All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
January 29, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, what a day.
Whoa.
One of those days that I ask myself, where do I start?
And then I realize it doesn't matter.
I guess it's uh it's all equally good.
Hello, folks.
Hope your weekend was good.
As always, mine was.
Now we're ready to get back, roll up the sleeves and rev up here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network Rush Limboy here behind the golden EIB microphone.
A fun frolic and frivolity for all, as well as serious discussion of the issues.
All combined in one inimitable package offered daily here at no charge on the EIB network.
800-282-2882882 is the number if you'd like to call.
And the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
You know, many people for for the for the longest time, I maybe not the whole 18 and a half years, but for for much of this program, many people have been suggesting that uh at least now and then uh I opened the program with the national anthem.
And so today, let's do it.
The pockets where the rockers came to the moon They grew through the moon And the land was still there Those days are strong-spangled Better than we For the land of the free And
And yes, ladies and gentlemen, uh that's Hillary Rodham Clinton with the national anthem in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday at a place called East High School.
Mike was live, I think she didn't sing the whole thing.
We would have played the whole thing, but she didn't start singing until she realized she was standing in front of the flag, which meant that the camera would be on her.
So she picked it up uh halfway through.
I I'm I'm impressed she knows the words.
Uh she impressed me there.
And for the longest time, too.
Uh ever since the 1992 campaign, have a friend who has constantly bugged me to call uh uh Hillary uh not Hillary, but hilarious, or Hillaryus.
And I've always refused that.
You know, I'm I'm a model of taste uh and decorum.
I define both those uh characteristics on this program.
I have rejected the stunt throughout the broadcast years here, despite being leaned on by a lot of people.
Because I think, you know, it did it it's it's a it's a you know focus on the issues.
If there's a story in the New York Times today, women feeling freer to suggest vote for mom.
Women don't have to uh fear being ID'd as a party of uh mommy, a marmy party uh when national security is the top issue.
National security is the top issue.
I didn't think we faced a national security threat.
I thought that was the position of the Democrat Party.
But you know, if you got Nancy Pelosi bringing all the grandkids and the kids in uh when she was uh uh crowned as uh as speaker of the House, and and there is this notion now that that women can abandon the early tenets of the modern era feminism and go go on about being mommies.
And uh because the country needs mommies during national security threats.
What threat do the Democrats realize or recognize that's a national security threat other than their own country?
I mean, there's Carrie over in Davos, uh following in the footsteps of every defeated Democrat.
Gore has done the same thing.
Uh Clinton, even though he wasn't defeated, same thing, uh, calling his own country a pariah, posing for photos at Davos, Switzerland with uh with with uh representatives of countries that you could likely uh and accurately claim to be enemies of the United States of America.
But seriously, when when when anybody looks at Hillary, do you think mom?
I mean, they really expect to be able to pull this off.
I mean, I I look at Hillary, I see Nurse Ratchet.
But I don't see mom.
I I don't even think I see mom when I look at Nancy Pelosi, who by the way, was on a fact-finding mission to the Middle East.
She went to Baghdad, she went to Pakistan and she went to Afghanistan.
You know what she said about Afghanistan?
We need more troops.
We need more troops in Afghanistan, folks.
It's tough to keep up with these people, but we're going to try today.
Now, as to the reason this this friend of mine wants me to keep calling Hillary hilarious, is be is is uh the latest example is a response that she made, and we've got audio of this, and it's all coming up over the weekend when she was out in Iowa.
She said, after all, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden, have we?
And is it about time that we got serious about that?
And I intend to.
And it is hilarious to hear a Clinton who was in the White House for eight years complain about not getting bin Laden of all the candidates on the left, and I don't know how many of them there are, but Hillary is the one with a documented record of not getting Osama.
She was co-president, that was how she was billed.
Eight years of not getting Osama, at least five blown opportunities to do so.
Uh if Hillary and Iowa liberals think that she could be more successful at tracking down bin Laden uh than the president, you need to ask a question.
With her track record, could Hillary do better than say, oh, Dennis Kucinich, could she do any better than uh who else is running in the Democrat?
John Edwards.
I mean, this is this is you know, I I'd like to know who actually ordered the troops out of Mogadishu.
Was it Bill or Hillary?
Anyway, she's also um, you know, we're we'll have the line that she talked about the uh evil men dealing with uh with evil men.
I mean, we really are loaded here today, folks.
And then uh there's this, and I've been waiting for this.
I knew this was coming, I knew it's been coming for the longest time.
It was in the Los Angeles Times uh yesterday, a column by David A. Bell.
David A. Bell is a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, a contributing editor for the New Republic, and the author of the first total war, Napoleon's Europe and the birth of warfare, uh, as uh W it says here.
Uh anyway, here's the topic of the piece.
Was 911 really that bad.
Now, I don't know if you've sus if you've suspected this to be coming, but I have.
Uh and you've heard me discuss this on many occasions.
The left in this country would love for you to be convinced that America today is no different than it was on 910 2001 and days prior.
And now here's the first official effort here from a new Republic writer and author in the Los Angeles Times.
Was 9-11 really that bad?
We lost 3,000 people, but so what?
It's not that big a deal.
I mean, certainly his point is, yeah, we lost 3,000 people.
It doesn't mean that people want us uh to be made extinct.
That doesn't mean that people are trying to wipe us out.
It doesn't mean people are trying to destroy us, he says.
And this is something uh I haven't seen anybody pick up on it yet.
Uh so that's why I intend to uh publicize this a little bit today.
There's this, all kinds of great stuff just waiting to get started.
Let me quick time out now.
We'll come back, start with the audio and uh and and focus in on Mrs. Clinton to get started here because some of the stuff is uh is really actually it's important.
Uh and I think uh responding to my friend's quest to call her hilarious.
I really think, you know, we had a lot of fun with the Clintons in 92 in that campaign, they still won.
I think it's probably going to be far more uh uh productive to focus on policy and on issues where she is concerned, and do that with the humor.
Uh it's you know women, women today are uh clearly uh uh geared up, and if if uh too many insults are made about Hillary's femininity, whatever you think of it, it's just gonna send women right to her in a sympathetic rush to defend her by way of voting for.
She is what she is, and it's obvious when you look, and you look at her as you don't see a mom.
I don't.
I think most women would agree, but um depends on who says that and making them mad in the process as to determining what they do.
But she's out there claiming she was in Iowa all weekend, and she's got this albatross around her neck that she voted for the Iraq war in 2002.
She's out there saying that Bush tricked her.
Well, we've got audio of Hillary speaking to Code Pink, a female anti war group.
Uh And also a speech that she made from the Senate floor in which she details her reasons for voting for the war.
And in none of those speeches, of course, does she say Bush tricked her?
She says she did her own research.
And she came to this conclusion on her own.
Because it was nothing.
Bush was saying nothing different than what her own husband had said back in 1998.
So buckle up.
Might get rough at times today, but it'll be enjoyable at all times.
Back in just a second.
Well, the left was in orgasmic nostalgia over the weekend with her big anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. Can you imagine bringing out Jane Fonda and thinking that you are going to have credibility?
Jane Fonda brought back to protest that she can't be silent anymore.
And then they had they had the usual suspects, had Sean Penn, uh Jeff Spicole from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
Then they had uh the Susan Saranen and Tim Robbins, the usual suspect, Code Pink, uh, and all this.
And as I listened to, I didn't watch any of it to be, folks, I just read coverage of it.
I read the coverage of it.
I detected more threats aimed at Democrats than I did at Bush or the White House.
It might be close, might be a toss-up, but they clearly were sending messages that they're not gonna sit tight and support unbinding, non-binding resolution.
They're gonna demand defunding, and they are gonna demand bringing the troops home.
And of course, nobody really asks them just what will be accomplished with it.
Just what is your motivation for this?
Nobody really pins them down on that.
Their answer would be a bunch of pap, obviously about saving the soldiers and bringing peace and so forth, but it really, these people are against their own country's success and uh and victory.
So you have the 60s retreads reliving the great old days, trying to make this another Vietnam scenario, and it's uh yeah, it's fascinating to me how people perceive this out there in the so-called great unwashed of the body politic.
One of the funniest cheers that happened out there uh on Saturday in Washington was there's a protest sponsored, it was United for Peace and Justice, and uh Code Pink protester, unidentified Code Pink, and this is the commie pink O anti-war group that's largely female.
This is what this woman said.
We women of the United States have a very clear message for every single presidential candidate, including or especially Hillary Clinton.
And we women say a break.
This is too challenging.
I cannot risk getting an FCC fine for my 600-plus radio affiliate, so I can't say what I really want to say about this.
Probably if only pull out now.
What are men to do now?
I mean, here's a bunch of women running around, we are mommies, pull out now.
And did you hear the horror scream at the mention of Hillary's name?
Here, run this again because there's a lot in here.
But there is a horror scream at the mention of Hillary.
We women of the United States.
Stop, stop the t- stop the tape, and Rick.
What is it about these we Democrat women that they have to scream and rant and get maniacal like this?
It's hilarious.
Here it is again.
We women of the United States have a very clear message for every single presidential candidate, including or especially Hillary Clinton.
And we women say poll.
now!
Um, uh, I, you know, my first thought was that they were they were talking about the troops, but uh just I know I've hit a home run when Dawn starts rolling her eyes.
I love these people.
They are such great fodder.
They are, I'll tell you what, what, when they're when they're uh in power, though, they're dangerous.
When they're out of power doing this kind of stuff, they're funny.
When they're in power, they they do pose a uh a dangerous threat.
All right.
Uh well, let me tackle this this piece for the LA Times before we get to the Hillary Clinton video, because I think this will set it all up.
Was 9-11 really that bad?
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we are overreacting.
This is by David Bell in the Los Angeles Times.
Imagine that on 9-11, six hours after the assault on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks, taking an additional 3,000 lives.
And imagine six hours after that, that there had been yet another wave.
Now imagine that the attacks had continued every six hours for another four years until nearly twenty million Americans were dead.
This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II.
And contemplating these numbers may help put it in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.
This is simply unbelievable.
Comparing ourselves to what the Soviet Union endured in World War II and saying we got a long way to go before we even have any right to complain.
We haven't experienced anything compared to what other nations have.
I guess Mr. Bell discounts all of the other Americans killed by terrorists in hijackings of pleasure craft airplanes and cruise ships in our embassies, in our marine barracks, the attempted destruction of the World Trade Center in 1993.
But even if he includes all it, it still wouldn't get us anywhere near to the list of Soviet casualties that happened uh during World War II.
He continues, it also raises several questions.
Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction?
Is the widespread belief that 9-11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong?
If we did overact, overreact, why did we do so?
Does history provide any insight?
A great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make an important distinction.
That distinction is if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it's hard to see any indication of an overreaction.
The people who attacked us on 2001 are indeed hateful fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country.
But desire is not the same thing as capacity.
And although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it's quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.
So we are to discount their desire to do so, which he admits in favor of the knowledge that they are unable to do so.
Yeah, we are we're supposed to wait till they really, really kill us, and then it would be okay to respond the way we are.
But now it's premature.
Time to pull out No, according to this guy.
A great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction between their their desire, Al Qaeda's desire, and their ability.
For them, the Islamo fascist enemy has inherited not just Hitler's implacable hatreds, but his capacity to destroy.
The conservative author Norman Pedoritz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV, number three being the Cold War.
But it's no disrespect to the victims of 9-11 or to the men and women or armed forces.
No!
No, of course not.
Of course it's not.
To say that by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States.
Really?
Small human cost?
Then why the never-ending drum beat of fear and anger over the small number of troops we've lost.
Is this is this uh not amazing?
How the left, on the one hand, can argue that 3,000 battle casualties in Iraq is horrifying.
3,000 slaughtered innocent civilians is existential.
He doesn't really mean anything.
And uh the spin he puts on it in a CYA, you know, cover your rear end mode.
No disrespect to the victims of the 9 11 or the men and women of our armed forces.
No, of course not.
But by the standards of past wars, we've very small amount of damage has been inflicted on the United States in terms of human causes.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq in Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.
Well, it's it's it's it's nice to see the stat finally used by the left, but look at how they're doing it to justify that we don't really face a threat, that we're making too big a deal of this, we're all overreacting, and we gotta lose a lot more Americans before we actually get serious about dealing with this.
I'm gonna have a good time.
Yes.
Okay.
Just got an email uh from the Rasmussen Reports polling unit in the headline, I haven't had a chance to read it or print it out.
I just printed it.
Uh Rasmussen reports McCain is tanking.
That means in the poll.
I'll get to that as I soon as I can get back and get it off of the printer.
Now, I I can't let this was 9 11 really that bad uh column from the Los Angeles Times yesterday go.
I want to pick this up because folks, this is um this is the I knew I've just known this is coming.
The Democrats have been trying to make the case uh in an in an implied or even a subliminal way uh for two to three years now.
That you know, we we live in a pre-9-11 country today.
We need we don't need to be in Afghanistan, we don't need to be in Iraq.
We don't have any really enemies out there.
I mean, this is just Bush and his insanity or whatever they want to say uh that it is.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents, as I so frequently point out.
But it isn't it interesting here to see that this guy and the LA Times and the rest of the drive-by media hammering daily every casualty number from Iraq into our heads to show how bad we are losing the war.
Now it fits their political agenda to tell us it isn't so bad after all.
All of a sudden now the 3,000 deaths in Iraq from the soldiers, according to this guy, that's not that no big deal.
3,000 dead on 911, no big deal, nothing compared to what the Soviets lost in World War II.
Why do leftists compare everything to the Soviet Union?
Of course, the 9-11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come, but then we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify, and despite even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9-11 era, i.e.
the TV show 24, Islama's terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns, and conventional explosives.
Uh uh where to start.
Conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come, but then we were hardly ignorant of these threats before.
Yeah, we weren't ignorant at what actually some of us were ignorant because the previous administration was doing diddly squat about it.
The previous administration wasn't trying very hard at all.
It's like Mrs. Clinton in Iowa over the weekend claiming that it's irresponsible we haven't gotten bin Laden, and she's gonna take care of that when she's president.
She's in the White House with her husband for eight years.
They had five chances to get bin Laden, and they punted on every one of them.
It's like she was never in Washington, like her husband was never president of the United States, like he never said any of the same things about Iraq and Saddam Hussein that she herself said, along with practically every other American politician in 2002.
This business of uh 24 providing these nightmarish fantasies, Islamist terrorists Have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns, and conventional explosives.
What were the three airplanes?
The the fact that they don't an airplane like the way they used it is not conventional.
It is not a conventional weapon.
Stop and think what they did.
Box cutters, fake driver's license, it fired visas and all of this, and our own airplanes.
Taught to fly them in our own country, and we have no threat.
They don't have the ability to get it.
What do you think the Iranians are doing?
What do you think the Iranians and the Russians working together, not to mention the Chinese are working on?
So anyway, he asks why has there been such an overreaction?
Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way, calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation.
In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated the threat that terrorists posed to the U.S. and convincingly concluded that it has been to quote his title overblown.
But he undercut his own argument by adding that the U.S. has overreacted to every threat in recent history, including even in Pearl Harbor.
He argues that rather than trying to defeat Japan, we should have tried containment.
Seeing international conflict in a apocalyptic terms, viewing every threat as existential is hardly a unique American habit.
At any rate, uh we need to overcome this long habit of thinking every threat is aimed at our existence and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.
And we're gotta always keep in mind, folks, yeah, they may say they want to wipe us out, but can they?
And until they can, we don't need to really worry about it.
We're manufacturing all this fear and going through all of these uh procedures, security measures, and so forth, and it's totally unnecessary because we have overreacted here in the United States about this threat.
It doesn't matter what the Imams, what the Sheiks, uh what they're saying out there, doesn't matter what they're promising to do, doesn't matter what they're training their young boys to do, none of that matters.
What matters is we haven't lost nearly as many casualties as it taken many as the Soviets did, and we've only lost sixty, five hundred in the come on.
This is this we're we're all way, way, way overreacting.
Need to lose a lot more before we react properly.
Well, it works for me.
I mean, if if that's all it takes to feel good about future, just we're overreacting.
There is no threat.
The threat is being manufactured, it's existential.
Yeah, they say they want to do this, but they can't really.
They can't wipe us out, so why worry about it?
That's gonna make this year even.
I mean, I was prepared to be all hunkered down and buttoned up and very serious about this year, but now I can be carefree and hunky-dory.
And I can I can uh I can listen to the Democrats with a new perspective.
Meaningless resolutions will be mean everything.
What really matters is nothing more than paranoia on our part and emptiness, vacuity, vacuousness, and so that's what will count for reality.
That is what the left is attempting to get you to uh to buy.
Let's go to the uh audio tape, Mrs. Clinton.
This is last Saturday at Des Moines East Haskell.
And she's she said this about her position on the war in Iraq.
I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies.
So he took the authority that I and others gave him, and he misused it.
And I regret that deeply.
And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.
Yay!
This is an outright lie.
This is a total mischaracterization.
It is designed, we all know why.
It is designed to get her over the hump, so to speak, of this problem she has that she voted for the war.
So essentially, she was tricked.
She never voted for going to war.
She voted for the Opportunity to go to war, but only if we had allies and only if we had uh exhausted negotiations, but she was not authorizing going to war.
She next bite says that Bush should finish Iraq before he leaves.
I think it's the height of irresponsibility, and I really resent it.
This was his decision to go to war.
He went with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy, and we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know what uh this is about.
Bush has said that the war on terror will go on and on and on beyond his administration, and any expert in this realizes that that's the case.
Mrs. Clinton here is saying, oh, no, no, no.
You get all this stuff off the table before I take office in 2009.
That's why she wants the troops out in 2009, because that's when she's going to be inaugurated.
So she wants all this off the table.
She doesn't want to inherit what she thinks somebody else's mess.
Now, isn't that rich?
From an administration that left the Bush administration with so many messes.
The state of the military, the lack of any action on terrorism, uh, on and on.
The Clinton administration didn't tackle anything big after they tried health care and it bombed out, because the preservation of that approval number at 65% was everything.
But uh, she don't want any tough challenge.
It's his responsibility.
He started it, he should finish it before I take office.
Just get out of there, Bush.
Uh again, it's about her.
It's not about the events in which the country is involved that define themselves and take their own course.
It's about clearing the decks for Mrs. Clinton so she can start fresh without having to get her feet wet or her hands dirty on any of this hard stuff.
Be back.
Quick timeout.
Don't go away, folks.
We women of the United States have a very clear message for every single presidential candidate, including or especially Hillary Clinton.
And we women say pull out now.
They wish I. As I say at first, I thought she was talking about the troops.
Welcome back, Rushlin boss serving humanity talent on loan from God, 800-282-2882.
As I said, most of the rhetoric of the anti-war protesters over the weekend, notice how old they are.
They're not recruiting young people.
This is this is the 60s generation, and they have compatriots now that have been elected and serving in the House and Senate.
I mean, that's who a large number of those Democrats are.
These 60s anti-war anti-America protesters, and they've they've uh assumed positions of power.
Some have been there for quite a while.
But uh this this anti-war protest aimed largely at Democrats.
If you read what was said, uh they're not they're not gonna put up with any half-baked measures like non-binding resolutions.
They want the funds cut, they want the troops out, and they want it now.
God's grating.
Mr. Snurtley says we're being overwhelmed with uh requests for that, so we'll we'll play it a number of times today.
Now it's time to contrast Mrs. Clinton.
Again, two bites from Saturday.
Just play these back to back, numbers three and five, play them back to back.
This is Hillary totally distorting her Iraq war vote record.
I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies.
So he took the authority that I and others gave him, and he misused it.
And I regret that deeply.
And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.
There are no do-overs in life.
I wish there were.
I acted on the best judgment that I had at the time, and at the time I said this was not a vote for preemptive war.
And the president took my vote and other votes, and basically misused the authority we gave him.
Now there's no other way to say this.
She's lying.
She's lying through her teeth.
If uh if she had known then what she knows now, this was no different than what was being said in 1998 by her husband and every elected official that chose to support him when he was discussing Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, as well as Saddam Hussein.
So let's go back.
Uh we have audio here from March the 7th of 2003.
This is before the Iraq war started.
Senator Clinton had a meeting with Code Pink, and they recorded this on a cheap cell phone, but that's why the audio sounds the way it does.
But we have a portion of her remarks here.
Now get remember, this is March 7, 2003, and contrast that with what you just heard.
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being uh put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm.
And I have absolutely no belief that he will.
I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision.
But I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.
Wait a minute.
I thought she said on Iowa over the weekend that uh uh uh Bush tricked her and that miss used her vote and that misled her on all kinds of information.
Here she says she did the research herself, that she had no belief that Saddam would disarm on his own.
She says that this is something that she has followed for more than a decade.
If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming.
I ended up voting for the revis resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinion I trusted, and I try to discount political or other factors.
Now, uh three and a half, almost four years later, she is lying through her teeth.
There's no other way to put this.
Lying through her teeth about what Bush did.
Bush tricked her.
She gave him an authority not for preemptive war and not to stop Saddam.
And he misused the authority that uh that uh her vote and the votes of others gave her.
And she's talking here to Code Pink, an anti-war group, and she's explaining to them why they're wrong and why we have to go into Iraq and get Saddam.
This is before the Iraq war started in March of 2007.
Next bite, or 2003.
She specifically explains why the U.S. would have to go alone if the UN wouldn't cooperate.
Now, this is a direct contradiction to the BS that she's spewing now about Bush not exhausting diplomacy.
This tape is on YouTube.
And uh, if if we can find it, anybody can find it.
And the drive-by's have no interest in this.
They're already treating her as though she is president.
They'll do anything, including the Sandy Burglar documents and everything, whatever those things were all about.
They'll suppress anything that is bad news for Mrs. Clinton, but listen to this, talking to Code Pink.
Uh Code Pink woman said, hey, with all due respect, Mrs. Clinton, it's not the United States, not up to this government to disarm Hussein.
It's up to the community of nations.
With respect to whose uh whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein.
I didn't I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not the United States leadership.
And I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing, and we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone.
And so I see it somewhat differently.
He'll forgive me for my experience and perspective.
She's telling these code pink people, screw the diplomacy, screw the UN, screw the world of nations, my husband couldn't count on the world of nations to save Bosnia, which by the way, still is a mess, but that's another matter another day.
She's telling these people we have to do it alone.
We're the only ones who can.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, this is um I I think it's profoundly serious.
Uh because what Mrs. Clinton did over the weekend in blaming Bush for tricking her, misusing the authority of her vote, that he was only to go exhaust all diplomacy first, and then if that which he did, by the way, for a year and a half after you went.
Oh, yep, gotta go.
▲
Export Selection