Rush Limbaugh Program - February 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

34:10

February 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes, we're back here behind the Golden EIB microphone, Rush Limbaugh from the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, foregoing the billowing clouds of fragrant, aromatic, premium cigar smoke until the hacking cough and the ravages of the common cold have run their course.
	Telephone number 800-282-2882 if you'd like to be on the program today.
	Email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
	Folks, I want to apologize.
	I was told yesterday that the intro to the first episode of the Half Hour News Hour will be posted on YouTube sometime yesterday afternoon.
	It didn't get up there until this morning.
	It's there now, and it's the open to their three excerpts.
	One's a promo for the show.
	One is a segment of the show on Barack Obama.
	And the other one, the most recent one posted is the actual open with me as President of the United States and Ann Coulter as Vice President.
	Now, we've linked to this at rushlimbaugh.com.
	So you can either go straight to YouTube and you can search for it in the search field by Half Hour NewsHour or just go to rushlimbaugh.com.
	We've got a link for it right there.
	Plus, we've also linked or posted the email I got from Taz I started the program off with last hour.
	People have expressed an interest to be able to see and read that themselves, and it's up there as well.
	And I want to warn you people, YouTube is nothing more than a left-wing Google.
	Google owns it.
	And YouTube is just, it's some of the kook fringe left hang out there.
	And there are already gazillions of comments about this little skit of Coulter and me as president and vice president, respectively.
	And I don't want you people to be affected by this.
	If you read these comments, it's going to make you mad.
	They're just juvenile and insane, which is typical.
	So you don't have to read them if you don't want to.
	And I suspect now that I've directed you to it, the comments are going to increase even more.
	So if you want to go there and take a look at it, it's up and running, albeit a day late.
	There's a second one to come.
	I don't know when it's going to be posted on YouTube.
	It's the second episode.
	This program, Half Hour News Hour, let me explain this to you.
	It airs Sunday night at 10 o'clock on the Fox News channel after Hannity's new Sunday night show.
	And these are essentially pilots.
	These programs are not fully budgeted.
	A lot of people donated their time here for the purpose of seeing if this thing could work.
	And so we produced these things two or three weeks ago.
	And as far as topicality, if the show gets picked up, it'll be a weekly with topical events.
	These pilots are obviously not that.
	And I don't often make a, excuse me again here.
	You know, the reason I worry about dead air on this program is because some of our smaller stations are automated.
	You know, I mean, I'm talking about in the Kia Kuks and the Timbuktu's and so forth.
	And if they don't, if audio goes by with nothing on it for five seconds, the automation machine kicks into commercials.
	So that's why dead air never hurt anybody except an automated radio station.
	Tiny little places are still automated.
	So that's why I try to come back quickly when I have to hit the cough button.
	At any rate, the first episode, Sunday night at 10 o'clock, and it needs an audience if it's to get produced for real.
	If it's to get produced as a full-fledged TV show, they need to attract an audience.
	So there's a lot of promotion on this.
	Now, Fox is running promos all day long, the Fox News channel is, and they've got enough promotion going on on the internet for this with some segments.
	But just keep in mind that when you do see the whole program, what you're essentially watching are pilots, which are traditionally put together with less than what a full budget would be.
	I'm not making excuses for it.
	I just want you to understand what you're watching.
	This is not the end-all product.
	This is an attempt to find an audience to get the program into full production.
	Yes, it's time for an update, ladies and gentlemen, and it's global warming time.
	I'm going to use the Al Gore ball of fire theme for this one since he's in the news.
	Our buddy Paul Shanklin as Al Gore.
	And a ball of fire from the Washington Post today.
	Al Gore's next gig concert promoter, you've probably heard about this, a series of concerts for the environment that will dwarf Live Aid and other such things.
	Using popular music to bring attention to his pet issue of global climate change, the former vice president is planning a single-day series of concerts modeled after Live 8.
	Gore is scheduled to announce the concerts today in Los Angeles.
	He's expected to be joined there by rock stars John Bon Jovian Sting, rap musician Farrell Williams, and media executive Kevin Wall, who served as worldwide executive producer for Live8, the 2005 concerts that drew attention to African debt relief.
	But did they solve it?
	Did they make a dent in it?
	No, they didn't.
	It was just a bunch of liberals getting together, taking your money, trying to show you how good their hearts and intentions are.
	Did they accomplish anything diddly squat?
	Now, by the way, when is Al Gore going to do these concerts?
	Let's see.
	Oh, the Gore-promoted event will be held July 7th.
	July 7th?
	Why, it'll actually be hot on July 7th, so they'll be able to say it's global warming.
	In the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, snow fell on Nepal's capital, Kathmandu, for the first time in 63 years on Wednesday, stirring excitement and curiosity among residents and the children.
	I've never seen it snow in Kathmandu in all my life, said 45-year-old housewife Manju Shrechtha, playing in the snow with her young children.
	Weather officials said the brief snowfall, lasted just a few minutes, was the result of a weatherly, or I'm sorry, westerly disturbance over Nepal that earlier in the week caused heavy rains.
	Then there's a piece.
	I'm just trying to put all this in perspective for you.
	Kevin Myat, writing in the Roanoke Times, we may be living in cold, historic times.
	For the second consecutive Tuesday, I'm writing a column for Wednesday's newspaper as a potential winter storm is approaching southwest Virginia.
	Might surprise you that this run of cold has a chance of being something historic.
	Through Monday, Roanoke's average temperature for February was 29.2 degrees.
	If the month had ended Monday, this would be the coldest February on record at Roanoke, edging out the only other two Februaries with an average temperature below 30 degrees.
	That would be February of 78 and February of 79.
	All but one of the first 12 days of this month have averaged below normal in temperature.
	The storm system moving through now will whip northwest winds on us in the next few days, bringing a new blast of Arctic air.
	And this will last into the weekend with some nights of very low temperatures and days with highs struggling to reach the 30s.
	So we will be nearly two-thirds through the month by early next week with temperatures quite likely still averaging below 30 for the month.
	The Arctic pattern likely to relax next week, but even average cold would keep us within striking distance of a record cold month.
	And then my old buddy Bob Tyrrell, the American spectator, says, you know, basically, global warming is our friend.
	He says, I'm sitting here in our nation's capital freezing.
	In California, the citrus crop is near ruin.
	The plain states look like Antarctica.
	And from the Midwest to the Atlantic coast, snow and ice are everywhere.
	The logical conclusion is, rather than debate the possibility of global warming, we should be applauding it, doing everything we can to usher it in.
	Most scientists agree the planet is today about one degree Celsius warmer than it was a century ago, but so what?
	North American winters are still miserable.
	Frankly, even in border state climes like Washington, it can remain chilly right up to mid-May.
	So we might all ask why the opponents of global warming are so hysterical.
	Basically, they're led by the same environmentalists who have been so wrong in the past, and they're always hysterical.
	In the 70s, they predicted a global ice age and overpopulation that would give us all claustrophobia by the end of the 20th century.
	They predicted a depletion of resources that would lead to global recession.
	What's to fear with global warming when we've got weather like we've got now?
	Why is global warming a disaster?
	It's a brilliant question that Mr. Tyrrell asks, one that we have asked on this program countless times before.
	What is the destruction in warming?
	But more than that, in the midst of all this documented record cold, where are the media stories questioning the so-called science of global warming?
	And in fact, let me find something here.
	Where is the story?
	Ah, here we go.
	Writing in the Sunday Times, this is a Boston Globe story.
	Writing in the Sunday Times of London this week, Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist magazine, suggested that this UN Commission's main conclusion that there is more than a 90% certainty that humans are contributing to global warming means there's a 10% chance that man is blameless.
	That's a wide open breach for any latter-day Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea.
	That's how science really works.
	Folks, if the IPCC itself is saying there's a 90% chance there's not science, if there's a 90% chance man is causing the globe to warm, there's no science there, just consensus.
	Science doesn't deal in 90%.
	Science is or isn't present.
	Back in a second.
	Okay, let's jump back to the phones.
	People have been patiently waiting at Chester, Virginia.
	David, thanks for waiting.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	Hey, Joe, it's an honor to be on your show, Mr. Limbaugh.
	Thank you.
	I was thinking we really need to send children over to fight terrorism.
	That's our only option.
	We need to send children over to fight terrorism.
	How do you figure?
	Well, according to Hollywood, children are not influenced by sex, violence, in movies, on TV, rap music.
	They're not influenced by any of that.
	However, our 20 and 30-year-olds in the military are.
	So we bring them back.
	We send children over there and they won't be influenced by 24 or any other kind of programming.
	Excuse me, an interesting way to make the point, and that is, we talked about this a minute ago, and that is that all during the 80s and 90s with Murphy Brown and Dan Quayle, conservatives expressed concern about the moral depravity and the sexual mores and the violence that was permeating primetime television.
	Oh, no, you're interrupting artistic freedom.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	This stuff has never been proved to influence behavior, blah, blah, blah.
	Now we've arrived to the point where it's influencing the way troops conduct torture in their jobs, the U.S. military.
	It's a good point.
	Send the kids over.
	They're not affected by it.
	Makes much sense anything else the left is saying these days.
	Joanne in Bennington, Nebraska.
	Hi, and welcome to the program.
	Thank you, Rush.
	First, I would like to thank you for all the things that you said early in the program.
	My son is currently serving in Iraq, and I know he would have appreciated your words.
	Really, what I called to say was that there's very little doubt in my mind that the Democrats will cut off funding for the war.
	They'll probably start with the supplemental appropriations, and that's because Petraeus is going over there.
	He is very well aware of everything that's going on there, what the problems are.
	He's very bright, very brilliant, and very determined, very energetic.
	And I think he scares them to death.
	I think the liberals are just terrified that he might succeed.
	Yeah, exactly.
	He might succeed.
	And that'll throw the biggest monkey wrench into the left's plans that they could imagine.
	Precisely.
	In fact, you know, this news about Moktada Olsadr having fled.
	You know, this is, I read Ralph Peters today in the New York Post, and Mr. Peters gets the perspective on this right.
	I mean, Mookie and his boys have fled, and these are the guys that are telling their minions and troops, go out there and be martyrs.
	Paradise awaits.
	And when it comes time for these guys to martyr themselves and to join them in Paradise and the Virgins, they're nowhere to be found.
	They're back at Iran.
	Now, whether or not they're back there to wait it out, see what happens, or they're back there reconfiguring and rearming.
	The point is they fled.
	They got out of there, and they got out of there for a reason, and that is that they understand that Petraeus is serious, and they understand that Bush is serious about this.
	And they may look at it as though they want the U.S. and Iraqi coalition forces to wipe out some Sunnis for them and then come in and pick up the pieces later.
	But make no mistake, they fled because they fear for their lives, and they're thinking this action might succeed.
	And I said to you on this program, and backing up what you said here, Joanne, the Democrats have been demanding the pullout by May because that's when Petraeus has been saying we'll know whether the surge is actually going to show progress or is working and shows promise and so forth.
	So you're probably right.
	At some point, I think they'll have no choice but then to cut off funds, if only to preserve defeat.
	Yes, precisely.
	Because they're out on the cliff now.
	In fact, they're over the cliff.
	If this succeeds.
	In fact, let me, since you bring this up, grab audio soundbite.
	Let's see.
	Grab number 10.
	I want you to listen to this with me, Joanne.
	Pelosi was on the news hour with Jim Olara last night, and Jim O'Lara said, Ms. Pelosi, what would your position be if, in fact, the Petraeus plan worked?
	What if it actually worked, the Baghdad security plan?
	I pray that it does.
	But the fact is, we know we would increase the odds of it working if there were some sincere efforts to engage the other countries in the region in the diplomatic solutions that are necessary to stabilize the region and do the political work.
	Do the political work.
	That is to say, amend the Constitution.
	Include the Sunnis and others into the civic life of Iraq.
	That's where you go.
	You don't go into ethnic cleansing of neighborhoods and say, now we're going to referee.
	Holy, she was totally blindsided by this question and gets into, well, if we pray that it does.
	We know we would increase the odds of it working if there were sincere efforts to engage other countries in diplomacy.
	It's incredibly silly.
	Well, it's naive.
	I mean, it leaves me speechless.
	It is so silly.
	Now it's ethnic cleansing, by the way.
	Right.
	The United States military is engaged in ethnic cleansing.
	Of course, she won't be called on this because she's Madame Pelosi and they're not criticized.
	But anyway, that's just a she-she's totally caught blindsided by the whole concept of victory, of this thing working.
	And I'll tell you what she said, by the way, pray that it does.
	I don't believe her.
	They don't have any political investment in victory.
	They can't share victory.
	They can't claim partial credit for victory.
	But all they would be able to do is to say, we passed our resolution supporting the troops.
	And that wouldn't be much.
	They got a lot at stake here, folks, if we win.
	Stop to think about that.
	Back in a sec.
	Back we are, 800-282-2882, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
	And to Dover Foxcroft, Maine.
	This is Bryce.
	Nice to have you on the program, sir.
	Hi, nice to speak with you.
	I hear we've got Iran sending terrorists into Iraq.
	Do you believe that gives us the right to invade Iran?
	Well, I've thought since the president identified Iran as one of the three members of the Axis of evil, and since his post-9-11 speech, we will go anywhere, any place that terrorists are harbored in the war on terror to wipe them out.
	I've always thought that Iran's a target, as well as Syria.
	Very well.
	Thank you.
	Is that it?
	Yes.
	Well, you're writing a paper or something?
	No, just wondering.
	I've been pondering that for a while now.
	Well, it ain't going to happen.
	In fact, you're probably familiar, you people out there, with this North Korea deal.
	Everybody, a lot of conservatives are very upset with this North Korea deal.
	They see North Korea doesn't have to do anything to earn this.
	There are no incentives.
	They don't have to disarm.
	They don't have to get rid of anything first before they get the first shipment of goodies from us.
	John Bolton says, I'm not loyal to the president.
	I'm loyal to the first policy.
	And the first policy was working.
	Tightening of sanctions and tightening down is Elliot Abrams, who is in the administration or has been upset.
	A lot of people think this is just a boondoggle.
	The president's reaction to that is, well, we've got six-party talks here.
	If they reneg on this, they're reneging against the CHICOMs.
	So what?
	The CHICOMs are our enemy, too.
	So little of this makes sense to me, folks.
	I'm just a plebe.
	I'm just the average ordinary Common Joe citizens like you.
	Then I get up and I read this in the L.A. Times today.
	Iran, inspired by a North Korea nuclear deal, Iran is quietly accelerating efforts to negotiate a deal on its nuclear program, using this week's agreement to freeze North Korea's program as a model.
	In the North Korea deal, the Bush administration signed a deal that provides significant incentives to North Korea even before the country completely steps back from its nuclear weapons program.
	The administration's willingness to agree to that probably will harden Iran's demands that it, too, should get tangible benefits as part of any agreement.
	Those rewards could include guarantees for the security of Iran's government, an end to economic sanctions, and the right to continue developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
	The debate in Iran now appears to focus on how hard Tehran should press for favorable terms.
	The hardliners, perhaps impressed by North Korea's achievement, are now inclined to be more resilient and more uncompromising, said an Iranian professor of politics at Tehran University.
	They say if North Korea could do it, why shouldn't we?
	Iran has signaled it might be willing to compromise on enrichment, either by limiting it or suspending it or operating centrifuges with an inert gas instead of uranium.
	Iranian negotiators say a genuine agreement can be achieved only through open negotiation without preconditions.
	A subtle upping of the ante in Iran's public position was evident shortly after the North Korea agreement was announced.
	Mohammed Ali Hosseini, the foreign ministry spokesman for Iran, declared Tuesday that Iran would never accept suspension of uranium enrichment as a precondition for negotiation.
	So the Iranians are looking at this North Korea deal and say, hey, we're going to hold out for the same thing.
	And who could blame them?
	So that's when we're going to attack Iran.
	That is the absolute last thing I see as a possibility happening.
	Nobody is talking about that militarily anyway as having any chance in hell.
	If you're thinking that's going to happen, I'd wash your mind.
	You know, we'll get rid of torture before we attack Iran.
	Jonathan in Fort Leonardwood, Missouri, welcome to the EIB network.
	Wow, Rush, what an honor to talk to you.
	Thank you.
	U.S. Army Rush Baby Dittos.
	My question or point, I don't know.
	Something that's really frustrated me.
	When I read the book by Bill Goertz called Treachery, there was quite a bit of it in there about how the Russians had helped Saddam Hussein get a lot of his WMD components, research manufacturing components, all that stuff.
	They helped him get it out of there.
	And I don't know.
	Obviously, I'm no expert, but I just wonder why hasn't President Bush made more of an issue of the fact that other countries may have helped Saddam get the stuff out of Iran.
	This is an excellent question, and I have thought about this, and I've asked some people this, and I'll tell you what I was told.
	Because one of the theories is about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is that Russian trucks, tankers, and so forth helped remove some of the stuff.
	We all know it was there.
	It's another one of these frustrating falsehoods that's a reality.
	There were weapons of mass destruction.
	Well, we didn't find Saddam Ever there.
	It must have been lied to.
	All of this.
	General one of Iran's Saddam's favorite generals has testified the Russians helped get the stuff out.
	And the question, I forget who I asked, why wouldn't the president make mention of this?
	And the answer I got, Jonathan, is that that would upset the diplomatic apple cart, that we're trying to forge peace and good relations with Russia because of the relations they're having with Iran and with India and some of the fire-breathing rhetoric coming out of Putin's mouth, and we just don't want to provoke them.
	And plus we need their vote in the Security Council of the United Nations to gain favor.
	Now, this is not documented.
	This is not something that's on the record.
	It was a theory postulated to me when I asked the question.
	And if this is true, I mean, if it's accurate, if it's true that we know full well the Russians helped Saddam clear the weapons of mass destruction out of there, but we don't dare say anything about it publicly for fear of upsetting other apple carts.
	And we know that the administration has got a big credibility problem in the rest of the war because of weapons of mass destruction.
	It ought to tell you that there are things far more important going on than the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because that fact, the fact that the incident of not finding any weapons of mass destruction has fueled, it was the spark plug that got the whole anti-war movement going.
	And it's the basis for all the Bush lied, Bush made it up.
	There was no truth to it, just wanted to get Saddam out of the way for whatever.
	Cheney lied, Halliburton going for big oil spawned all of this stuff.
	And if Bush could wipe that off the slate by saying, yes, there were weapons of mass destruction, and we know the Russians helped them move the stuff out, I would think he would do it.
	But if there are concerns even larger than that, then it just means there are things going on you and I have no concept of.
	And again, all this is speculation anyway.
	I don't know if the answer I got is fact.
	I want to make that plain.
	But it was fairly high up that I was told this because they asked the same question when I heard that the Russians helped Saddam get the stuff out of there to Syria, wherever else, and that we know it, but we don't want to embarrass the Russians because we've got too much at stake with them in the future.
	Quick time out.
	We'll be back.
	Stay with us.
	Your guiding light and living legend, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network, to Atlanta.
	This is Jay.
	I'm glad you called, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Thank you, Rush.
	It occurs to me that if 24 is inciting U.S. military personnel to torture and murder, yes, it is.
	Which is absurd.
	Well, of course it is.
	It's just absurd.
	It's a mainstream media concoction that is filtering down throughout the rest of the media.
	It's just absurd.
	Well, of course it is.
	But, you know, to me, perhaps the answer is to do a little inciting of our own.
	But let's do it with reality.
	Maybe they should interpolate clips of Daniel Pearl being beheaded with a machete.
	Perhaps they should show the actual news clips that never get on a drive-by media of body parts of children and blown-up buses in Israel.
	Maybe instead of just showing a mushroom cloud in 24, they should show the real devastation of that city that supposedly had a nuclear bomb.
	That would be Valencia.
	Nobody would care.
	Well, perhaps.
	But the point being is let's show them some reality.
	Let's show why those soldiers or the Jack Bowers of the world have to do what they have to do.
	There is a reason for it.
	There really is torture and inhumanity taking place, but it's not by our guys.
	It's the other ones.
	And they're not showing that.
	Well, of course, we can't even show.
	We can't even go back and look at tapes of the airplanes hitting the towers on 9-11.
	Well, it's too soon.
	But what's to stop an independent producer of a show like 24 from interpolating those news clips in, particularly because they could get them off of Al Jazeera.
	They don't even have to pay royalties for it.
	Well, that's the point.
	The network wouldn't clear those things to be broadcast.
	The network wouldn't clear it, I guarantee you.
	Plus, I don't think the producers would want to do that.
	This is not commenting on your point here.
	I mean, I think it's a great point.
	Did you happen to watch the videotape on the internet of the Pearl beheading?
	I've seen two or three of them.
	Yeah.
	What made you want to watch it?
	Simply the fact that it was there.
	And it was, to me, these were the things that Americans should have been seeing, however horrendous they are.
	They tell us why we do what we do.
	And if they can't make the connection, if the other guys are just freedom fighters with rocks and hand grenades, and we've got nuclear weapons and assault rifles, and we're torturing everyone we catch, you know, it's so incredibly one-sided.
	But if you can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, for God's sake, let's see some reality.
	I happen to agree with you.
	But, you know, I remember when the videotape hit the internet of the beheading of Richard Pearl.
	Richard?
	That's not Richard.
	Daniel.
	Daniel Pearl.
	I can remember the I'd mentioned I'd watched it, and I got, how dare you?
	How could you?
	That's such a sacred, how could you?
	And I want to see what these people are capable of.
	I would think everybody would benefit from knowing exactly just what you said, what we're facing here.
	And the fact of the matter is, we have been turned into the bad guys, and they have been turned into the victims, and they're the ones being given excuses and reasons for doing what they're doing because of some atrocities we're committing, such as at Abu Ghraib, Club Gitmo, or whatever.
	Or even before that, like you said, just because we have nukes, or just because we support Israel.
	And the whole theme of this program today is centered on the fact that there's an ongoing effort to destroy the primary institution that guarantees the freedom and security of this country.
	That's the U.S. military.
	That's what's at stake here.
	That is really what's happening with this U.N. resolution in the House of Representatives.
	And now Dingy Harry, he's all bent out of shape because the Republicans have thwarted him.
	And he's out there saying, we want to do it in the Senate, too.
	The Democrats in the House and the Senate are racing each other to see who can be the first to come up with a resolution that supports defeat.
	And that make no mistake, that's what this is about.
	They claim their resolution is supporting the troops by getting them out of the war zone and showing displeasure with the president's ratcheting up of reinforcements, good guys, surge, whatever you want to call it.
	And so Dingy Harry's been thwarted because the Republicans were able to say the Republicans in the House are powerless.
	I hope, you know, they may not have even realized it before the election how powerless they were going to be.
	They may not have recovered.
	I didn't see a whole lot of effort from them about wanting to get re-elected in the first place.
	I frankly didn't.
	But they are utterly powerless.
	They can't stop anything.
	And they're running around whining about how the Democrats are breaking promises to let them be involved in competing resolutions and so forth.
	The Democrats don't have to let the Republicans do anything in the House.
	They've got no power.
	And power is, and amassing it is what politics is.
	The Democrats consider power their birthright.
	They're not going to come in and share it with the Republicans.
	And why should they when 12 Republicans are willing to join the Democrats in this silly resolution anyway?
	One of the darkest, most shameful days the House of Representatives is going to be tomorrow when they take a vote on this resolution.
	Now, Republicans in the Senate have been able to stop some of this, and it's made Dingy Harry mad.
	But this is a frightening thing.
	And I, you know, it's got long-term consequences and not just for the country.
	If you go back and look at the last time the Democrats tried this and the last time they succeeded, Vietnam and Nixon, and they ended up being McGoverned, they were branded the pacifist, peacenick, weak on defense bunch, and they have not gotten over it.
	And they think that was their finest hour because they ended the war in Vietnam.
	They think this is going to be their second finest hour, and it's going to have long-term consequences.
	They may win the presidency in 08, but they're going to lose it big in 2012 if they do.
	It'll be huge.
	Whoever wins the presidency in 08 for the Democrats, if that happens, is going to be the worst four years in this country's history.
	Anyway, let me take a quick break.
	We'll get back here in just a second.
	Stay with us.
	Very quickly, Joe in Ellicott City, Maryland.
	Welcome to the program, sir.
	Nice to have you with us.
	Hi, thanks, Rush.
	I hope you're feeling better soon.
	I'm just questioning in my mind as I listen to the program today how the convoluted thinking must work for an individual to, on the one hand, believe that a fictitious TV drama would have impact on our forces serving overseas in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
	But, oh, by the way, their elected officials in real life can go on the record and can go on the news and claim that the mission of those very troops is wrong and doomed to failure.
	How can you say the one followed by the other?
	That is an excellent point.
	That is an excellent point.
	We got 24 supposedly influencing American troops to the negative, but votes of Congress and public statements by members of Congress talking about the mission being immoral and lost somehow don't affect the troops.
	Great, great point out there, Joe.

▲