All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 20, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
February 20, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And greetings to you, music lovers, thrill seekers, conversationalists, and devotees of controversy.
Rush Limbaugh back, firmly planted in the prestigious Attila the Hun chair here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
A shortened week because of the President's Day holiday yesterday.
But nevertheless, we've got lots to do.
Lots of stuff has been building up since I was last with you on Thursday.
And remember, when I was last with you on Thursday, I was finding it difficult to complete two sentences without a coughing spasm.
And I still have the ingredients that create those coughs.
Still got this chest congestion.
It's lessening somewhat, and it's going to be an experiment today to see if the irregular breathing patterns required to host this program at optimum level lead to the coughs again.
I've never had whatever I have.
This was not a cold.
Whatever it is, still in my massive chest cavity, the chest cavity massive to house my large beating heart.
Ba-boom, ba-boom, ba-boom.
And it stayed there.
Took a Z-PAC.
Didn't make much difference.
Slept 17 hours a day on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
And even yesterday, I was thinking I might not be able to get back today.
It's just one of these crazy things that's lingering.
Still have the sniffles.
Hope you still find those cute.
But so far, so well.
So far, so good, it seems.
So anyway, thanks for all of the cards and letters.
Hoping that I got well from you, Libs.
Hoping that I died.
I appreciate all of those.
Here's the telephone number.
I did my God.
I hope you die and find out what a miserable, slow death is like.
You mean rotten cruel S of.
Oh, they're all over the place.
Especially after the clips of myself and Ann Coulter as president and vice president on the half-hour news hour.
Oh, when those hit YouTube and Michelle Lamawkin's website, Hot Air.
Oh, you should have seen the lib comments.
It's hilarious to read these things.
At any rate, here's the phone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
And the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Let me give you a heads up here on some of the exciting things coming in the lifestyle stack today.
Study, Men Hardwired to Ignore Their Wives.
Headline, why praise can be bad for kids.
You're going to love this one.
Another one.
This from Slate, Slate.com by a guy, Stephen Landisburg.
The headline, Women Are Chokers.
Studies show they cave under pressure.
Why?
This is a lib publication.
And the comments this guy got from Slate.com readers after this story were funny in their own right.
Survey, sports may not build character.
I mean, I've been collecting this stuff in the seven or so hours I was awake on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.
I was working.
Sports may not build character.
Maybe not, but it's given us a few.
Excuse me.
SUV fatally strikes man in wheelchair.
Nowhere in this story, it's in San Jacinto, California, nowhere in this story, it's a CBS story, is there any mention of a driver?
Nowhere.
New York City Councilman crafts a credo calculating caffeine, wants caffeine ingredients and quantities listed on every beverage and food served in New York.
Minnesota lawmaker wants to tax facelifts and Botox injections.
Wanted a pill to cure liberalism and feeding your brain, new benefits found in chocolate.
That's just the lifestyle section.
Details coming up.
We've got a whole global warming section coming up.
Still a lot of controversy roiling out there over debit cards for immigrants and credit cards for immigrants.
It's really peculiar and it's a great way to money launder.
And nobody else can go get a credit card without a social security number.
This is the Bank of America thing.
The Supreme Court today really stuck it to the anti-smoking Nazis today.
The Supreme Court ruled this morning five to four in favor of, who was it, Philip Morris.
The Supreme Court just threw out a $79.5 million punitive damages claim against Philip Morris, USA, in a smoking lawsuit.
Here's the majority opinion, and the majority opinion was written by none other than Stephen Breyer, who is one of the Lib's favorite justices on the court.
In an opinion by Breyer, the High Court said that punitive damages awards, based in part on a desire to punish a company for actions that harm people not involved in a particular lawsuit, amounts to a taking of property from the defendant without due process.
A lib wrote this.
Breyer, how can he write this and have the same opinion in the Kilo case when it comes to eminent domain?
But anyway, this is a lib writing the majority opinion, sticking it to the anti-smoking Nazis.
And of course, this bunch of pretending clowns that smoke cigarettes join these class action suits trying to get a big giant payday and trying to pretend that they had no idea of the dangers.
It is odd that a lib Supreme Court justice would write the majority opinion on this, but he did.
Also, another court news: Klub Gitmo detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts.
That, according to a federal appeals court, the D.C. District Court of Appeals today ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.
Unbelievable.
This has been an attempt, as you know, ongoing by the judicial community and the left in this country to take as many powers from the commander-in-chief as possible during wartime, including using the judiciary.
Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which the president pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.
This is the old military tribunal thing.
The judges on this case, Raymond Randolph and David B. Sentell, ordered that the hundreds of cases pending in the lower court be dismissed.
The dissenting judge, a Clinton appointee, Judith W. Rogers, dissented, saying the cases should proceed.
Both of the judges and the majority here appointed by Republicans, one and maybe both appointed by Reagan.
Now, everybody concludes that this will automatically go to the United States Supreme Court.
Not so fast.
Nothing says they have to take it.
If four of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court say they will take it, then they will take it.
But if they don't, they don't, it could stand.
Did you see yesterday the BBC story, U.S.-Iran attack plans revealed?
U.S. contingency plans for airstrikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure.
The BBC has learned.
Excuse me just sec here.
It is understood that any such attack, if ordered, would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities, and command and control centers.
Now, the United States insists it's not planning to attack and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment.
The U.N. has also urged Iran to stop the program or face economic sanctions.
Now, let me ask you people a question.
How does a story like this get in the newspaper?
How does a story like this find its way to the BBC?
There are multiple ways.
It could be that an intrepid journalist for the BBC digging deep, using sources, using old-fashioned journalism techniques, actually dug up the story.
The odds of that are zero since it doesn't happen anymore.
The second possibility is that some quasi-traitor in the Bush administration leaked the story to the BBC in the hopes of quelling and destroying any opportunity of surprise or any chance that the program might be initiated, as we have seen during the Iraq War buildup 2002.
Pentagon State Department leaks to the New York Times and the Washington Post.
The third possibility is that the administration itself planted this story as a means of keeping pressure on that wacko idiot, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
My vote is the latter.
I think the administration plotted this or planted this with the BBC.
And I don't think this is a leak.
I think this is an attempt to ratchet up pressure.
There's a lot of pressure, of course, between Iran and the U.S. over Iranian presence in Iraq, not just weapons, but advisors and so forth.
A quick timeout here.
We'll be back and continue with all this, plus your phone calls.
Again, the number, 800-282-288.
Oh, by the way, I have also been getting emails from people who are telling me as though I have anything to do with it.
Rush, I'm really sad about this season of 24.
Something just doesn't seem right in this season of 24.
I can't pinpoint it, Rush, but something here is not working.
Some people say there's too much torture.
Other people say that there's not enough realism.
For example, there weren't any traffic jams in L.A. after a nuke went off in Valencia.
It's because if a nuke went off in Valencia, folks, nobody would care.
And the people in Valencia wouldn't be able to get out because they'd just been nuked.
But anyway, I hope you saw last night's episode.
Because if you saw last night's episode, any of you who have any fears or concerns that 24 just isn't what it has been, those fears should have been allayed after last night.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Now, why do I say that the story in the BBC yesterday, U.S.-Iran attack plans revealed, was planted by the administration?
Well, for a host of reasons.
But among them is this.
There's another BBC news story today, Tehran alarm over U.S. tough talk.
What will alarm Tehran about the latest details of U.S. military planning for a strike on Iran is the fact that there are now two possible triggers for an attack.
One is, as expected, the nuclear program, but the new one is any major attack on U.S. forces in Iraq that could be traced back to Iran.
Make no mistake about this.
The efforts are underway here by the administration, I think.
The president said all along that I'm not going to tolerate them getting a nuclear weapon, a nuclear bomb.
And we also know the president is undeterred by what the Congress does with their silly little resolutions.
One of the many reasons I regretted not being able to be here on Friday and then yesterday was the comments of John Murtha and what is happening regarding all these silly resolutions and the slow bleed.
And I had a chance to tell you about their slow bleed policy on Thursday of last week.
We may as well jump forward to audio soundbite number six, Ed, because that's where I'm headed with this.
I think, folks, these people are trying to get away with this support the troops business in a way that is pure folly.
And it also is apparent to me that the Democratic Party has decided it and its elected officials are not really going to define their foreign policy.
It seems to me that they are kowtowing fully.
I mean, if you listen to Hillary, I'm still stunned.
Well, I'm not stunned because I know the drive-by media glosses over all this, but I'm still stunned that anybody is willing to credit Mrs. Clinton with any kind of coherence.
My gosh, one day she says one thing, the next day another, depending on what the audience is.
Now she's out there buying endorsements in South Carolina.
Really afraid of Barack Obama, who, by the way, I get the drive-by still can't figure out if he's black.
They are agonizing over whether Barack Obama's black.
There was a Sunday story in the L.A. Times.
I read that during the seven hours I was awake.
Didn't have the ability to concentrate on it too much, but I saw enough, printed it out to the printer here, and he would be waiting for me upon my arrival this morning to get ready for today's program.
But let's listen to Murtha.
This is last Thursday, and this is an interview with this left-wing blog.
What is this, movecongress.org.
And this is the way he outlined the slow bleed plan.
Now, if you've heard this, I'm sure you have.
Please indulge me because you have not heard my take on it.
They won't be able to continue.
They won't be able to do the deployment.
They won't have the equipment.
They don't have the training.
And they won't be able to do the work.
Does this sound like somebody who supports the troops?
This is somebody who's going to leave them high and dry, not to mention the constitutionality of this.
This is going to come back to bite these people as so much of what they're engaged in will down the road.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is not, there's no precedence for this.
They cannot micromanage the war this way.
This is not within the purview of Congress.
They can try, and they can say all this, and they can have all the votes they want.
You know, something else that's interesting.
They had this vote in the House on Friday.
Was it Friday they did the House vote?
Help me out on the resolution.
And the Senate was Saturday, right, at a special Senate session on Saturday.
I think that's what it was.
And of course, they had 17 Republicans join the Democrats in the House vote.
That might have been Thursday.
I forget which.
But regardless, they're trying to portray this as a bipartisan resolution that, of course, means nothing.
And more and more people in the Senate, Democrats included, like Chris Dodd, are beginning to admit their resolution doesn't mean anything.
It has no teeth, especially since it failed.
Didn't get the 60 votes.
Couldn't get to cloture.
They did get a majority, 56 to 34, but they were unable to get the resolution.
So the House resolution died as it always was going to die.
But they're trying to portray this as a bipartisan issue.
The Democrats had enough votes on their own to pass this in the House without the 17 Republicans.
The idea that this was somehow bipartisan.
This the drive-bys are trying to convince people of this because the Democrats know that they're out on the walk the plank on this and they know it full well.
And they are just hoping and praying against success in this surge.
Do you realize what they've got at risk here?
They are so invested in defeat.
They are so in that they cannot allow victory.
And so they are doing everything they can to make it appear as though something that is, isn't.
And that is that there's bipartisan support in the Congress to just leave the troops hanging out to dry.
What I find interesting about this, among many other things, is this.
The Democrats in the House decided that Jack Murthy was unfit to be the majority leader.
Now they decide that Murtha is their military strategist.
Now they decide that Murtha is their commander-in-chief.
Murthy is the author of this slow bleed.
Who's going to bleed the troops that these people claim they support?
They want what they call a change of direction and that change, General Murtha, and his slow bleed strategy.
And it basically is this: to say you support the troops, to say you won't cut off funding, but then you do cut off reinforcements and resupplies, and you cut off equipment and you cut off training.
And then you keep saying you support the troops.
And they think that people are going to fall for this.
By the way, some new polling data I have from Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies, a respected group, that's going to shock the Democrats because the national numbers on the war in Iraq and defeat versus victory or vice versa are not nearly what the Democrats think the public opinion is on this.
This whole idea of Murthy's is a disgrace.
The drive-bys know it.
But rather than analyze it and condemn it and damn it, rather than point out that the slow bleed's not just stupid and unconstitutional, what do they discuss?
They discuss the political strategy.
Will it work?
Will it backfire?
They are totally unwilling to tell you, in a sense of judgment, just how outrageous, how unconstitutional, and how stupid it is.
Because their only focus is destroying Bush, regardless of what that takes.
So you have to ask, can one of our two major parties be stupid enough to put this scheme under their name?
I think I know what the liberals have in mind.
I know these people, like every square inch of my glorious infected naked body.
I think they think that they've got a mulligan here.
I think they say they can say anything.
They can do anything to foul up the mission, pass the buck to the president.
I think they think the media will back them on it.
And if they're wrong, that the media will cover for them.
I think that's what they're thinking and hoping.
We'll be back, will continue after this.
Don't go anywhere, folks.
That's what we do here.
Make the complex understandable.
Want to go back to the audio soundbites for just a second.
I'm going to get to your phone calls.
El Quicko, standby.
I want to hear these two Jack Murthy bits.
You've heard one.
I want you to hear the second one, both of them together.
Because I think this is what the Democrats are relying on to get away with all that.
I'm convinced that it is the fringe left wing with whatever pressure they're putting on Democrats that's orchestrating this particular foreign policy.
I mean, only because a Murthy is who he is.
And I don't, you know, Don't want to get into any suggestions here that age may be responsible for the destruction of certain brain cells or anything of the sort, but it makes me wonder.
I mean, this stuff is so outrageous and so unprecedented.
And when you look at Hillary Clinton and the different stories she's got on how to explain her Iraq war vote in 2002, she won't apologize for it.
She started out by saying the president tricked me if I'd have known then what I know now.
And she won't apologize for it.
And I forget what her latest excuse is, but it's really got them worried out there in the Hillary camp because there's no consistency, which just means she's not telling us the truth about it, which is she was gung-ho for it in 2002, as were most of the Democrats.
Because none of what they were told in 2002 was any different than what they'd been told in 1998 about Saddam and Iraq.
Anyway, here's Murthy first cut.
They won't be able to continue.
They won't be able to do the deployment.
They won't have the equipment.
They don't have the training.
And they won't be able to do the work.
Yes, and then he said.
What we're trying to do is make sure people understand we're supporting the troops, we're protecting your troops, but on the other hand, we're going to stop this surge.
See, so this is what they think is going to work.
It can undercut the mission.
They can stop reinforcements.
They can stop redeployments.
They can keep needed equipment from getting to the troops.
They can stop new training.
They can do all of this while at the same time saying they support the troops.
Now it's pathetically absurd.
But I think that that's what they're hoping will resonate with the American people, a certain percentage of whom are absolutely clueless and respond totally on the basis of their feelings.
I think what they think they can do here is say and do anything to undercut the troops so long as they say we support the troops.
So you got a slow bleed.
We're going to slowly bleed the troops.
We support the troops.
We're going to cut off funding.
That proves that we support the troops.
We're going to pull out of Iraq.
That really proves we support the troops.
And then we're going to cut the military in half when we get ready to take over the country as president.
That really, really, really proves they support the troops.
I will bet you, ladies and gentlemen, because of the clueless nature of a large percentage of the people in this country, I will bet you that if Jack Murtha or Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi said, you know, we have a plan.
We are going to eliminate the armed forces in order to protect the troops, to support the troops.
We're going to eliminate the armed forces because eliminating the armed forces would mean no troop would ever be in harm's way.
20% of the people in this country think that's compassionate.
Not that they would agree with it, but they would think it's compassionate, that they think the Democrats care.
This whole thing is predicated, I think, on their ability in their own minds to get away with this notion regarding in public opinion circles that they support the troops.
So any opposition to, and of course, I think one of the reasons they think they can get away with this is the president refuses to describe them as they are.
No, I don't question their patriotism.
No, I don't.
We just, we need to debate the issue.
What do you mean to debate the issue?
We've been debating this issue my whole life.
We've been debating the role of the military in the United States and in the world as it relates to U.S. national security my whole life and beyond.
Certainly we've been debating the military and debating Iraq since 2002.
And of course, the Democrats in the Senate, well, Republicans are stifling debate, patently absurd.
But the Democrats out there, we support the troops.
We support the troops, and there are enough people in this country who think that alone means that they love the troops and therefore that whatever policy they come up with is designed to support and love the troops.
Bob in Memphis, we'll go to you first.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Sir, great to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Speaking as a Naval Academy graduate, Marine Corps officer veteran, and a degreed English major, first of all, let me point out that a non-binding resolution is by definition an oxymoron because a resolution implies and demands that you are resolved to take action on your words.
And so to say something is non-binding and a resolution makes no sense.
Well, but it's, as Chris Dodds said today, the Senate does this kind of thing all the time.
The sense of the Senate, it's called.
He said, we had a sense of the Senate on asparagus once.
And he was doing this under the guise of saying this thing is meaningless.
He's agreeing with you, but they do this all the time.
And they do it to avoid making decisions.
They do it instead to make statements.
Well, too much asparagus and not enough backbones, in my opinion.
And finally, I'd like to just point out that in terms of the steps that Jack Murtha is advocating, as a veteran looking at his service, I can't speak for what his motive is, but I'm disgraced by that a former Marine officer would carry that kind of thing forward.
The best form of welfare for any soldier on any battlefield is, first of all, unconditional surrender of the enemy.
Secondly, first-class training and leadership in preparation for the fight.
Thank you.
You bet.
Glad you called.
By the way, these resolutions hit the wrong button.
I was trying to hit the cough button there.
I think that the resolution is not just meaningless.
For example, it's just the first step in many steps.
This headline from McClatchy newspaper, Senate Democrats promise relentless flood of anti-war legislation.
It's just the first.
They're going to keep this up for the next two years.
They're not going to stop.
And the purpose of this, not really to get anything done because they can't, unless enough cowardly Republicans join with them, unless they actually have the guts to defund it, that they can seriously do that.
But there is a political effort here to isolate the president.
There's a political effort here to gin up even more anti-war sediment on the part of the American people and isolate the president, make it very tough for him to act in a political sense.
So these things are not just, they're not self-contained and unique.
They're part of an ongoing pattern and plan that the Democrats have.
But remember, it's all oriented toward our defeat.
That's what has to culminate here for the Democrats to emerge victorious in this.
Dave in Gurney, Illinois, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush, it's an extreme honor to be the first on your program to compliment you on your appearance on Fox's Half Hour News Show on Sunday night.
Thank you, sir, very much.
And although it would be great to have you as president and Anne Culture as VP, your role as analyst is invaluable to the country, and I would never want you to run for an office because your political analysis is what we need from you in the day and age.
Well, as you know, I've been asked many times before about running for office, and I've always slapped the notion down on the basis that I wouldn't take the pay cut.
But I tell you, when you came on, I had so many goosebumps.
It was incredible.
I mean, just to think of the possibility of you as president.
And then when Ann came on, oh, my God, it was just so.
Yeah, because you just know the libs watching that were blowing gaskets.
That's their worst nightmare, which was the point of the original script had it, it went about 30 seconds longer, and the original script had me saying the riots have ended.
Most of the car fires and burnings have stopped.
Even the Priuses are no longer burning.
Blah, But it was cut for time constraints.
Look, I appreciate your comments.
Let me tell you about this show.
There's a second episode coming up on March the 4th at 10 p.m. Eastern on the Fox News channel.
In my opinion, it's an even better episode, including the skit that Ann and I do to open that program as well.
But here's something you have to keep in mind for those of you who saw the program or who will see a repeat.
These shows are essentially pilots.
They were done on a shoestring budget.
And, of course, the objective is to have this show picked up as a weekly feature.
Now, here's another thing about this.
I've read some comments from people who liked the idea but thought the subject matter, come on, I could have written better stuff than this.
Well, I could have done better than you have to understand these shows were taped almost January the 12th.
Ann and I did our stuff on January the 5th.
They taped the show a week later, January 12th.
It airs on, what, February the 18th?
There was no way to be topical here.
These shows are what we in the broadcast community call evergreens, meaning they'll run any time of the year.
They're not specific to date or not specific to issue.
If this program gets picked up, and if it does get picked up and runs weekly, then the show every week will be dealing with specific issues and items in the news that week.
These pilots were simply unable to do that.
Well, I could have done it, but it wouldn't have worked with issues that are four and five or maybe even more weeks old.
For example, when the phone rings in the Oval Office after Ann's come out, and my secretary, Rosemary, wonder how many people got the subtlety of that.
Rosemary Woods, Nixon, 18-minute gap in the tape.
Anyway, Nancy Pelosi's on the phone.
Well, had we known about Nancy Pelosi and her Air Force and her demands for an airplane, we could have thrown that in.
But when we taped, that had not come up.
And it's those kind of things that provide us some limitations.
So you just have to understand how pilots are produced.
And it's not that you have to.
I'm trying to inform you how pilots are produced and so forth.
But the next episode is on March 4th.
Yeah, Ann and I opened that one as well with a fireside chat.
No real fire, but there's a fireside chat.
It's funny as hell.
The second one, that's the primo to me.
Break time, cough time, back after this.
Stay with us.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
Here's the polling data that I referred to mere moments ago from Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies.
They're releasing this today, and it's their findings based on an extensive new poll regarding the Iraq war.
And let's see if it gets any attention.
It should.
I mean, they have a great reputation.
Newhouse and Public Opinion Strategies does.
But here's the bottom line of this thing.
Let me just summarize this for you.
There are other national polls that show voter opposition to the surge and also the unpopularity of the war.
The results in this poll show a much more nuanced view.
For example, Americans are evenly divided on whether the country should stay in Iraq until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their own country.
It's 50 to 49.
We should stay.
You're not going to see this in too many other polls.
By 56 to 43%, voters agree that Americans should stand behind the president in Iraq, even if they have concerns about the war.
Kid you not.
Neil New.
No, I'm not making it up.
Get it right here.
I got it from the source.
I've got the poll.
I've got the XL.
It's a PowerPoint presentation, but I've got it.
57% of those polled in the New House Public Opinion Strategies poll believe that the Iraq war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
A majority, and it's a slim majority, believe that Democrats are going too far and too fast in pressing the president to get out of there.
57% agree that the troops should remain in Iraq until their government can maintain control and provide security for its people.
Only 43% of the people in this poll agree that victory in Iraq is no longer possible.
Not a majority.
Now, I know you don't believe this because this is unlike anything you're hearing in the drive-bys.
The drive-bys have their own polls, and they say nothing like this.
Just 25%, one quarter, say they don't really care about what happens in Iraq after the United States leaves.
Now, the data in the Neil Newhouse Public Opinion Strategies poll clearly indicates much greater support for a U.S. strategy aimed at victory than other polls would indicate.
The key group of voters is the 23% of the electorate deemed noseholders.
These voters don't believe the U.S. should be in the war, but they also believe the troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security for their own country.
You know, the people, you know, hold your nose.
You support it, but you hold your nose.
23% are noseholders.
And that's a smaller number than the drive-by polls would lead you to believe.
Let's just see if this gets any attention, any coverage.
I can't, I'll be stunned if it does, simply because it just doesn't fit the agenda of the drive-bys of the Democrats.
Dan in Somerville, South Carolina.
You're next.
Glad you waited.
Welcome to the broadcast, sir.
Rush.
Hi.
Greetings from the low country of South Carolina.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
You bet.
I am just very curious.
I'm so disgusted with the way the Democrats are conducting themselves during this time in our country's history.
And I'm just very curious, you know, what your opinion is on, do you see President Bush as basically reading the tea leaves here?
And I know he's sending in this troop surge to try and secure Baghdad, but do you feel like he's really going to because I truly believe he does have this country's interest.
You know, that's his primary concern.
What are you asking me?
You asking me if I think Bush is going to cave to the Democrats?
No, he's going to ratchet up his strategy over there and really try and wrap this up before his term in office ends.
Because he's up against the time clock now, it seems like.
Yeah, but see, I think you're making a mistake there.
Now, I may be a lone wolf on this.
The one thing that I believe Bush about, and I think we've got recent histoi on my side, I don't think political motivations factor.
If they did, a whole lot of great things would have happened last October before the elections.
I don't think he's got it in his mind to wrap this thing up before 2009 when he leaves office.
I think in his mind is doing it right.
He's told us it's going to go on long beyond that.
Iraq has won theater in the war on terror.
I, frankly, would love for this mess to sit on Hillary Clinton's desk for a while, just to see what she did with it.
But that's me being selfish.
Well, that could have some real detrimental consequences, too.
I guess wrap-up's probably the wrong word because I know it's going to go on well past his presidency.
I think you can look at the fact that he's ratcheting up, you know, releasing war plans, my theory, on Iran.
There's no question.
I think he's going to take delight in skewering these people and letting them hang themselves.
We'll be back.
Stay with me.
Well, that was fast.
First hour down and the fastest three hours of media.
The all-caring, all-sensing, all-important Maharashi.
▲
Export Selection