virginia, welcome to it.
By the way, we had we had quite an interesting guy from Norfolk yesterday, sounded like a New York cab driver.
Well, that's just that's definitely not me.
Um I'm a veteran, Navy veteran, uh conservative, and I must say I agree with you on almost every issue except um.
I am kind of seen where where uh Senator Hagel's coming from.
And the reason isn't so much, you know, the number of deaths and everything, but I think um if you look back at American military history, you always have to have some type of viable policy.
So, like when we did the D-Day invasion, we saw an exercise, you know, we saw the possibility or chance of of victory.
Now, they're always saying before that you needed like four or five hundred thousand troops to subdue the population and to really bring stability over there.
So I think one of the things he's wondering is what is an extra 20,000 troops gonna do.
That's said and done.
I mean, I think it's worth giving General Petraeus a chance.
But I think I'm just leaving the question open is uh if if people, generals in the past have been saying that we need 500,000 troops to do the job over there.
Why are we talking about an extra 20,000 here and thinking that there's going to be uh, you know, a different output.
You know what I've I find it interesting that uh here you have the commanding general who says 20,000, 21,500 works fine.
The commanding general you don't want to listen to.
You want to come up with all these generals who aren't there, these armchair generals who throw about all these different numbers out, four or five hundred thousand.
You know, I the minimum wage is what, five fifteen an hour, it's gonna go up two bucks an hour.
I could easily say that increasing the minimum wage a couple bucks an hour isn't gonna make any difference to hell with it.
Let's not do it.
And of course, the same people would have the uh same reaction.
Well, you of course it'd be a huge difference.
Two bucks an hour increase from five dollars what would be a huge no, it's not gonna make any difference in people's lives, a couple bucks an hour phase in over two years.
But that that's a defeatist attitude.
The um the the the whole point here to me is that we have a plan and the commanders have put it together with the president, and this is what they think they can do it.
We got a commanding general who's done this in Mosul and a couple of other Iraqi cities, and it's worth the effort.
You you you want to call here with defeatism and so forth and talk about D-Day and World War II.
I guarantee you, if Chuck Hagel had been around during D-Day with the same kind of media we have today, he would have demanded that the invasion stop after the landing because there had been so many deaths.
War is not something you put on a timetable.
You don't say we're gonna start at this date and we're gonna quit this date, no matter what happens.
War is something where you have an objective called victory, and you keep going until you get it.
At least that's what we used to do, and at least the majority of the American people used to understand that.
But they don't anymore.
The idea that people don't even want to give this a chance, that they don't even want to try it.
Leads me to ask, what else in their lives do they give up without achieving anything?
And maybe that's why they're miserable, because they themselves are personal failures and they want a lot of people to join them.
Back in just a second.
Try this.
Hans Blix says that global warming is more dangerous than nuclear weapons.
He said it in Cairo, Egypt, where he might have been beheaded if he'd said the wrong thing.
▲
Export Selection