All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 12, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
February 12, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

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 Rush Limbaugh.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 Rushbow'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 uh weekend also, and throughout this week, I believe, and for the for a couple of days, uh, Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and now candidate for, I guess a candidate for the Republican nomination for president, um, I know he is, was out here uh today, uh this weekend rather at the uh state convention, the Republican Party convention in Sacramento, and uh uh was uh very forthright in his praise of George Bush and the Iraq policy.
He um that's a you know, it's typical of Rudy Giuliani that he is uh a plainspoken, tough and uh 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 gonna do, this is how he's gonna do it.
And he mocked the um congressional folks talking about the non-binding resolution condemning the buildup in Iraq.
He said uh, quote, in the business world, if two weeks were spent on a non-binding resolution, it would be considered nonproductive.
So uh it's pretty interesting that this week House Democrats are circulating a non-binding resolution, which basically says uh two things.
One, that uh Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush to deploy more than twenty thousand additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
That's a quote.
And uh 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.
On 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 an incredible BS, in other words.
Uh it is uh 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.
I 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 um and and there are and there are signs today that uh from uh 20 to 30 of the Republican members of the House of Representatives are considering supporting this resolution.
Uh 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 uh every other uh nut case in the world.
So that's going to be today or this week's debate on the House uh resolution.
What's interesting is Giuliani's uh uh kind of um preemptive strike against that resolution over the weekend.
He was wildly uh acclaimed, by the way, at this uh convention uh because of his tough stance, he cut taxes in New York.
Uh people in New York remember that it was an ungovernable city.
Uh A Beam and General Dickens Dinkins and the rest, uh, who had been had held the title of mayor, had said that, well, I just can't do my job.
It's impossible.
No one, no one can do it.
Well, Rudy did it.
The crime is down, taxes are down, jobs were up when he was uh mayor, uh 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.
Uh 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 an he'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 uh of New York, but he's pro-second amendment for hunters and others.
He's trying to move away from that position.
Uh the pro-civil marriages thing.
I think you're just going to have to lump that.
He's uh he's against recognizing gay marriage.
He's against um he's fro he's for uh he's pro-abortion, okay?
Uh but uh he's also in favor of making uh illegal the uh 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 in New York and the pro-Rudie 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 uh qu well, here's the quote uh 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 fr uh fence, the 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 it he is saying that we need a secure border.
So more information needs to be uh put together there.
Uh I 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 uh was it today, let's see, February 11, yesterday, in their Sunday edition, in a way that they have never done.
Uh this is uh the former media darling, the former darling of the drive-by media, John McCain.
Every time he was uh obviously running against George Bush, contradicting George Bush, doing uh anything the Democrats could use to discredit George Bush.
He was getting the positive headlines, the positive spin, the great profiles, the great interviews, the uh every show you could imagine he was on.
You remember that era.
That era is clearly over.
Uh 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 they go on and on.
Well, McCain was furious and uh called the Washington Post article the worst hit job ever on him.
He said that he was not using the nonprofit uh 527 groups as alleged in the article to raise money or use money in that way.
Uh the uh uh and and he said that uh 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.
Uh he is uh 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 uh a stir, uh picking up uh the Ronald Reagan uh baton in many ways, trying to focus the Republican uh folks, uh voters on him as the conservative.
And uh it is uh 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 uh looked like a lot of big government uh 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 Orissa, the federal law requiring uniformity between the states.
You can't have states doing mandating these kinds of things as uh as uh retirement benefits and employment benefits that are different from what other states uh have.
Uh now, uh 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 too when we come back on the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Roger Hescock, filling in for rush back after this.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Again, uh just to uh complete the thought on the Republican uh side of things here, and I want to get your reaction to it.
At 1800-282-2882, Mitt Romney has the uh problem of uh of his record and in posturing as a uh positioning himself as a conservative versus what uh went on in uh Massachusetts when he was governor.
But I think he also has this problem.
It's not a problem for me.
Uh we have uh many Mormon uh 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, uh, the Mormon thing becomes a barrier to supporting Mitt Romney.
It becomes uh uh, as uh some uh folks put it, it's a cult and they uh they're not about to vote for somebody uh 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 uh a black person or uh for a woman or for uh you know, whatever the reasons are you vote for or against people.
This Mormonism thing apparently is a factor for uh Mitt Romney.
Now moving on, uh I think the uh the Democrat side uh 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 uh and uh go away and uh hope for the best in Iraq, and whatever bloodbath follows, it's uh George Bush's fault, not ours.
Um Hillary Clinton is saying, uh, look, I'm not gonna use the word mistake.
They wanted 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 uh she has got to say she was asked in New Hampshire uh by uh by an obvious uh leftist activist woman, you know, the typical look, uh saying, uh, 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.
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 uh maybe still did because some of it uh could be still found in Syria and so forth.
Uh 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 can that be a mistake by anybody?
And as a matter of fact, of course, the fact that we went into Iraq and found uh weaponry that you you couldn't believe they're still blowing up ammunition depots in uh in uh Iraq.
So weapons of mass destruction, uh sure, we found some.
Old artillery sales full of uh all kinds of uh nasty stuff uh that uh would have been very poisonous had it been rained down on anybody.
But was it what we thought uh 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.
Uh what was the mistake?
That you relied on the best available information?
Was that a mistake?
I I don't I don't get it.
There has to be some kind of cleansing of these folks who voted as American patriots who voted uh to under the uh 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'll I'd love to hear from the leftists out there on this uh subject, but it just uh 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 uh when she's told Hillary Clinton's told, well, your explanation doesn't f that uh that uh Bush made the mistake, not you, that doesn't fly.
It doesn't fly.
Uh if you go back to Hillary Clinton and her conversations uh in uh late 2003, Fred Barnes reports that he had a conversation with her.
Uh 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 in the intelligence from Bush one 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 at 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 uh Hillary Clinton to her credit has uh declined to uh 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 uh mask uh masking uh masquerading as presidential candidate rallies in New Hampshire, where the uh 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 uh the Democratic Party's uh nomination.
I say, let's have this uh 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 2008, because this kind of extremism, this kind of anti-Americanism on display this weekend was an I hope, for many people in this country, an eye-opener as to where the Democratic Party is going, uh, 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.
Uh obese American ditto to you.
Um I would like to know you predict or think the Democrats will do to spin it, not if when we are successful to the 2008 elections, how are they going to spin that that it was really them all along and that they're somehow deserve credit for our success?
Well, that's a very interesting point.
What if the unthinkable happens?
Unthinkable in the drive-by media.
What what if the unthinkable happens, uh unthinkable to Diane Sawyer, et cetera?
What if Bush's surge is successful?
Even the drive-by media will tell you 80% of this uh strife between the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq is uh within uh 30, 40 miles uh of uh of Baghdad and in the city itself.
What if we surge into Baghdad and its environs and the uh the uh uh the violence goes down?
Now it hasn't happened yet, the violence went up today.
What if it goes down?
Well, and 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 uh General Petraeus, if it's going to succeed, he's the guy to make it succeed.
What because he made it succeed in Mosul, uh, the city in Iraq where it's pretty quiet these days because he was the commander there with a similar uh uh 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.
Uh let's see, do I have a time to take uh I've just got thirty 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 282882?
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 uh 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 his gun control issue.
Yeah.
I mean, if he's gonna say that it's for sportsmen and huntsmen, I mean, I 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.
So it was.
I just it's the only problem I have with him.
And R 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 uh uh if you if you balance all that out?
Where are you right now if the election were held today?
And uh we're debating in California, moving our primary up to tomorrow, by the way, but well, almost tomorrow, it's like soon.
But uh if you were voting today, who would you vote for?
Uh uh 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 you're doing great for Rush.
Thank you.
Hey, uh I first thing when I heard Rudy was going to run, I jumped up and down, told all my friends, they said, Hey, we finally got somebody to vote for.
I'm 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 gonna ever get in public life.
Take the truth and and just and just you know, shove it back at him and they don't have anything to throw at them.
Yeah, you asked about Newt.
Um I don't think I I don't think Newton's electable.
Uh I think he's got there's too much voting paths to go on him.
I think I don't think the guy's got the charisma to do it.
You gotta have charisma.
I got to have Chris.
Your screen caller asked me what would happen if it came down between a Republican and a Democrat and Newt was a Republican.
Yeah, 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 is where where are the Republicans now today?
Because this convention uh of the state Republican Party in California, and you know, not noticeable group of winners uh lately, didn't like uh Arnold very much because he's trying to pedal new taxes under this you know phrase of fees.
Uh but the the uh and in that respect, uh just interrupting myself, Arnold is going down I I don't get it because we know Arnold Schwarzenegger, we like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
He's a uh we we we participated in the recall of Gray Davis, uh, all that stuff that went on a couple of years ago.
But we're frustrated and disappointed today, uh, a lot of us in California because of the uh situation that looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger is going down the same road.
Is this a good analogy of uh 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.
Uh I'd love to hear your voice uh when you're subsiding for us.
Thank you.
I just want to just say I'm I'm one of those uh those Southern uh you know Babel Belt pick up driving Christians.
Um I definitely have some serious problems with the Mormon faith, but if Mitt Romney was the uh the Republican candidate, I could I could easily vote for him over any Democrat contender who was who would say amen to uh Imam's prayer.
Well, there you go.
Yes, nice comparison.
Yes, I understand what you're saying.
Well, uh but Bob, let's go back to this because I hear it uh and I and that's why I'm bringing it up.
I mean, we're we're here to to to pursue the truth.
I hear it from a lot of people that uh that are evangelical Christians that this Mormonism thing is a barrier.
Uh it does does Romney have to go through with uh with uh 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 uh selling the Protestants that he was a Catholic but the Pope wasn't gonna run the country?
I mean probably.
What yeah, with some.
I mean, as I I really can only speak for myself.
I uh I I just I I just look at the man.
Yeah, you know, and most Mormons whether they're they're they're really good people.
Yeah, I think you'd be a good person.
Um I I would just have to say, you know, Christians don't don't vote for uh 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 who um say amen to Imam's prayer.
Yeah, exactly.
Uh now Bob, let me ask you though, if if the election were held today, who'd you vote for?
Uh probably Newt Gingrich.
All right, Bob, thanks for the call.
Two votes for Newt already.
Here's Joe in Boston on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi, Joe.
Yes.
Uh I live in upstate New York, and as you know, New York has no conservatives except for maybe me.
Uh you're the last one, Joe.
I think Giuliani is the guy.
Uh basically because he's pretty outspoken, and uh I think he'll do the job that it needs to be done.
Uh furthermore, as far as gun control and these other things, that's could be should be left up to states' rights issues anyway.
And as far as opposition, quite frankly, I think it's gonna be Obama as vice president and Hillary as president.
Uh and they they're so far deep end, it's ridiculous.
That would be typical of uh of uh Democratic uh candidates for president.
Uh says John F. Kennedy, they have gone nothing but the farthest left they can go.
Yeah, and sometimes that's uh that's uh you know, it's just not worked.
The thing that's amazing about the last thirty five years, if you look at it uh since McGovern, uh the the crazy left controls the 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 uh dominate the nominating process, so you're gonna get some uh some uh the even the centrist people have to make crazy comments just to get through uh these primaries.
And yet it is so much more true, so much more true of the Democrat Party where the 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 uh and for uh and for Clinton.
Uh the questions they got, the kind of pestering, the kind of heckling, the kind of uh uh even for those uh folks who are uh anti-war, Clinton and uh and uh Obama, that uh that you it's not good enough for the crazy left.
So th this is a this is a point that needs to be made over and over again.
These guys in the Democrat Party better so better wake up because uh 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 Soldier and whatever.
I'm going to position myself as more centrist and uh became uh became for that reason and a couple of others, uh, Ross Perot, etc., a winner.
Uh so uh what is the Democrat uh conclusion today from that last thirty-five 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 uh, you know, we'll see what happens.
Thanks for the call.
Here's uh Bob in Knoxville, Tennessee on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Bob, I'm Roger Hitchcock.
Thanks for calling.
Hey, Roger.
Uh we gotta 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, and nothing.
So who is it?
I don't know who that is right now, but we you know we gotta 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 gonna draw people from the other party over to our candidates.
Well, okay, so you don't have a choice.
I mean, that's it's nice to say in the abstract, you know, that uh hey, we 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, uh, thanks uh for the call.
It and it I think it might 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, uh a year from now.
The uh 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 uh Iraq is uh is just not true.
It it it just isn't true.
These armor piercing roadside bombs, I mean, this just isn't true.
It's uh the kind of thing that the United States does.
It presents uh false uh information, it's uh it's always relying on false information.
In other words, again, the Iranians sound a lot like, well, some Democrats.
Uh I love uh get into the uh scrappleface uh stuff and uh today uh my mood I'm in a jihad confirmed, according to uh Scrappleface that uh they that there are armor piercing explosives in the Shiite militias in Iraq, except they're only there for peaceful purposes.
Uh 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, uh we make these armor piercing devices to generate energy, peaceful energy in our uh 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.
Russell under 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 uh the uh Democrats, uh the Peace Democrats, if you were here for the earlier part of the show analyzing the Civil War Peace Democrats.
Uh the Peace Democrats, the uh genetic descendants of their uh anti-American brethren from 150 years ago, are uh 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.
Huh?
Anyway, uh undeterred by the contradiction in terms, uh, they are moving forward and not allowing Republicans to put forward a uh 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 Mertha 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 uh again, this is in uh Friday's Washington Post, this is not new news, this is already Monday.
Friday's Washington Post reports, quote, Representative John P. Mertha, 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.
Another nonbinding 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 nonbinding resolution, is a first step.
The uh FY uh uh The FYO eight defense budget would be step number two for Mertha, 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 uh conquest of South Vietnam and the subsequent uh 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 basically done.
By the way, there is uh 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 um the talks involving North Korea, the six nation talks.
The uh it's actually Japan and the United States versus the communists in the area, uh the Russians, the Chinese, and the North Koreans.
But this is um 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.
Uh this is where uh 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 uh anti-Civil War Peace Democrats of the North wanted to do when Abraham Lincoln wasn't winning.
Uh sit down with the Confederates.
Isn't it possible we can come to some agreement?
So today, the last day, is uh is uh i even the LA Times can't stomach it.
Can you see this Sunday they had an editorial saying, you can't give these people two 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, get 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 LA Times is saying there's no reason to give them anything.
Now, of course, uh many people who are in the uh 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, uh 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, if 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 the 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 uh phrase, well known to uh 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 uh being pirates, but Barbary pirates on our merchantmen.
Uh millions for defense, not one penny for tribute.
It is a phrase that ought to be a retaught to anyone running for uh president, because we seem to be in the imperial stage of uh American history, where just buying people off and sending off tribute is uh 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.
Uh and uh uh Jefferson had a different idea.
He sent uh the U.SS.
Constitution and the Marines and uh attacked these places and reduced them to rubble.
And guess what?
They didn't attack any more of the merchantmen.
The Barbary Pirates seem to have faded from history uh until uh they were recast as Al Qaeda and uh the Peace Democrats.
I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for uh Rush Limbaugh, one eight hundred two eight two two eight eight two.
▲
Export Selection