All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:31
February 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
It's great to have you with us a slightly impaired Doctor of Democracy today, still hampered by the ravages of the common cold virus.
The most notable impact, as far as you're concerned, is this stupid, frustrating, hacking cough that I can't get rid of, which is starting to make me mad.
I'm doing my best to maintain my composure here.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, just a second.
800-282-2882.
All right, Rudy Giuliani was on Larry King Alive last night.
I don't know how many of you people watch this, but the reputation that Larry King Alive has is that it's softball after softball after softball after softball.
And it's true with the aging Hollywood star who hadn't had a hit in 30 years, but still is a big favorite of Larry's as a guest, or some liberal Hollywood entertainer or what have you, or somebody from the drive-by media.
Yes, softballs.
But you get a guy who's a Republican, quasi-conservative, and Larry's softballs become not so soft.
First question from King, you don't like the idea of a non-binding resolution because?
Because there's no decision.
But it's a statement.
Yeah, but that's what you do.
That's what Tim Russet does.
That's what Rush Limbaugh does.
That's what you guys do.
You make comments.
We pay them to make decisions, not just to make comments.
We pay them to decide.
The ones I think have a better understanding of what their responsibility is and are willing to take a risk are the ones who are saying, we've got to hold back the funds.
We've got to vote against the war or we're for the war.
What he's saying, and I think it's a wise comment, it doesn't take any guts to come up with a non-binding resolution.
And that's not what these people are there to do, is make statements and pontificate.
They're there to make laws.
Or not make laws, which probably be the better course of action.
But nevertheless, they still are pontificating.
I want to elaborate on this a little more, though, because I think some of us might be underselling and underplaying this non-binding resolution.
I might have been guilty of that myself.
Because it's easy to say the non-binding resolution is a gutless move and that it will have no impact and that they're going to have to do something serious like defund in order for this to matter.
But if they keep this up, and of course they're going to be aided and abetted by a cavalry of drive-by media, it is going to continue to politically isolate the president, as it did Nixon.
And I don't know how many of you people will remember.
I read a review today in the New York Post by TV critic Linda Stacey, Stasi, not sure how she pronounces it.
And she was heralding some discovered, no, history program biography on whatever it was.
It's on Nixon.
And she was inadvertently informing us how ignorant she is on politics.
Because she was telling us, my gosh, you know, this Nixon guy, he wasn't all that bad.
He was a pretty big liberal.
But this Nixon guy couldn't be elected today.
Nixon guy couldn't get the Republican nomination for president today.
Why, this Nixon guy, this Nixon guy created the EPA.
The environment liberals love for.
This Nixon guy went out there and created OSHA.
And I could tell she thinks this is a brilliant program on Nixon.
Whatever this is.
It's a history channel tonight.
It's not a biography, but it's.
And of course, it got to talk about Watergate and it goes through the whole mess here.
But the point is that I said a long time ago that the Bush presidency reminds me a lot of the Nixon presidency more than like a Reagan presidency because President Bush has reached out to his enemies, the left, just as Nixon did.
And Nixon gave them wage and price controls, and Bush has given them the right to write education bills with Ted Kennedy and so forth.
We had steel tariffs.
The president put steel tariffs on.
We had the drug bill.
We've had a number of appeasements made by President Bush to the left to bridge the gap, new tone and so forth.
Nixon did the same thing.
Nixon was out there with OSHA and the EPA and wage and price controls and a whole bunch of other things.
Affirmative action.
Thank you, President Nixon.
And of course, the left so despises Nixon that they have forgotten what a good guy for him, for them he was.
And so when this TV critic watches this preview special of Nixon, she's, why, this is one of the greatest things I've ever seen because there's stuff about Nixon she didn't even know.
Or if she knew, she didn't remember.
She's not old enough to know, no, no.
But the point here is that the similarities between a Nixon presidency and the Bush presidency are eerie.
Now, I'm not talking about break-ins or any of that, but just the isolation, the isolation of the president from Congress, members of his own party abandoning him as Nixon's congressmen and senators did during Watergate and so forth.
They have the drive-bys in the left have pretty much made the war in Iraq Watergate, not Vietnam.
They're claiming we've got another Vietnam, but the way to look at this is that they're actually using the war in Iraq as Watergate.
There's no break-in.
There's none of this.
But there is presidential irresponsibility.
He's not listening to anybody.
He's isolated.
He's not listening to the people.
He's lost his mind.
We're trying to get the troops home.
We're trying to save the troops.
And so these resolutions of a non-binding nature may not be binding.
But if they keep up, they will have the effect of isolating Bush from even his political base.
And believe me, these resolutions are going to keep coming.
You put blood in the water for the libs, and they're like sharks.
They keep smelling it, and they're going to keep sniffing it.
Now, next question from King to Rudy.
Do you blame Rumsfeld for the war?
No, I don't blame anybody.
Somebody's got to win.
No, no, no, you don't.
Nobody's going to.
You don't do it that way.
That's why you don't make progress.
Just like I don't blame people for not figuring out September 11 before it happened.
What I do is I kind of look at what happened so you'll learn for the future.
But there were mistakes.
Of course there were mistakes.
Lincoln made mistakes.
Roosevelt made mistakes.
Eisenhower made mistakes.
The Battle of the Bows was the biggest intelligence failure in American military history, much bigger than any in Vietnam or now.
We didn't know that the Soviets were moving four or five hundred thousand troops.
We missed it.
And King says, well, Battle of Bulge, what was the Battle of Bulge?
What was that?
You got a little flavor there of old Lair.
Well, if there were mistakes made, there were mistakes.
Somebody's going to guillotine.
But, of course, Rudy has it right.
Lincoln made mistakes.
Roosevelt made mistakes.
Eisenhower made mistakes.
Many more and profound mistakes that have been made in this war, which is really a penny anti-war compared to all these that were cited here, Civil War, World War I, World War II.
This is a penny anti-war, and the way it's being thrust on everybody here is just sickening to me.
And it's frustrating as all ghetto.
But one other thing before we go to the break here, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a story yesterday.
I think it posted middle of the afternoon, yes, right after I got off the air, in fact, when I saw the story.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, insisting he is 100% committed to running for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, wooed Silicon Valley Insiders Monday, saying he is a strong believer in global warming, praising Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as a progressive leader on the environment, and calling for immigration policies that welcome people who make contributions to America's economy.
Giuliani spoke to about five now.
Let me run through these here for just because remember yesterday, folks, one of the things I told you I feared was the redefinition of conservatism in order to fit specific candidates.
Like in the conservative intelligentsia, of which I am proud to not be a member, the conservative intelligentsia is these intellectuals, D.C. New York Axis.
And they sit around and they choose their candidates.
And then they plug their candidates into a new definition of conservatism.
They say, well, conservatism is what our candidate is now.
And you've got people who are for Giuliani who are saying Giuliani is the best conservative in the race.
And he said, yes.
And you've got others who are saying, no, no, no, McCain is the best conservative and as close as we can get.
And others are saying, no, it's Mitt Romney.
But the point is they're taking all of these candidates and saying this is what conservatism is.
So Giuliani's supporters, to the extent that they're saying he's the best conservative in the race, are somehow going to have to explain him saying that he's a strong believer in global warming, which is a full-fledged liberal scheme to tax, spend, penalize achievement, and to grow government.
Pure and simple.
Arnold Schwarzenegger as a progressive leader on the environment.
Schwarzenegger, this progressive period, turned his back on the very people who enabled him to run for governor by the overthrow, the recall of Gray Davis.
There's nothing conservative anymore about Schwarzenegger and calling for immigration policies that welcome people who make contributions to America's economy.
Now, look, Rudy can say what he wants and he can go out there and battle for this office saying what he wants.
Don't misunderstand.
All I'm trying to point out is, in terms of Reaganism and conservatism, you're not going to find it there.
That's not conservative.
Maybe.
Well, I know Reagan's not running here, but what are we conservatives supposed to do?
Though my point, the liberals never allow for liberalism to be watered down.
You know, they never take a candidate and say candidate A is a lib.
They demand full fealty to full-fledged liberalism.
What liberals do is try to fool everybody else into thinking they're not liberals.
But they are.
I know there's not a Reaganite candidate out there, and I'm not saying that we can't support a candidate who's not Reaganite.
But I don't want to see conservatism redefined in the process.
So the conservatism equals support for the madcap environmentalist wackos on global warming.
I don't want conservatism to be redefined so it supports illegal immigration.
That's all I'm saying here.
I'm not saying these candidates are disqualified.
Just don't start plugging these guys in as definitions of conservative.
And heaven's sake, don't try to tell me, McCain.
Back in just a second.
You'll remember the story yesterday, Bank of America giving out credit cards to illegals.
Without social security numbers, as long as they'd had a checking account for a certain length of time and no overdrafts in three months or some such thing.
Well, lawmakers are lashing out at B of A over this new program.
They say it creates a dangerous loophole for terrorists and illegal immigrants.
Tom Tancredo, a Republican Colorado, called for a federal investigation program yesterday, sending Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff a letter requesting a review of the program.
Tancredo said in a statement today, we are hearing a far different message.
Bank of America, it's everywhere terrorists want to be.
The program welcomes applicants without a social security number and credit history if they have held a checking account with the bank for three months without an overdraft.
If an individual wants to get a credit card, they ought to be able to get one in their home country, said Representative Marsha Blackburn, a Republican from Tennessee.
She said something of deep concern to me that Bank of America would choose to market to those that have chosen to break U.S. law to enter this country, and then they would give credit to them.
Well, you know, I understand the outrage and all this, but if you take all that away, just look at the market factors of this, the market must be huge.
The market must be huge.
They're not going to run around and do this for the social concerns of it.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley, a question from the official program observer.
Yes, what is it?
Well, it's, well, good point, good point.
Snerdley's point is, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait, wait a minute, it's wrong for Bank of America to market to these illegals, but it's okay for politicians to do that for votes.
Excuse me, that's we got two groups of people here.
I mean, the politicians and the Bank of America people are the same people.
There's nothing wrong with it.
They don't see any problem with it.
But I'm just, you know, strip away the whole notion of this illegal aspect of it and the marketing aspect.
And look at the risk involved.
Credit cards to people without social security numbers.
And all you have to do to get the card is to prove you haven't had an overdraft in three months.
Can you imagine what the application for the card must look like?
Name must not matter.
Social Security obviously doesn't matter because you don't have one.
Address can't possibly matter.
You got to have some place to send the bills, but I don't know.
Very, very, very strange.
I'm just telling you, like I said yesterday, when this stuff starts happening, folks, you can forget it.
You can forget it.
It's over.
Brian in Baltimore on a truck.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rosh.
How you doing?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
I'm going to get right to the point.
I sit in this truck every day for 15 years listening to you and hoping and wishing that you would do more.
And I've watched these liberal pukes put their liberal propaganda out for years And just hoping that you would just do something like a documentary and have someone like Thomas Sowell or somebody narrate it and get the truth out there.
Kind of like Dick Morris is going to do against about Hillary Clinton.
Because you are so influential, and we sit out here day after day hoping that you will just bombard these people with the truth because you have the power and you have the influence to be able to change this country.
I agree.
And we need you to do more.
That's about all I got to say.
I've been waiting 15 years to talk to you.
I've been talking to you, but I never talked to you on the phone.
That's about all I got to say.
Well, I appreciate it.
It's a mouthful.
I appreciate all of the support, the thoughts that were intertwined in your comments, particularly the notion I'm not working hard enough, that I love too.
But let me just say I'll take this under advisement like I take all these other suggestions under advisement, such as a cartoon show for kids in American history and a number of other things.
You never know.
You know what my problem is, folks?
And it's a problem in the sense that looking at the comments the gentleman just made.
I love doing what I'm doing.
It's professionally satisfying.
I've had my stint at television, and I know that I don't want to do it every day again.
No, and I don't want to direct.
What I want to do is earn money when I sleep, folks.
That's my next objective.
I want to maybe produce the documentary, but somebody else to do the work.
You know, I'm just kidding about that.
But it's, you know, got to have the ambition to do it.
And my lifelong ambition has been this.
I mean, by all rights, I should have quit because I have achieved my life's ambition.
But I don't quit, and I don't even plan on it because I enjoy it too much.
But look, I've never had goals either, never had strict short-term goals because I always found them too limiting.
A strict short-term goal might miss out on an opportunity.
It would present itself that I had no idea was coming.
So I appreciate the vote of confidence and the suggestion, so forth.
And while no such thing is on the horizon, I don't ever rule anything out.
The only thing is about a documentary.
Who would carry it?
For to get a documentary, I'd have to go out and buy a network.
And to do that, I would have to go into a little bit of debt.
And just a little bit.
I don't want to go into any debt.
Back in a second.
I thought we were having a good time.
Hey, look at this.
What is this?
This is one of the Washington Post blogs, parsing the polls, answering the Mormon question.
The fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon is no secret.
Scads of stories have been written about that very fact.
And it's a regular topic of conversation among Washington's chattering class.
Yes, it is.
I'm wondering when we're going to get stories about the religion of Barack Obama.
They won't dare go there.
And anybody who does dare go there will be savaged in the process.
But we can talk about Mitt Romney's religion all day long.
Tim Hardaway is on a radio show.
Tim, I wish you'd have called me before you had done this.
Went on a radio with a sports writer turned radio talk show host.
I guarantee you, you're not going on with a sports writer or a sports radio guy.
You're going on with a left-wing social activist.
And Tim Hardaway, who's retired from the Miami Heat, you've probably heard of it.
Do we have this?
We've got the, I think we've got the soundbite here someplace.
Yeah, we do.
It's number 14.
Grab audio soundbite number 14.
Rather have him say it than paraphrase it.
He was on a host named Dan Labetard radio show in Miami yesterday.
And he was asked at the end of the interview about this ex-NBA player who came out as gay.
And this is what Hardaway said.
You know, I hate gay people.
You know, I let it be known.
I don't like gay people.
I don't like to be around gay people.
First of all, I wouldn't want them on my team.
I think the majority of the players would ask for him to be traded or they would want to get traded.
I'm homophobic, so yeah, I don't like it.
Well, that's the next candidate for rehab, Tim Hardaway.
What is it that these people don't understand about this now?
Anyway, back to the phones.
San Antonio, this is Bonnie.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hi.
Mega, mega dittos.
I have, it's an honor to speak to you.
Thank you very much.
I've had a love affair with you for 20 years.
I did.
I wish I'd have known.
I just almost came through the webcam, though, a few callers ago when we were discussing WMDs again.
And I listened to our paid politicians who are on my payroll.
And I listened to them talk about WMDs and why we shouldn't have gone.
And that's the whole reason we need to do what we're doing this week.
And I want to really throw up because that's not the discussion anymore.
It makes no difference why we went.
That's not an issue any longer.
I agree.
It's what we do now.
But forward.
Yes, but you see, the reason it is the issue is because the whole point is to discredit the mission to achieve defeat, to demoralize the troops, to attack the president.
It is to achieve defeat.
So, of course, to focus on the failure of weapons of mass destruction to be found, and therefore we shouldn't be there fits.
It fits.
I mean, you're looking at this logically.
Okay, we're there.
We didn't find weapons of mass destruction, but now what do we do?
We don't pull out.
That's not the way to look at this from the enemy standpoint.
The enemy standpoint is we must humiliate the military.
We must humiliate Rumsfeld and Bush and Cheney and the whole Republican Party and the conservative movement as well while we're at it.
And that's what this is about.
Well, I have a very wonderful son who was called up, and we're worried to death about him.
He's going over there, and he's proud to do so.
Well, doesn't it comfort you to know that the Democrats support your troop?
Oh, I'm just, yes, I'm thrilled to death.
I'm thrilled to death.
And I said to him the last time we were able to speak, I said, what about all this stuff about you don't have enough protective equipment?
He said, Mom, you should see the buildings with everything here.
So he's going over there and doing his duty and proud to do so and left a job and a family here to do it.
So we're very proud of him, yes.
I can imagine.
As well you should be.
But it has to gall you.
It has to gall you when you hear these people who are invested in defeat saying they support people like your son.
And I hear about all the wonderful things he happens to be attached to the Seabeast, the schools they've built, the things they've done over there.
I hear about that.
I don't hear about it anywhere else.
Yes.
No, you don't.
You also don't hear about it from the administration, though.
Does that trouble you?
It does me.
I mean, I read an email from an airman in Iraq that communicates with me semi-regularly, and he's telling the same story.
We've posted it at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's the first thing I did, the show start us today, started today.
And it's such a different picture than what we get.
And he asked me, why does the news not get out?
And I said, well, I mean, if the Secretary of Defense and if the president and if the vice president are not willing to go out there and sing the same song and not combat, if in fact, if what happens is that they agree with negative assessments, yeah, it's big trouble.
It is trouble.
It's going to get worse.
I understand the desire to be, or the need to be honest with the American people, but if there are success stories to say and to tell, then they have to be told from the top.
Well, we don't have the whole picture, do we?
Well, no, we don't have the whole picture, but that's my point.
Whose fault is that?
Well, I agree.
Not that it's any fault.
It's just that there's a reason for the drive-by media.
The Democrats are being allowed to operate in a vacuum here.
They're allowed to fill the vacuum themselves.
There's only so much we in the alternative media can do when they've got so many outlets, so many newspapers, so many TV networks to drumbeat this stuff into people's head every day, 24-7, for three and a half years.
Well, I just, I just, my hair went on fire when I heard WMDs again.
I thought, enough, enough.
Well, I agree totally.
I was at a golf tournament a couple years ago now down in, where was it?
Puerto Rico.
And I got an argument with the friendly lib.
And the reason I say friendly, because some of them aren't, but I got in an argument with the friendly lib.
Well, won't you agree?
Won't you agree that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction?
And though the whole point of going was, I said, yeah, but so what?
We're there.
We come home.
We say, oop, we blew it.
Sorry.
And leave with our tails tucked between our legs.
What do we do?
Well, that's a good point.
All they want, you have to understand, Bonnie, all these people want is an admission of failure.
They want us to admit it was a mistake.
They want us to admit we were wrong.
They want that on the record.
That's why at every press conference, Mr. President, have you made any mistakes?
Because they want the videotaped for future TV commercials.
They want it for posterity.
People, even now, do not understand the extent to which the left in this country is at war with its political opponents in this country.
The president faces two wars, war over there and the war within our own borders.
And a lot of people don't want to look at what's going on here politically as a war because that's uncomfortable.
I don't want to look at it that way.
Rush is just politics, and I don't have to pay attention if I don't want to.
You have to take it seriously when the left in this country is attempting to destroy the ability of the U.S. military to function.
That's something serious.
Quick break.
Back after this.
Okay, back to the phones we go to Brent in Dubuque, Iowa.
You're next on the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing this afternoon?
Could be better, but I'm not complaining.
You kind of battling the cold, are you?
Not complaining.
All right.
It's really kind of more of a comment than a question, but I'm a veteran.
I have four sons that are in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Three are in the Army, and one is a Marine.
And very, very proud of them.
But the thing that I always hear about all these armchair quarterbacks about the military is that you hear these moms and these dads complaining about their sons and daughters being over there.
And I don't want my sons being over there either because it's a war.
But that's what you sign up for when you go into the military.
And I think a lot of people are disillusioned by that.
When you go to the military, you are trained to fight.
You're not asked who you're going to fight or why you're going to fight.
You go in there with one task, and that is to defend your country.
Yeah, I understand.
But here's where we are with that today.
This has been going on, well, more than just the last three or four years, but really intensely the last three or four years.
The left has had a propaganda campaign designed to convince the American people that people such as your sons only join because they got no future.
The economy in the country is horrible.
They can't get into a decent school.
You're poor.
You probably live in a trailer park somewhere.
And the military is your kid's only way out.
And so that's why I say there are no stories about the valor of the military in this country.
No stories about the heroism that these people engage.
All we get are the stories about how they're a bunch of dummies.
They have no future because America sucks economically.
They have no way out of the ghetto in which they live and so forth.
And then they're raised to become killers.
And they go over there doing things they'd really rather not do.
And that's why there aren't any movies made of heroism, U.S. military men these days.
And there certainly aren't any stories in the drive-by media.
And that's why people have a misunderstanding of what particularly soldiers in this war are all about.
Plus, add to that, they're nothing but a bunch of rapists and torturers from Abu Ghraib to Club Gitmo to these Marines in Haditha.
So, I mean, you know the drill.
Oh, yeah.
But the thing that I don't understand is, though, is that you're right.
The stigma is that, well, you come from a, you know, quote-unquote trailer park or you're, you know, you're lower class.
That's far from the case.
I know it's not true.
It's been debunked.
I know.
It's been debunked by the Heritage Foundation.
Any number is not true.
But what else is true about what they're saying about Iraq?
What else is true that the liberals are, the drive-by media is reporting?
The whole thing is a crock.
Oh, it is a crock.
And the thing is, not to belinger the point, but the problem I got with that is that nobody asks, you know, when a police officer is killed in the line of duty, well, gee, was it worth it?
Well, no, he was just in some crazy domestic abuse thing that he called on, and somebody decided to shoot him.
You don't hear that on the media.
It's like, oh, gosh, you know, maybe they should have sat around table and asked if that officer should have responded to that call.
Officers are killed every month in this country, and you don't hear a thing about it.
You know, what's the difference?
You know, when an officer signs up and vegan.
I don't want to hurt your feelings.
And because there's nothing associated with being immoral or unjust about being a cop, but this war is being portrayed as unnecessary, unjust, and immoral.
And therefore, the fighters and the warriors in it, they get tarred and feathered by the same description.
Well, and on the flip side of that, though, too, there's a problem with there is a lot of kids that go in there for the GI bill, and their parents push that, and that's all they go in for.
And then all of a sudden, when somebody tells them they have to pick up a rival, they're going, well, gee, really?
Well, I don't know that it's that, but you don't see that many defectors and people going A wall.
No.
I don't think that's the case.
That's what amazes me about this volunteer force, especially the last three years in the Army and all the branches have met their recruitment goals, and people are signing up knowing full damn well where they're going.
Oh, yeah.
I'm just kind of referring to that lieutenant that bowed out, you know, that he gets a full education.
I mean, you're always going to have a bad actor in a bunch.
I mean, no single group of human beings is ever going to be flawless, no matter what group it is, families included.
But overall, it's remarkable.
Plus, with the steady drumbeat of failure and atrocities that are being committed, we still have the military meeting its recruitment goals.
I don't know how we ever repay these people.
I don't know how they ever get repaid by us for what they do.
They're so rare.
You should be very proud.
I'm sure you are.
Here's Bill in Buena Park, California.
Welcome to the program, sir.
You're next.
Hello.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Hey.
I just want to talk about the 21,000 additional troops that Bush wants to send over to Iraq.
Yeah.
First of all, I'm a conservative Republican.
I have an open ear to liberalism, but I keep it open only for educational purposes.
Do you think you have something to learn from liberalism?
Well, the more intelligence I have, the better I like it.
Okay.
Give me an example.
I want to feed myself.
I'm going to give you an example that you are a conservative Republican.
Give me a policy example.
Not who you voted for.
Give me a policy example.
My policy example?
Yeah, a bit of conservatism that you support.
Well, the war in Iraq, I support it.
That's not a concern.
That's not a concern.
That's not conservative versus liberal.
I mean, it's portrayed that way, but give me domestic policy.
Okay.
Domestic policy that I am supporting.
Okay.
Number one, illegal immigration, got to put a stop to it, big time.
How to go about doing it?
I don't know.
The wall may be a solution.
I don't know.
Okay, another issue.
Another issue.
Economics.
I think Reagan's theory, trickle-down economy.
I think it was a good theory.
I'm in favor of it.
I like it.
I like the idea of this.
Okay, now, which wanted to establish that for the audience?
Now, back to the surge, what you were going to say about the surge as a conservative Republican.
Okay.
I don't believe that 21,000 additional troops is going to change things dramatically in that area.
I really don't.
And I look at, you know, I want to make a comparison, if you will, to Northern Ireland and the gangsters, the mobs of the United States way back when.
What was happening in Northern Ireland?
It was political and religious.
Okay.
How did the British government handle that?
Poorly to start with.
Ultimately, they found a solution through diplomacy and what have you.
They didn't.
That wasn't what it was.
Bill Clinton went over there with Sinn Féin, drank some beer, got drunk with him, and made him feel at home.
Oh, okay.
But as far as the troop buildup In Iraq, it is concerned.
Difficult to compare this to the Northern Ireland situation.
Well, he did.
May still be there drinking with them for all I know.
Anyway, the thing which you need to look at here is that we've got a commander who knows this kind of battle, knows this kind of behavior.
We got, sorry again, the leader of the insurgency has fled and taken his leadership with him to Iran.
That would be the notorious Muki al-Sadr.
I think Democrats are a little worried this is going to work.
But the point is, we're going to give it a shot.
We're going to try to make it work.
And we're the United States of America.
And we don't lose these things unless we beat ourselves.
Be nice to have you on our side once in a while as a conservative Republican.
That's it for today, folks.
Open Line Friday is coming up next tomorrow, 21 hours from now.
▲
Export Selection