All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 8, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:36
February 8, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program at Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am Roger Hedgecock coming at you from the left coast at KOGO Radio in San Diego.
And so much to do today.
I mean, this relentless pursuit of truth stuff is hard work.
This pursuit of happiness stuff doesn't just happen accidentally.
You've got to get into it.
We're going to get into it today.
What a bunch of topics today.
The Senate and the House and their resolutions on Iraq.
Wait till you hear the story behind that story, as well as the story behind Pelosi won, the Speaker of the House and her airplane in the news, the Democratic presidential candidates falling all over themselves and looking extremely stupid.
We'll get to that today, too.
Boy, I tell you, we don't have to do much.
You just stand back and let them do what they do.
That thing you do.
Remember that movie?
Anyway, this global warming thing has also exploded with a bunch of new uh facts in you and upstate uh New York remember to remember to believe in global warming as the hundred inches of snow falls on you uh today.
And we'll be talking too about alternatives in the uh quest for energy independence is ethanol, the magic bullet there.
Well, some new facts on that as well.
Russia's covered this stuff very well, but there's some interesting wrinkles today.
Uh and then in the third hour, we're going to talk to John Culberson.
He's a Republican congressman down in Texas.
And uh wow, the sparks are flying on the subject of uh yesterday's topic, the border patrol agents doing their job at the border, apprehending or trying to apprehend and eventually shooting at uh and apparently wounding, although that's not proven, a um illegal alien drug dealer.
I mean, I thought that's what they were supposed to do.
I don't know.
We'll get into that again today and what the government is now charging the Border Patrol agents trying to do their job, apprehending an illegal alien drug smuggler, the smuggler gets immunity, sues the government for five million dollars, and is immunized even for future drug uh roll throughs at the border.
Uh the border patrol agents are in federal prison, eleven and twelve-year terms respectively.
I is that backwards or just me?
Anyway, we'll get into all of that.
Take your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
Look, here is uh let me talk about these resolutions.
This is going to be the most difficult topic of the day, the most difficult to to follow, so help me along here, because this is a at the end of this discussion, you'll have a remarkable insight into uh the politics uh in Washington as uh just by taking this example, the anti-war resolutions that you know with great uh fanfare have been introduced in the Senate and the House.
But let me step back one step to polling, because that is always what members of the Senate and House are thinking about as they maneuver to uh posture uh to bloviate to uh attract your attention and vote.
To make you believe they are doing what you want them to do.
Which is so rare in occurrence, by the way, it's uh it's almost like uh the clock that's uh stopped but correct twice a day.
Anyway, this is uh the polling numbers that we need to uh think about, because these are the polling numbers they are thinking about.
Yes, a sizable majority of Americans don't like the war in Iraq.
That's the bedrock position the Democrats are coming from.
We represent the majority of the people of this country saying no to the Bush war in Iraq.
Now, when you go peel that onion back another level, and you ask about the surge, the new Bush strategy, to get this thing under control enough to give it over to the Iraqis for their security, you get a majority that opposes that plan.
Not as big a majority, but a majority.
You get uh and this again, the Democrats point to see, the public not only is against the war, they're against Bush's latest tactics on the war, calling it an escalation rather than uh the surge.
Then you peel the onion back another level, and this is the one the Democrats do not want to talk about.
Do not Want to talk about.
Because even though a majority oppose the surge or escalation plan, and while a majority are doubtful that it can succeed, a vast majority of Americans do not want it to fail.
A vast majority of Americans, 63% in this poll at Fox News, a vast majority of Americans, 63%, say they want the plan to succeed, even though about the same number think it won't.
They're convinced and conditioned by the mainstream media, by the drive-by media, that the plan will not work, but they're hoping it will.
They're hoping it will.
Seventy-nine percent of Republicans, 63% of independents, and even 51% of Democrats want the plan to succeed.
They want America to succeed.
And most people, most people think that most Democrats, quote unquote, want the Bush plan to fail.
They're talking about the leadership of the party.
And for him to have to withdraw troops in defeat to defeat the Republicans in 08.
In other words, most people know what's going on.
But the Democrats don't want you to think about that third level of polling results.
They want you to think about the first two.
So they introduce into the Senate a resolution that is a nonbinding resolution, the courageous Senate, the nonbinding resolution against the war.
And the trumpet today is that the Republicans have blocked debate on the war in Iraq.
The Republicans have blocked this resolution from coming to the floor of the Senate using the 60-vote rule because trying to force the resolution to debate got only 49 votes.
It didn't even get 50.
Trying to force the debate didn't even get 50 votes.
In other words, a number of Democrats joining with Republicans to block consideration of this resolution, non-binding resolution against the war.
Why is that?
Why did that only get 49 votes?
Well, I'll tell you what, the jockeying is this.
And it it's something you've got to get your arms around here, because this is essential to understanding the Democrats and understanding how the Senate works.
There were other resolutions that were offered.
A Republican alternative proposed by Judd Gregg of New Hampshire would say that it would promise that the Senate would never cut off funds for this or any other military operation undertaken in Iraq.
In other words, Vietnam is the shadow here.
The shadow over all of this is the Democrats took a beating after the 1970s when the anti-war faction, the McGovern faction of the Democratic Party, forced uh Congress, uh particularly with uh Nixon embroiled in Watergate, to cut off funds in 1975 to aid the South uh Vietnamese government in defending itself against an invasion by the North Vietnamese army.
It wasn't the Viet Cong, it was their regular army.
Uh when they were cut off from funds and air power and all the rest of it, when Congress cut off the funds, the South Vietnamese government folded, fell, and uh the conquest of South Vietnam was complete, and a couple of million people died, and a couple of million more were in re-education camps, and Cambodia was invaded, and overall uh millions of people died because the Democrats did cut and run.
That is the history.
So they want to avoid that this time.
So they want to have a resolution that says, look, we're against the war.
This war is wrong, Bush lied, people died, blah, blah, blah.
But it's nonbinding.
And by the way, if Judd Gregg's resolution gets up there that says we're not going to cut off funds, most Democrats will support that too.
Here's the ugly secret.
Most Democrats would support that too.
Because they don't want to get into having another Ronald Reagan blast them out of the water as Ronald Reagan did in 1980 partially on this idea that the Democrats are working for the enemy.
The Democrats are the enemy's best friend in this country.
So the Democrats want to have it both ways.
We're against the war because that's what our base, that's what our victory was based on.
The first two layers of that polling data.
People are against the war, we represent the people, we represent the majority, we deserve the majority in Congress.
That was their whole pitch.
But they don't want to get the backlash from the majority they know also exists that does not want America to fail.
Senator Feingold brought this up before.
He uh did not want a non-binding resolution.
He wanted a uh binding resolution to cut off funds now for the Iraq war.
He's saying I'm representing the majority of people in my state and throughout this country wants this war to stop, not six months, eight months, ten months, twelve months, and all these Democratic presidential hopefuls are uh now have their own schedules, right?
Uh not all of that uh prevarication and bloviating.
I want it out now.
Nobody came to the hearing.
I mean, he had this hearing to uh to expose his resolution.
Ted Kennedy's coughing in the corner, you know, shifting uncomfortably in his seat, remembering because he was in the Senate then, as he was for the last six wars, uh hasn't he been in the Senate the most of the twentieth century?
I think so.
Uh he was there when the Democrats took a beating because they crossed a line.
Yes, you can debate the war, yes, you can have different uh points of view about the war, but when you cut off funds in a way that causes the defeat of the United States, you're gonna pay a political price for that because that goes over a line.
When you advocate for the failure of America, it goes over a line.
So now they're trying to have it both ways when they couldn't have it both ways, when they couldn't uh keep uh Judd Gregg's uh resolution from coming up, much less uh McCain's resolution, which is basically support the president, give him all he needs, and let's go in there and win this thing, which is McCain's best moment, by the way, in his career.
Uh they uh read just withdrew them all.
Withdrew them all, and got in the New York Times yesterday, a lead editorial calling them cowards.
It's been a fun couple of days in the United States Congress.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh back with your calls after this.
And in the Senate today, the interesting thing, and we'll get to some calls here in a moment, uh, is that there has now been a letter sent by uh Senator Warner of Virginia to uh to uh try to get the resolution opposing the surge back on track.
See, if they put one resolution on, then Judd Gregor's gonna say, well, I want mine, and McCain is gonna say I want mine too.
And then they're really in a pickle because then Democrats are gonna start voting for, well, yeah, we want to keep the money spigot open.
See, the McGovernites don't want that.
They want to cut it off like they did in Vietnam.
They want to replay Vietnam.
So now the seven, I mean the seven pawns, the seven um leaders of the Republican Party led by uh John Warner and Chuck Hagel, and um, including Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon, and George Voinovich of Ohio, have sent a letter saying, gee, to Harry Reid, gee, can't we get this back on track?
Can't we do something to cave into this?
Can't we can't we do something to undermine uh Bush's efforts?
Can't we do something uh to bring about the defeat of the United States?
It's it's it's our duty.
The House of Representatives is moving toward its own Iraq vote.
They are I mean, this is this is their level of um of honor and duty and patriotism.
They're going to this they call an associated press, they call this the stripped down measure does not relate to astronauts, it relates to President Bush's decision to pr to send in the surge.
The stripped down measure in the House of Representatives, and It'll be voted up or down with three days of uh of debate starting next week.
I can hardly wait.
Uh that says, uh, we don't support the war, but we do support the troops.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I know you know this, but let's repeat for those just joining the Institute's deliberations on this subject.
You cannot support the troops without supporting the mission.
What do you think troops are doing?
They are over there fighting.
I'm going slower now.
Many of you have attended public school.
Uh they're over there fighting the war.
If you say I'm against the war, you are against the troops who are there.
Put yourself in their position.
You're out on point.
You're going through a mud hut.
You got a guy in a burqa blah blah, whatever it is, uh shooting at you with an AK 47 under his bloba.
And you're shooting back hoping you haven't gone off over the line and aren't going to be court-martialed for defending yourself.
And you're saying to yourself, gee, the House of Representatives just voted uh against the war.
I feel so much better.
I feel supported.
I feel loved.
I feel encompassed, uh, cocooned in the love of the uh Congress.
No.
I'm sorry, it does not work that way.
Gosh, I feel so much better.
1 800 282 2882.
Venting now will get you a chance.
Maria in Fort Bragg, you're next on the Rush Show.
Hi.
Hi, how are you?
Good.
Well, uh, I call actually Chuck Hegel and the other guy, the Republicans, I called and many other senators, and I call everybody I knew.
But what I told their aides is look, this is how I see it.
I'm an army wife.
My husband is going there, he's been going there, this is going to be his third tour.
I know a lot of army wives, and we all think the same.
If you go ahead and do this resolution, what you are saying to us is, you know, we don't care about you.
We only want to say we don't like the war, but we're not going to give the money to your to your husband to go ahead and get the equipment that they need to do their job.
They are not there because they are, you know, want to go or whatever.
Many people don't want to go.
Whatever is their opinion, but they have that's their job.
They have to do it.
Nothing to it.
They we have to we and we have we the families have to let them go.
And but for me, it's really hard when I hear these people saying, Well, you know, we're gonna cut funds.
But we are we are with the troops.
This is just insulting and in fear infuriates me.
And I've been calling everybody, and I told them, I said, don't say that because we wives don't don't say much.
It's not and and we're we just stay there because I'm go if if this goes through, I'm gonna move on, and I'm going to tell every single sister that I have and everybody in my in my FRD what these people are gonna do, and I'm gonna name them, and we are gonna go and do something about it.
Because if they are not gonna send our husband with less equipment just because they want to go ahead and make their political points.
Maria, God bless you, and uh thank you for what you're doing and your service to the country and your sacrifice as a family uh while your loved one is deployed in this war, and God bless him as well.
Thanks for the call.
Well, that said it better than I did.
Okay, there it is on the table.
Here's Ron in Great Falls, Virginia.
Ron, welcome to the Rush Show.
Hi, I'm very proud to follow people like Maria.
I am one one.
I wonder if you took a poll in World War II.
How many Americans would say that they liked the war?
Who really likes war?
That isn't the point.
And I wonder how they worded that poll.
Well, that's right.
Um y there is something to that uh because uh nobody likes war when you c and you're not asking about like, you are asking about do you support the president uh in this uh war in Iraq?
Uh that question comes back with a huge negative response in the in the uh public now, and I'll tell you why Russia said this and it's absolutely right.
The the reason why there's a growing majority dissatisfied with the war in Iraq is because we haven't won it and we haven't won it long ago.
We know how to win these wars.
We've won them in the Philippines a hundred years ago.
We won one of these against a Muslim fatwa jihad type insurgency.
We've done this before.
It's very frustrating that we can't do it now any better than we're doing it.
Exactly.
You turn the troops loose and they do what they need to do.
They do what they do.
Ron, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
Now, uh do I have a minute?
Uh less than a minute.
Well, I'll tell you what, Bob in Chicago, give me thirty seconds of your best.
Okay, Roger, pleasure to speak with you.
I Just my question is, and it's what I really get a lot out of the Democrats is are they are they opposing the war because young guys and girls are dying, or just because they're voice supposed they're dying for a flawed plan.
It just seems it seems I hear more of that kids are dying and it it's part of war.
I mean, I hate to be so it's all really harsh.
It's just a harsh thing to say, but my brother in law isn't over there.
He's still in the Navy.
Uh the Democrats are opposing the war because Bush is the president.
If Clinton were president and we were in this war, we'd be in it to win.
The McGovernites are replaying Vietnam to defeat a Republican president.
Simple as that.
All right, look, I need to go back in history to give you some other perspective here, not too far back.
Let's go to nineteen eighty-three.
Paul Kinger has a new book out called The Crusader, Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
In that book, adding to research done by a number of other folks, including those who came out of the ex-Soviet Union when the Communists fell from power.
Um adding to published uh reports by Vasily Metrokin, the former KGB historian, who copied KGB files and released them after the fall of the Soviet Union, using all of that source material.
It now becomes apparent that Senator Edward Kennedy and other senators offered to help the Soviets mount a public relations offensive in the United States in 1983 to target President Reagan and his policies against the Soviet Union.
Policies that eventually ended the Cold War and uh reduced, if not eliminated, uh in those years, the possibility of a nuclear annihilation.
Mr. Kennedy is quoted by these sources and others, feeling that bad relations between the United States and the Soviet Union, as he saw it, they were bad relations, were the sole fault of Mr. Reagan, and that talk of a Soviet military threat was nonsense.
According to this research, Mr. Kennedy and the released KGB papers by this is an the analysis of the Soviet Union as well.
Mr. Kennedy felt that the booming economy during Reagan's presidency made Reagan popular and thus a difficult target for democratic criticism.
Because of this, Mr. Kennedy reportedly felt that Mr. Reagan's only weakness was in foreign policy.
And here the articles say Mr. Kennedy felt the Soviets might be of assistance.
This in the Washington Times today, by the way, if you want to follow along.
The um articles that are listed indicate that former Senator John Tunney of California, a Democrat, went to Moscow and met with officials of the KGB on Mr. Kennedy's behalf.
In the book, The Sword and the Shield by Christopher Andrew and Vasily Metrokin, who again was a KGB historian.
They say that as early as 1975, the KGB began operations.
This is the intelligence arm of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, began operations to penetrate the inner circles of a number of leading Democrats, including Mr. Kennedy and Ramsey Clark.
Surprise, surprise.
They also mentioned that a Democratic Party activist had been recruited by the KGB and supplied the Soviets with information from a variety of Democratic leaders, including President Carter.
Another word, ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats trucking with the enemy to defeat a Republican president is not new news.
It is their pattern of behavior in Vietnam, in the Cold War, and now.
It is what Democrats do.
Here's Pat in Pittsburgh.
Pat, welcome.
Analogy that should put an end to this whole silly uh support the troops, but not the war argument.
Go ahead.
You know, that would be just akin to people coming up to us and saying, you know, we support the firemen, but we don't support you putting out fire.
That's right.
Hey, you firemen are great people.
Just don't put out those fires.
No, we're so we want those fires to burn.
They're ecologically important uh for the Natcatcher Habitat, uh, but we love firemen.
Exactly.
That's the same mentality.
In fact, uh gosh, I just did a little parody and I'm afraid it might come true.
I'm always afraid when I do parodies uh and and make fun of people that it actually will become policy because I've seen it happen so many times.
Pat, thanks for the call.
Ay.
Jerry in River Falls, is it Wisconsin?
Jerry, go ahead.
Uh Roger, I'm sitting I was just on my way out to the American Legion, which I come out on two days a week to play cards with some other vets, and as a Vietnam veteran, I thought I couldn't believe the statement that I heard you make on the way home that you could if you didn't support the war, you couldn't support the troops.
And I c I couldn't be in more disagreement with that statement.
Okay, why?
Well, because I I think the the war was goofy from the day one, and it certainly hasn't gotten any better.
But I'm uh a big supporter of my fellow brothers that are still in the service and the ones that are out.
All right, if you don't support the mission, then what are you supporting?
I I support them without them.
You mean personally?
I mean, uh you're you're contributing your paycheck.
I don't understand support as a verb in terms of if you're not supporting the mission, what is it about the troops that you're supporting?
Since they trained all they're doing is training for the mission.
All their all our whole focus is on the mission.
No, they're they're th they're what they're what they're training for is to defend our country.
Now they happen to be over there.
I don't think they're defending our country.
If we can't even defend our borders, how we what are we doing over there?
Uh well, that's a good point.
But let me take you to Iraq, Jerry.
Let me put you in a uniform and give you a rifle and put you on point and then ask, what would you think if someone told you that I support the troops, but I don't support the war, I don't support the mission.
And and Roger, I've been more supported?
I've been on point in in Vietnam going up a hill, and and at the time I had good friends back in the States that did not support the war in Vietnam, but I didn't feel like they were not supporting me.
No, but we're talking about Congress now that has the power of the purse.
Congress who has the power to uh cut off uh arm programs, uh Congress who has the power to to not put armor on those uh hummers.
Whatever.
Congress has the power now.
We're not talking about your buddies back in, you know, in the in the uh in the in the hall there.
I uh we're talking about Congress.
Okay, because I was I the when when I heard your statement, I just thought you were talking about Joe Savilian out here that says I am I have been talking about Jerry, I have been talking about since I started the program today, about the congressional resolution that is the most cowardly thing I've ever seen in my life.
We support the troops, says the House of Representatives resolution, but we don't support uh the mission.
That's what I'm talking about.
That's all I've been talking about.
Okay.
Now where do you stand on that?
Do you think Congress support can support the troops but not support the mission?
No, I I I agree with you on that, and I and I'm but I'm and I'm also really ticked that w that uh Israel has developed some uh weapons that would uh protect our troops, and we've got it well done by the our our military, our or our Pentagon, this the stopping them from getting the uh the these and I don't even I can't even think of the name of the the the weapon, but the when you think of it, call back Jerry, I appreciate the call.
Here's Michael in Ann Arbor, uh, Michigan.
Michael, go ahead.
Hey Roger.
How are you doing?
Hi, good.
Great to talk to you.
Uh I served over I turned over on Iraq, uh Operation Iraqi Freedom 20405.
I support the war.
Um, but my question is this I really believe that America has held up their end of the deal and and deposing the dictator and setting up a government.
So I think we're it's my perception that we're kind of hanging in there just to get the Iraqi government to hold up their end of the deal.
But here's the question.
Do you think that the Iraq government can secure their own country?
I mean, America's pulled it off.
We're we did what we set out to do initially, but can the Iraqi government hold up their end of the deal?
Can they secure themselves?
Not without being independent of the influences Of Syria and Iran.
If we don't secure the border there, as well as our own border, by the way, and I agree with that point from Jerry, uh, if we don't secure the border uh between Iraq and Iran, between Iraq and Syria, and eliminate the safe havens, uh the uh a word from the Vietnam era, eliminate the safe havens of opposition and eliminate from within the Maliki government all the Iranian uh uh uh nut cases that are there to to promote a uh Shiite dynasty of some kind, then uh you know it's not gonna work.
But the first thing we have to do is to get uh control over the violence, and that's what's going on now in Iraq.
In uh Baghdad, rather, where eighty percent of this sectarian civil war that the Democrats have been playing up is going on in and around Baghdad.
If that got under control and it was made clear that Iran is not going to be able to take over uh Iraq, they're not going to be able to infiltrate the Shiites who have legitimate uh independence in their in most of their minds, then I think we have a chance of making this happen.
Do we have the time to make that happen?
Well, of course, that's the big question because time is running out.
It's clear.
Oh, very good.
That's that's what I called to find out.
So if if it comes to it.
Well, you were there, do you agree?
Well, I was uh I was an electrician.
I worked in helicopters, so I didn't get the broader scope of things.
I spent most of the day with uh schematic and a multimeter working in helicopters.
I understand.
Hey, by the way, on that on that score, there uh apparently a number of our helicopters have been shot down by something uh that's different than it used to be.
Are the are the insurgents getting advanced uh anti-aircraft weaponry from the Iranians?
To be honest with that, that's a question I don't have an answer to.
I know that one couple of our helicopters took small arms fire, but it takes something pretty healthy to bring out a helicopter.
Exactly.
The tanks are sealed.
I mean, there's so many redundant systems.
We actually had rotors that had bullet holes in them.
Um and they didn't take the helicopter down.
It takes quite a bit of quite a bit of fire to take down a helicopter, so I don't know what it is, but uh, Michael, thanks for your uh service and thanks for calling the show.
I appreciate it.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh and back with your call after this.
Well, once again, uh size matters.
In the uh ongoing saga of how big a plane should uh Nancy Pelosi have at her disposal to fly around the country as Speaker of the House.
It turns out that after 911, for security reasons, the armed forces assigned a little commuter jet uh to uh Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, uh, when he needed to go back and forth to his district or wherever because he stirred in line to the presidency.
Now, no Speaker of the House has ever become the president this way, but it is the succession line.
So the uh security people saying we've got, you know, he can't he can't be seen on a regular plane.
Well, I thought those regular planes were safe.
Well, why else am I standing in line for 45 minutes getting checked and rechecked uh and uh you know the label on my underwear and so forth and so on uh before I get on a plane.
I thought those were safe.
But hey, besides that point, they give Speaker this l uh speaker of the House this little uh commuter jet.
Not big enough for Nancy.
She came on and said, Oh no, uh I need to get to all the way to California.
And I I have some sympathy with this because our congressmen are spend most of their lives in the air trying to get back and forth to Washington to represent us out here, it's three thousand miles away.
So I have some sympathy with that.
She wants a bigger plane, but not just any old big plane to get there back and forth.
There are a lot of planes that can get back and forth between Washington and California.
She wants a 757.
Now, I think I've been on 757s that are in service to the various airlines.
Uh they can not only go 3,000 miles, I think they can go like uh to to Europe and back.
Uh and not only that, don't they carry like 300 people or something like that?
I mean, who's in this entourage?
Isn't this grown a little bit?
I mean, the old jet has to have, I think it was eight or eight or nine or ten people.
Uh a 757.
So Pelosi, uh there was she was under attack, the re Republicans uh snidly referring to it as Pelosi one, um, and the military saying, uh, look, uh, we don't have a lot of big 757s around there kind of in service.
We're in this war.
We we kind of transport people, we we have some things to do uh with regard to the war uh that you're opposed to that we're trying to do.
Um Pelosi was a little bit defensive this morning uh when she was trying to explain this thing.
They told me the first day that I was supposed to go that I couldn't make it across the country.
And I said, Well, that's fine.
I'm going commercial.
Yeah, I don't you know, I'm not asking to go on that plane.
If you need to take me there for security purposes, you're gonna have to get a plane that goes across the country because I'm going home to my family.
In other words, don't ask me to stop in flyover country and refuel.
My God, you might stop in Kansas or something.
Are you kidding?
I'm supposed to see that from thirty-five thousand feet up, and that's the closest I want to get to about ten of those states.
Those red states down there.
I'm Nancy Pelosi for Crying Out Loud.
I represent San Francisco, and you have got to give me a 757.
Now if you know anything about plane, this is a huge plane.
So now they're they're negotiating between the Pentagon and the security people and uh Nancy Pelosi as to the size of her plane.
Size, ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry, as always, matters.
Here's Stephen in O'Fallon, Missouri.
Uh Stephen, welcome to the Rush Show.
Hey, thanks for letting me talk on the Rush Show.
I was listening to one of the uh callers made a comment about uh you can compare the support the troops but not the war comment to uh you know you can support uh the firemen but not the fact that they fight the fire, and I was thinking that, hey, firemen don't start fires.
And uh it's totally different from you know uh when Bush starts the war.
Well, wait a minute the troops the troops the troops don't start Stephen, the troops don't start the war either.
Firemen don't start fires, troops don't start wars.
Yeah, but they're both still supported by the public.
You got volunteer firemen, you got volunteer uh soldiers, you got people that send their s their family to these wars.
Yeah, we're gonna be able to do it.
And what what is this about Bush started the war?
I I don't know whether you have a memory, sir, but the Congress of the United States voted for the war.
I'm going slow here so you could this go you can absorb this, Stephen.
The Congress voted authority to the President to go to war in Iraq, including Mrs. Clinton.
I I know I know we want to forget these facts, but that's what happened.
Well, that's not a fact that we want to forget, but uh they gave you the power to to uh start the war, but I'm pretty sure they wanted him to use the discretion to make a decision that people could live with.
You uh never a time.
Stephen, thank you.
Thank you for the call.
I appreciate it.
I I I'll start laughing if you continue down that road.
Wes in Russellville, Arkansas, you're next on the Rush program.
Go ahead, Wes.
Yeah, hey, Roger, ditto's to you and the whole EIB network.
Thank you.
Uh I'm I'm retired from the Air Force after almost 23 years, and uh, you know, I hear everyone when they say that I support the troops, but I don't support the war.
Uh one little question I always ask them, and I thought you were about to ask the guy a minute ago was well, how do you support the troops?
Tell me, what is it?
Do you go down and do you uh uh help with their families in any ways like we do on our bases?
Do you send them phone cards?
What is it you're doing to support the troops?
And no one can ever come up with an answer other than um I I just don't know.
And and I find that just such a fallacy.
This is such a great point, Wes, because the what is really being said by those who, of course, don't support the troops, and and uh and uh either themselves or their parents spit on troops coming back from Vietnam.
Uh the the uh the fact is when they say that they're just trying to immunize themselves from the political backlash of ordinary common sense Americans saying uh you're against the war and you're gonna cut off funds and you want the defeat of the United States.
That's not American.
And in other words, you can s most, and I'll c I'll concede this point in every poll I've seen, most Americans don't like this war.
They don't like it, however, for the reason that we're not visibly winning uh as soon as we as Americans feel we should be able to win this kind of war.
But nonetheless, there's no question that a majority of Americans are frustrated and opposed to this war.
Now, when you ask those same people, then would you like to see the Americans withdraw in defeat?
Their answer is going to be by very wide margins, no.
And that's the part the Democrats don't want to talk about.
Right.
Well, and and even if well, and the reason we're not winning the war is because of the people that are reporting it.
Uh and if you and if you've noticed uh over and over when they're asked uh the question, do you want to win the war?
Do you want America to win the war, the United States to win the war?
And over and over and over again, they can't come up with the with an answer.
All right, Wes, I appreciate the call.
I've got to run to a break and we'll be right back on the rush show after this.
On this point of showing support uh for the troops for their families.
I have uh started home front San Diego in San Diego for the families of troops and whatever they need, transmission repair, baby bassinets, whatever it is, since shortly after nine eleven.
In your community, uh America supports you dot com is a site but might give you a similar support group nearer to you.
It is something we should all be doing to show our support, our love, honor, and respect for the sacrifice being made by these troops and by their families.
Coming up in the next hour, the latest on uh I have to laugh when I talk about this every time.
Global warming, another scam to get money out of your paycheck and into the bureaucrats' hands.
Details coming up.
▲
Export Selection