Rush Limbaugh Program - February 12, 2007, Monday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 12, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:10

February 12, 2007, Monday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh program here at the EIB Network.
	Rush a little bit under the weather today, a little bit of a bug, expecting to come back tomorrow.
	In the meantime, thanks for the opportunity, Rush, for me to fill in.
	By the way, let me say that the wait is over at rushlimbaugh.com right now.
	The EIB store proud to roll out the two t-shirts honoring Russia's Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
	The Copper Peace Prize medallion featuring El Rushbo's face graces the front of each of these Rush for Peace t-shirts with your choice of two slogans: either give peace a chance or peace through Limbaugh.
	They do have two at the EIB store, the Rush Babe on Board signs on sale as well.
	By the way, this weekend also, and throughout this week, I believe for a couple of days, Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and now a candidate for, I guess, a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, I know he is, was out here today, this weekend rather, at the state convention, the Republican Party convention in Sacramento, and was very forthright in his praise of George Bush and the Iraq policy.
	You know, it's typical of Rudy Giuliani that he is a plain-spoken, tough, and candid, as they say.
	In other words, he's a former mayor of New York.
	There's no messing around.
	This is where he stands.
	This is what he's going to do.
	This is how he's going to do it.
	And he mocked the congressional folks talking about the non-binding resolution condemning the buildup in Iraq.
	He said, quote, in the business world, if two weeks were spent on a non-binding resolution, it would be considered non-productive.
	So it's pretty interesting that this week, House Democrats are circulating a non-binding resolution, which basically says two things.
	One, that Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
	That's a quote.
	And they're expecting this to come to a vote by Friday.
	It also says that, quote, Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or will have or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq, unquote.
	In other words, you're not taken in by this, I know.
	In other words, we support the troops, but not the war.
	We support the troops, but not victory.
	We support the troops, but not their mission.
	This, of course, is complete bloviating balderdash.
	This is incredible BS.
	In other words, it is impossible in the real world to say you support the troops and then to advocate, in effect, their defeat.
	That is not supporting the troops.
	As I'm listening to myself, I'm saying, isn't this obvious to everybody?
	Apparently not.
	So I'm going through it again.
	So this and there are signs today that from 20 to 30 of the Republican members of the House of Representatives are considering supporting this resolution.
	No such, quote, Republican, unquote, and for that matter, no such Democrat should be re-elected after supporting a resolution which, in effect, calls for the defeat of the United States and is in line with the policy objectives of the President of Iran and every other nutcase in the world.
	So that's going to be today or this week's debate on the House resolution.
	What's interesting is Giuliani's kind of preemptive strike against that resolution over the weekend.
	He was wildly acclaimed, by the way, at this convention because of his tough stance.
	He cut taxes in New York.
	People in New York remember that it was an ungovernable city.
	Abe Beam and General Dinkins and the rest who had held the title of mayor had said, well, I just can't do my job.
	It's impossible.
	No one can do it.
	Well, Rudy did it.
	The crime is down.
	Taxes are down.
	Jobs were up.
	When he was mayor, New York became the safest big city in the world.
	So he touted those credentials.
	Now, there's another side of the ledger, I understand.
	For the social conservatives, this guy is seen as pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-civil unions.
	He's a guy who's on his third marriage.
	He once lived in between marriages.
	He once lived with two gay men in a chihuahua.
	He once dressed up as Marilyn Monroe for a party.
	I mean, this is a guy who's a New Yorker for crying out loud.
	There are other strains there.
	Maybe he doesn't play in Peoria.
	But it does come down to, by the way, he said, you know, gun control worked in the city of New York, but he's pro-Second Amendment for hunters and others.
	He's trying to move away from that position.
	The pro-civil marriages thing, I think you're just going to have to lump that.
	He's against recognizing gay marriage.
	He's against pro-abortion, okay?
	But he's also in favor of making illegal the late-term abortions.
	So he's moving on these issues to try to be more acceptable to a broader constituency than New York City.
	But I'll tell you what, on other issues that count, who would fight the war on terror with more tenaciousness than Rudy Giuliani?
	I think people who are in his camp have a pretty good point.
	Who would fight more independently the power of labor unions, as Rudy did against the public employee unions in New York?
	And the pro-Rudy people have a point on that.
	He is still, however, unclear on another issue that a lot of Americans are concerned about, and that's security at the border.
	In this same speech, he said that, well, here's the quote, you have to have secure borders.
	You have to have a fence.
	And the fence, I think, has to be a highly technological one, unquote.
	Well, it's that last phrase, the technological fence, in Bush's words, the President Bush's words, the virtual fence.
	When I hear the word virtual as an adjective to something, it means non-existent.
	In other words, a virtual fence.
	I will believe in the efficacy of a virtual fence when they put one around the White House.
	You see, they have a physical fence.
	They have a physical and a virtual fence.
	If you want to count the cameras and the sensors in the ground and all the rest of it, sure, let's count that.
	But there is also a real fence.
	Okay?
	So I don't know what that technological one, highly technological one phrase means, but he is saying that we need a secure border.
	So more information needs to be put together there.
	I want to talk a little bit about the others who are running because there's news about, for instance, John McCain.
	The Washington Post just took out after John McCain, was it today, let's see, February 11, yesterday, in their Sunday edition, in a way that they have never done.
	This is the former media darling, the former darling of the drive-by media, John McCain.
	Every time he was obviously running against George Bush, contradicting George Bush, doing anything the Democrats could use to discredit George Bush, he was getting the positive headlines, the positive spin, the great profiles, the great interviews, every show you could imagine he was on.
	You remember that era.
	That era is clearly over.
	Headline, Washington Post, McCain taps cash he sought to limit, basically saying that he's a hypocrite, that he's embraced, as they put it, some of the same political money figures, forces, and tactics that he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers, and lobbyists in elections.
	He led the fight against soft money.
	Now he's taking soft money, et cetera, et cetera.
	And they go on and on.
	Well, McCain was furious and called the Washington Post article the worst hit job ever on him.
	He said that he was not using the nonprofit 527 groups as alleged in the article to raise money or use money in that way.
	And he said that it was not true.
	On the other hand, it is true, and he's admitting that he's not accepting the limits.
	He's not accepting the federal money.
	He's not accepting the reforms.
	He is going out after the same lobbyists, after the same money that he made a career of criticizing.
	I don't think they can get away from that.
	Then there's Mitt Romney.
	And Mitt Romney has caused a stir, picking up the Ronald Reagan baton in many ways, trying to focus the Republican folks, voters, on him as the conservative.
	And it is working except for two things.
	One of them has to do with conservatism, and that is, as the governor of Massachusetts, he put in this comprehensive health care reform, which looked like a lot of big government interference in health care.
	And as a matter of fact, turns out to be very much more expensive, surprise, surprise, than originally thought, and also probably against the law, specifically ERISA, the federal law requiring uniformity between the states.
	You can't have states doing mandating these kinds of things as retirement benefits and employment benefits that are different from what other states have.
	Now, one of the things that I want to get into is then how viable is a proven conservative leader, Newt Gingrich.
	And we'll take your calls to when we come back on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, filling in for Rushback after this.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Again, just to complete the thought on the Republican side of things here, and I want to get your reaction to it.
	At 1-800-282-2882, Mitt Romney has the problem of his record and posturing as a positioning himself as a conservative versus what went on in Massachusetts when he was governor.
	But I think he also has this problem.
	It's not a problem for me.
	We have many Mormon, good Mormon office holders in our area of the country.
	But for some evangelicals, and I've heard this, so that's why I'm repeating it, the Mormon thing becomes a barrier to supporting Mitt Romney.
	It becomes, as some folks put it, it's a cult, and they're not about to vote for somebody who's a Mormon for president.
	Is that a barrier?
	I mean, much as I'm sure there are some people who aren't going to vote for a black person or for a woman or for, you know, whatever the reasons are you vote for against people, this Mormonism thing apparently is a factor for Mitt Romney.
	Now, moving on, I think the Democrat side got a little more interesting over the weekend because the lunatic left is now pushing, visibly pushing.
	Obama, even as strong as he's been in let's give up and go away and hope for the best in Iraq.
	And whatever bloodbath follows, it's George Bush's fault, not ours.
	Hillary Clinton is saying, look, I'm not going to use the word mistake.
	They want her to use the word mistake.
	They almost wanted to go into rehab.
	There's almost a feeling that she's got to say the right formulaic apology from the left in order to gain credibility with the lunatics.
	She has got to say she was asked in New Hampshire by an obvious leftist activist woman, you know, the typical look, saying, well, won't you just admit your vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake.
	And that's the key word, the mistake word.
	Well, no, it was George Bush's mistake, she says.
	It wasn't my mistake.
	And you know what?
	If she really had some courage, she would say, look, I relied on the same intelligence that the President of France did that year.
	I relied on the same intelligence.
	Now, they weren't in favor of unilateral action by the United States, but the French and the Germans and everybody else thought that Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction of very specific kinds, and maybe still did because some of it could be still found in Syria and so forth.
	This is the kind of thing that she should be saying.
	It wasn't a mistake to rely on the best evidence that we had at the time to do what was done.
	How could that be a mistake by anybody?
	And as a matter of fact, of course, the fact that we went into Iraq and found weaponry that you couldn't believe.
	They're still blowing up ammunition depots in Iraq.
	So weapons of mass destruction, sure, we found some.
	Old artillery sales full of all kinds of nasty stuff that would have been very poisonous had it been rained down on anybody.
	But was it what we thought it was before the war?
	Well, no, obviously not.
	So what does that mean today if you're running for the Democrat nomination for, sorry, Democratic nomination for president, what does that mean?
	Well, it means you have to admit, you have to admit you made a mistake.
	John Edwards has said it.
	What was the mistake?
	That you relied on the best available information?
	Was that a mistake?
	I don't get it.
	There has to be some kind of cleansing of these folks who voted as American patriots, who voted to, as the facts were known, who voted to give the president the authority to defend this country.
	So, you know, I don't know.
	I'd love to hear from the leftists out there on this subject, but it just drives me crazy to see Obama saying we ought to cut and run and the protesters to say, hey, not soon enough, pal.
	Not soon enough.
	How about last week?
	So when she's told, Hillary Clinton's told, well, your explanation doesn't, that Bush made the mistake, not you, that doesn't fly.
	It doesn't fly.
	If you go back to Hillary Clinton and her conversations in late 2003, Fred Barnes reports that he had a conversation with her.
	I asked her, says Fred Barnes, if there had been this is published in the Wall Street Journal, if there had been good reason to believe, as President Bush did, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
	Quote, says Hillary Clinton, the intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush II was consistent, unquote.
	She concluded that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was developing nuclear weapons.
	She said to Fred Barnes that she had done her own, quote, due diligence, unquote.
	She attended classified briefings on Capitol Hill and the White House and the Pentagon and also consulted national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusted.
	All of them agreed that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq and Saddam had them.
	Now she says, of course, that everyone was misled and there needs to be investigation and that Bush cooked it up as a fraud.
	But she has, Hillary Clinton, to her credit, has declined to Ted Kennedy, was the one who said it was Bush's fraud.
	She's declined to endorse that view because she relied on Clinton administration-era officials, asked them, does Saddam have these weapons of mass destruction?
	And they said yes.
	So it's a little tough today to swallow the ideological re-education camps that are going on masquerading as presidential candidate rallies in New Hampshire where the ideologues stand up and require a certain vocabulary from you.
	You have to admit your personal mistake and apologize or you're not a credible candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination.
	I say, let's have this spectacle every day.
	Every day it gives some Republican, I don't know which one, the opportunity to be a successful standard-bearer in 08, because this kind of extremism, this kind of anti-Americanism on display this weekend was, I hope, for many people in this country, an eye-opener as to where the Democratic Party is going, or the Democrat Party, if you prefer, is going on this issue.
	All right, let's go to Lisa in Indianapolis.
	Hi, Lisa.
	Welcome and congratulations on the Super Bowl win, I guess.
	Go ahead.
	Absolutely.
	Obese American dittos to you.
	I would like to know what you predict or think the Democrats will do to spin it, not if, but when we are successful, prior to the 2008 elections, how are they going to spin that, that it was really them all along, and that they're somehow to deserve credit for our success?
	Well, that's a very interesting point.
	What if the unthinkable happens?
	Unthinkable in the drive-by media.
	What if the unthinkable happens?
	Unthinkable to Diane Sawyer, et cetera.
	What if Bush's surge is successful?
	Even the drive-by media will tell you 80% of this strife between the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq is within 30, 40 miles of Baghdad and in the city itself.
	What if we surge into Baghdad and its environs and the violence goes down?
	Now, it hasn't happened yet.
	The violence went up today.
	What if it goes down?
	Well, and all of a sudden the Iraqi government gets a little more backbone, gets a little more confidence, gets a little more success.
	What if, in other words, by 08, this strategy and General Petraeus, if it's going to succeed, he's the guy to make it succeed, because he made it succeed in Mosul, the city in Iraq where it's pretty quiet these days because he was the commander there with a similar philosophy, a similar tactics.
	What if it actually succeeds?
	The question is, in what way will the Democrats take credit?
	The answer will be any way they can.
	Now, we'll see what happens.
	Let's see.
	Do I have a time to take?
	I've just got 30 seconds.
	Let me just tell you that I want to come back with more of what these presidential candidates are saying.
	I want to get more of your reaction to the Republicans who are out there.
	Which one are you starting to feel the most comfortable, the least comfortable with at 1-800-282-2882?
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, and again, Rush Limbaugh, a little under the weather today.
	He'll be back tomorrow.
	A little bit of that bug that's going around, but he'll be back tomorrow.
	In today, I'm Roger Hedgecock on the EIB network and back right after this.
	We're back.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, Rush a Little Bit Under the Weather Today.
	He'll be in tomorrow at the EIB network, as usual.
	We're taking your calls at 1-800-282-2882.
	Here's Mike in North Branch, Michigan.
	Mike, you're on the rush show.
	Go ahead.
	Hello, Roger.
	Hi.
	Hey, you know, I like Rudy, but my problem is with this gun control issue.
	Yeah.
	I mean, if he's going to say that it's for sportsmans and huntsmen, I mean, my understanding of the Second Amendment was that it was written in to actually put a check on the government.
	On the federal government.
	On the federal government.
	Yeah.
	It was.
	It's the only problem I have with him.
	And Romney, I really don't care about him being a Latter-day Saint.
	That doesn't affect me at all.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	So who are you?
	If you balance all that out, where are you right now if the election were held today?
	And we're debating in California moving our primary up to tomorrow, by the way.
	Well, almost tomorrow.
	It's like soon.
	But if you were voting today, who would you vote for?
	Is Newt running?
	Yes, he is.
	Then I'd vote for Newt.
	All right, Mike, I appreciate the call.
	Here's John in Vancouver, Washington.
	John, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Hi.
	Hi, Roger.
	Thanks for taking my call.
	You're doing great for Rush.
	Thank you.
	Hey, first thing, when I heard Rudy was going to run, I jumped up and down, told all my friends, I said, hey, we finally got somebody to vote for.
	I am in his corner.
	I know he's got a couple of things, but, you know, all he's got to do is tell the truth.
	It's all he's got to do with the press is tell the truth.
	Yeah, he doesn't have a problem with that.
	He's been pretty, of all the candidates, this is a guy who's about as candid as you're going to ever get in public life.
	Take the truth and just shove it back at them, and they don't have anything to throw at them.
	And yeah, you asked about Newt.
	I don't think Newt's electable.
	I think he's got there's too much voting pass to go on him.
	I don't think the guy's got the charisma to do it.
	You've got to have charisma.
	I've got to have charisma.
	Your screen caller asked me what would happen if it came down between a Republican and a Democrat and Newt was a Republican.
	If Newt is there and it's Hillary.
	If Newt was a Republican, especially up against Hillary, I would be voting for Newt, but I'd be voting against Hillary.
	I wouldn't be voting for Newt.
	If Rudy was there, I could honestly say I'm voting for Rudy.
	All right.
	I appreciate the call, John.
	There you go.
	Now, that's kind of what I'm looking for: where are the Republicans now today?
	Because this convention of the state Republican Party in California, you know, not noticeable group of winners lately, didn't like Arnold very much because he's trying to peddle new taxes under this phrase of fees.
	But the, and in that respect, just interrupting myself, Arnold is going down.
	I don't get it because we know Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	We like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
	We participated in the recall of Greg Davis, all that stuff that went on a couple of years ago.
	But we're frustrated and disappointed today, a lot of us in California, because of the situation that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger is going down the same road.
	Is this a good analogy of Governor Owen in Colorado, who was a great tax cutter for a number of years and then all of a sudden switched to become a tax increaser, and that's the end of the Republicans in Colorado, or at least for now.
	If you're in Colorado, I'd like to hear from you because we in California are shaking our heads at this point.
	Bob in Lexington, South Carolina, you're next on the Rush Show.
	Hi, Bob.
	Hey, Roger.
	How are you doing?
	Good.
	Good.
	I'd love to hear your voice when you're substituting for us.
	Thank you.
	I just wanted to say I'm one of those southern Bible belt pickup driving Christians.
	I definitely have some serious problems with the Mormon faith, but if Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate, I could easily vote for him over any Democrat contender who would say amen to an Imam's prayer.
	Well, there you go.
	Yes, nice comparison.
	Yes, I understand what you're saying.
	Well, but, Bob, let's go back to this because I hear it, and that's why I'm bringing it up.
	I mean, we're here to pursue the truth.
	I hear it from a lot of people that are evangelical Christians that this Mormonism thing is a barrier.
	Does Romney have to go through with the evangelicals, for example, or at least those folks who are concerned about his faith?
	Does he have to go through what John Kennedy had to go through selling the Protestants that he was a Catholic but the Pope wasn't going to run the country?
	Probably with some.
	I mean, I really can only speak for myself.
	I just look at the man, and most Mormons, they're really good people.
	And I think he'd be a good person.
	I would just have to say, you know, Christians don't vote for him.
	Don't stay home and not vote for him because of that one thing because you're really casting a vote for a, I guess, a Democrat who, Like I would say, amen to Imam's prayer.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Now, Bob, let me ask you, though, if the election were held today, who would you vote for?
	Probably Newt Gingrich.
	All right, Bob, thanks for the call.
	Two votes were Newt already.
	Here's Joe in Boston on the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Hi, Joe.
	Yes, I live in upstate New York, and as you know, New York has no conservatives except for maybe me.
	Here's the last one, Joe.
	I think Juliani is the guy, basically because he's pretty outspoken, and I think he'll do the job that needs to be done.
	Furthermore, as far as gun control and these other things, that could be, it should be left up to state's rights issues anyway.
	And as far as opposition, quite frankly, I think it's going to be Obama as vice president and Hillary as president.
	And they're so far deep in, it's ridiculous.
	That would be typical of Democratic candidates for president.
	Says John F. Kennedy, they have gone nothing but the farthest left they can go.
	Yeah, and sometimes that's, you know, it's just not worked.
	The thing that's amazing about the last 35 years, if you look at it, since McGovern, the crazy left controls, the extreme left controls the nominating process, and yet the drive-by media makes no mention of that whatsoever.
	They're constantly analyzing the Republicans, saying, look, these extreme kooky right-wingers dominate the nominating process, so you're going to get some, even the centrist people have to make crazy comments just to get through these primaries.
	And yet it is so much more true, so much more true of the Democrat Party, where the lunatic left, the anti-American defeat America at any price left, controls this process, as this weekend demonstrated in those rallies both for Obama and for Clinton.
	The questions they got, the kind of pestering, the kind of heckling, the kind of even for those folks who are anti-war, Clinton and Obama, that it's not good enough for the crazy left.
	So this is a point that needs to be made over and over again.
	These guys in the Democrat Party better wake up because since McGovern, when they've nominated a crazy or a real leftist, when the leftists have had their way, they have not won the election.
	Bill Clinton made the conscious decision, I'm going to go after Sister Solja and whatever.
	I'm going to position myself as more centrist and became for that reason and a couple of others, Ross Perot, et cetera, a winner.
	So what is the Democrat conclusion today from that last 35 years of history?
	We want to go back and have another McGovern.
	I don't think they've learned anything about the way this works, but we'll see what happens.
	Thanks for the call.
	Here's Bob in Knoxville, Tennessee on the Rush Limbaugh Program.
	Bob, I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	Thanks for calling.
	Hey, Roger.
	We've got to be real careful here.
	The Democrats lost the last election because they had nobody to vote for.
	They were voting against President Bush.
	We can't get into that same trap.
	We need a good candidate that we can vote for.
	So who is it?
	We've got to let it play itself out.
	But again, we can't be out there voting against somebody.
	We have to have a strong candidate.
	And that's going to draw people from the other party over to our candidates.
	Well, okay, so you don't have a choice.
	I mean, it's nice to say in the abstract, you know, that, hey, we need a positive candidate.
	Well, who is it?
	Well, I don't know yet.
	It's too early.
	It's too early.
	All right, thanks for the call.
	And I think it might, that's a good point.
	It might be too early.
	But it's never too early to analyze the forces that are going to arrive next year at this time, by the way, at actual votes and actual people who will get actual nominations, who will actually sit in the White House and will actually make decisions of a life and death nature for the rest of us.
	I don't think it's too early to look at the roots of what's happening now that will lead to those actions because they're so eventful, frankly, a year from now.
	The Iranians are out today, by the way, saying that all of this evidence of their weaponry showing up in the hands of Shiite insurgents in Iraq is just not true.
	It just isn't true.
	These armor-piercing roadside bombs, I mean, this just isn't true.
	It's the kind of thing that the United States does.
	It presents false information.
	It's always relying on false information.
	In other words, again, the Iranians sound a lot like, well, some Democrats.
	I love, I can get into the Scrapple Face stuff.
	And today, My Mood, I'm In a Jihad, confirmed, according to Scrapple Face, that there are armor-piercing explosives in the Shiite militias in Iraq, except they're only there for peaceful purposes.
	He quotes the president of Iran saying, no one can deny the right of the Iranian people to develop technology that improves our lives.
	Although we cannot control how our Iraqi customers use these products, we make these armor-piercing devices to generate energy, peaceful energy in our country.
	That is, of course, what he's saying about the nuclear power.
	Why not this?
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh and back with your call after this.
	Rush Lilo the weather today.
	He'll be back tomorrow.
	Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh here at the EIB network.
	And back to the House of Representatives, where the Democrats, the Peace Democrats, if you were here for the earlier part of the show analyzing the Civil War Peace Democrats, the Peace Democrats, the genetic descendants of their anti-American brethren from 150 years ago, are at it again.
	And what they want to do is, of course, limit debate.
	They want to limit, of course they do, debate.
	They want to limit the introduction of other resolutions covering other ground here.
	They want only a resolution, a non-binding resolution, that says that they disapprove of sending any more troops to Iraq.
	And secondly, they want you to know that they're very much in support of the troops who are there.
	Anyway, undeterred by the contradiction in terms, they are moving forward and not allowing Republicans to put forward a yes, but we're not going to cut off funds resolution, no cutoff of funds.
	The reason why Pelosi and the Democrat leadership in the House of Representatives is not allowing any alternative resolutions is that they actually do want to cut off funds.
	This resolution this week, it will be debated on all week and voted on probably Friday.
	This resolution this week is simply to gauge how many Republicans can they peel off in order to set the stage for a subsequent resolution that Congressman Murtha has already put forward.
	We already know what step two is after they get step one saying no to the surge.
	Step two, and this is again, this is in Friday's Washington Post.
	This is not new news.
	This is already Monday.
	Friday's Washington Post reports, quote, Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat Pennsylvania, a sharp critic of the war and chairman of a subcommittee that oversees defense funding, is separately preparing language to block money for the additional troops in Iraq unless the military meets certain readiness standards.
	He says he will introduce his proposal on March 15 as an attachment to Bush's request for Iraq war funding, unquote.
	In other words, this non-binding resolution against the surge is simply step one.
	In fact, Speaker Pelosi, quoted in Congress Daily last week, again, not new news, said, quote, this, meaning this non-binding resolution, is a first step.
	The FY08 defense budget would be step number two for Mirtha, who is in charge of defense appropriations in that subcommittee, the chairman of defense appropriations to cut off funding.
	So the Republicans have said, well, this week, why don't we just have that out in the open right now?
	Why don't we have a resolution that says no cutoff of funding?
	Because cutoff of funding was the technique the Peace Democrats used to turn over millions of South Vietnamese to the North Vietnamese Army and the Communist conquest of South Vietnam and the subsequent killing of millions of people.
	And of course, subsequent to that, the communists waking up in Vietnam and realizing, well, I guess now that we've done all that, we've got to turn capitalist anyway in order to eat, which is what they've basically done.
	By the way, there is, I've got time to just say this because it's so important.
	Today is the last day, sort of make or break day, on the talks involving North Korea, the six nation talks.
	It's actually Japan and the United States versus the communists in the area, the Russians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans.
	But this is the dismantling, the potential.
	See, this is Bush saying, okay, you know, if diplomacy is going to work, if talking to the enemy works, then fine, let's talk to the enemy and find out.
	Let's talk to North Korea.
	This is where Kerry and Kennedy and all the rest of them have been pretty silent because here's George Bush taking their advice.
	Can we talk to the enemy and make reasonable compromise, sit down as reasonable men, as the anti-Civil War Peace Democrats of the North wanted to do when Abraham Lincoln wasn't winning.
	Sit down with the Confederates.
	Isn't it possible we can come to some agreement?
	So today, the last day, even the L.A. Times can't stomach it.
	Can you see?
	Sunday they had an editorial saying, you can't give these people 2 million tons of heavy fuel oil, the North Koreans, four times the amount that the Clinton administration used to supply to North Korea.
	That's what they're demanding, four times the payoff that Clinton gave them when they reneged on the last deal.
	Even the L.A. Times is saying you can't do that because these people will cheat.
	They will take the bribe and then turn around and do the whole thing.
	In other words, unless they give up the nuclear fuel, give up the bombs, put it under the United Nations supervision, put the cameras back on, put the inspectors back into the plants, unless they do that first, there's no reason.
	Even the L.A. Times is saying there's no reason to give them anything.
	Now, of course, many people who are in the Peace Democrat movement say, oh, well, you know, we've got to trust.
	We've got to trust these people because once they get what they need, they won't feel threatened by the United States.
	We are, of course, the aggressor.
	We are, of course, the people that have caused North Korea to descend into the chaos of dictatorship and starvation because of our policies.
	If only we were more reasonable, they would be more reasonable.
	Now, see, as long as I have mastered the Peace Democrat approach to life, I'm ready for my Diane Sawyer interview.
	I'm ready to say what needs to be said from the tyrant's point of view.
	Can't we all just get along?
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush.
	Back after.
	In this business of North Korea, Roger Hedgecock here for Rush, who's a little under the weather today.
	He'll be back tomorrow.
	In this business of North Korea negotiations, I keep in mind the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, and his phrase, well known to students of American history, millions for defense and not one cent for tribute.
	In those days, we were paying tribute to the Muslim leaders along the North African shore to keep them from being pirates, but Barbary pirates on our merchantmen.
	Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute.
	It is a phrase that ought to be retaught to anyone running for president because we seem to be in the imperial stage of American history where just buying people off and sending off tribute is one of the things we think of as a tactic.
	Well, the young republic had to do that for a couple of years under John Adams, and Jefferson had a different idea.
	He sent the USS Constitution and the Marines and attacked these places and reduced them to rubble.
	And guess what?
	They didn't attack anymore the merchantmen.
	The Barbary pirates seem to have faded from history until they were recast as Al-Qaeda and the Peace Democrats.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882.

▲