All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:12
February 28, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, the uh Democrats have withdrawn plans to defund the war.
They've uh they pulled the plans off.
They're going to reintroduce the Mertha Plan.
Uh basically the slow bleed plan, but a president can ignore it.
We'll have details on all that and a lot more as the EIB network kicks off on a hump day, middle of the week.
Great to have you with us.
I am America's anchor man, always to the rescue, the bulwark and the rock of conservatism never wavering, despite whatever pressures may be brought to bear.
On that you can depend.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
I think today, I actually feel like I've turned the quarter on the bronchitis.
Uh that I that I uh got on the Sunday of the February 12th.
I'll never forget it at the Pebble Beach.
Woke up out there and knew something was out of wax.
Finally, finally turning the corner today.
You know, we had a call yesterday.
The last call of the day was from a guy calling himself Roy, and he wanted to talk about the uh the whole global warming uh controversy.
What a great global warming stack we have today, too.
Like this.
Let me just give you a little heads up.
Climate panel recommends global temperature ceiling and a carbon tax.
I told you all of this is coming.
Um what what what kind of arrogance is this?
A climate panel panel of scientists has presented the United Nations a detailed plan for combating climate change.
The Voice of America correspondent at the UN is reporting that the strategy involves reaching a global agreement on a temperature ceiling, which means that these scientists are going to tell the weather how hot it can get.
That has to be what a global temperature ceiling is.
But we have any way of controlling this at any rate.
Oh, by the way, I had a lot of people thanking me for my detailed explanation yesterday of the Al Gore hypocrisy with his and Anne Schwarzenegger, too, uh registering his dread jet with some carbon registry and explaining these uh carbon offsets.
One of the best ways to explain it to people, I think, is to is to say, I have concocted the Al Gore diet.
It's a variation of the old Marie Antoinette diet.
And basically, uh, Brian, let's say that you and I no, take that bit.
Don, let's say that you and I live together.
All right.
Hi, hypothetically here.
And uh and you tell me that yet you think I need to go on a diet.
I say, okay, I totally agree with you.
I'm gonna go on a diet.
We're gonna do the Al Gore diet, which is I eat whatever I want, and you starve.
That way I eat what you would normally be eating, and therefore everything stays late.
And I call it a diet.
Uh, also known as the uh as the Marie Antoinette diet.
Uh at any rate, uh lots more coming up in the global warming stack today, uh, including Did you get hold of Roy, Mr. Snerdle, is you ready for one o'clock?
Uh the caller, last caller of the day yesterday was Roy Spencer, who is a highly acclaimed climatologist.
Used to work for NASA.
Uh and uh look really looking forward to talking to him.
If you didn't hear his call yesterday, we only had about a couple minutes with him, and I asked him for permission to get back to him, and he he uh gratefully granted us that.
And the the bottom line, his his his theory is that uh it among many, because I've now done uh Wikipedia searches, Google searches on Mr. Spencer is truly uh uh brilliant man, and started talking yesterday that the one thing that nobody can factor in when it comes to global warming and the effect on global warming and the temperature on the earth is precipitation.
And uh he's made a career studying this.
He also is not a global warming advocate.
He thinks it's uh it's it's it's basically a hyped crisis.
Uh he also, for example, use used to believe in uh evolution.
Uh, and has become uh an ardent uh believer of intelligent design combined with evolutionary things, because evolution does take place, but it doesn't explain creation.
Obviously, it can't.
Um just giving a little heads up on who he is.
Uh he also said precipitation and clouds uh have uh a great factor.
But the whole point is that the, as I have, as I have astutely instinctly, instinctively pointed out, over many, many broadcasts on this program, the climate of the earth is so, so complex that we may not even be able, as human beings, to craft computer models that can factor in all the variables and come up with anything that's reasonable, which results in scientists having to make guesses.
And why do they make guesses?
They make guesses because they get funded to make guesses it's all politics.
There are people who have scientists who have in the in the manufacture of semiconductors that they have studied atmospherics in a closed environment which limits the complexity of uh of the variables, and even those model predictions are wrong, and those are tiny compared to uh compared to climate models.
Well, anyway, we'll talk with him in great detail uh at the top of the next hour, uh, and I'm really looking forward to it.
All right.
As far as I'm concerned, the big news today is this.
And it happened after the program yesterday, at least the news of it was reported after the program yesterday.
Iraq and the United States invite Syria and Iran to meet Condoleezza Rice during a Senate appropriations committee hearing said this.
We hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.
I'm pleased that the government of Iraq is launching this new diplomatic initiative and that we will be able to support it and participate in it.
The violence occurring within the country has a decided impact on Iraq's neighbors.
And Iraq's neighbors, as well as the international community, have a clear role to play in supporting the Iraqi government's efforts to promote peace and national reconciliation within the country.
I am floored.
I am stunned, I am taken aback, and I I'm sorry, uh, folks, I'm going to try to explain this to you, but I don't I don't think I mean I I can give you what I think the reasons for doing this are, but I don't understand them, and I certainly don't agree with them.
From the sound of her soundbite here, it sounds like the Iraqis are running our foreign policy.
Look, the Iranians are sending weapons and personnel into her into Iraq, as well as the Syrians, and they are killing U.S. soldiers.
That those are acts of war.
We're pretending that they're not.
It was just six weeks ago that the Bush administration said that talking to Iran in Syria was the equivalent to extortion.
And now they're reversing course.
I mean, it was simply we keep drawing lines in the sand and then drawing new lines in the sand.
How can you how can you talk to a despot like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who insists the Holocaust never happened?
What are we going to say to it?
Actually, what I've since learned, we're not going to be talking to him.
We're going to be talking to the Iranian foreign ministry.
And from what I've been able to gather, the Iranian foreign ministry is about as impotent in determining the uh uh foreign policy of Iran uh as if uh the United States was talking to me about Iranian foreign policy.
Um but the the the line here that um that that Secretary Rice uh used, we hope that all governments will seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.
I'm pleased the government of Iraq is launching this new diplomatic initiative.
I'm pleased that Iraq is launch what Iraq's running our foreign policy, they launched the initiative, we're just gonna go along with it.
I know that Maliki uh has said to us that he's gonna have diplomatic relations with Iran regardless what we do, either before we leave or after we leave.
Well, why after we leave, fine and dandy.
But for this guy to sit up for us to allow him to uh dictate our foreign policy is something that just boggles my mind, folks.
I have to shoot straight and be honest about this.
Now, how can you say six weeks ago that talking to Iran and Syria was off the table?
We'd never do it, rejected that recommendation from the Iraq surrender group.
Now, the only way this can be is if what you said six weeks ago was tactical, just a tactic and not strategic.
In other words, if you just said this to scare the mullahs in Iran, if you said this just to bring them uh bring them out to force them to uh make a move or something, that's a tactic, as opposed to something being strategic.
Uh and I have read that Maliki told the White House he's gonna have relations with Iran regardless.
Uh and apparently one of the stories is the White House said, okay, if you're gonna do that, then we demand something in return, and that is the Unity Agreement on oil revenues for the country that was announced yesterday, which was a meaningful serious agreement.
But still, when you strip all that away, what we're left with here, based on the way Secretary Rice testified before the Senate appropriations committee yesterday was that Maliki is now dictating U.S. policy.
I can't imagine FDR negotiating with Germany and Japan before victory.
I mean, I remember Truman demanding unconditional surrender.
Well, they are.
Iranians are killing U.S. soldiers.
So the consequence of this is to talk.
Can you imagine if Bill Clinton did this?
What our reaction would be?
We would be on the ceiling.
You'd have to be peeling us off the walls if Bill Clinton did this.
Now you you can attempt uh to justify the change of position, the White House and the administration clearly doing that, but it doesn't work.
I mean, you keep you can't keep drawing lines in the sand only to keep drawing them.
You know what this is like?
You know what this reminds me?
I hate to say this, folks.
Some people might be very upset with me on this.
But oh, thanks, Snerdley.
You go out, you get the obligatory, I'm not qualified to talk about science.
It happens every time.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Looking forward to that.
Let me tell you what this is.
This is the Carter doctrine.
The White House has adopted the Carter.
We're gonna have a neighbor's policy, a good neighbor's sit down.
We're gonna have tea, we're gonna have crumpets, we're gonna have couscous.
What are we gonna do?
Good neighbors.
This is what Jimmy Carter did.
He talked and he talked and he talked and he talked and he talked, and it made these guys stronger than they were.
Reagan came into office and they gave up the hostages.
How can you say that what's going on here is any different than what Jimmy Carter would have done?
I uh I'm stupefied.
Brief time out, we'll be back.
Gotta take a break here because of the uh requirement and the need and the desire for obscene prophets here at the EIB network.
Hi, welcome back.
Nice to have you, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
So I don't know how this can happen.
Six weeks ago, you say we're not gonna talk to Iran, we're not gonna talk to Syria.
Then Maliki says, Well, I am.
I'm gonna talk to I'm gonna have a meeting.
Well, I'm gonna have a good neighbor's meeting of tea and crumpets, a little coffee thrown in there, maybe, maybe some uh espresso.
And we say, oh, okay, well, we'll join you if it's your talks.
We'll join you, we'll have a good neighbor's meeting and so forth and so on.
Uh now the the what one of the one of the analyses to explain this uh has has been to say that we have drawn uh Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out and and sort of exposed him as a fraud, and he's lost some of his power base with the Iranian Mullas, the Ayatollahs.
Uh Amir Tahari today writing in the New York Post says the exact opposite is the case, that because of the way Mahmoud has run rings around the world on these nuclear negotiations, that he is stronger than ever with the Mullers.
Philip Zellico, who is uh recently departed from the senior staff of Condoleezza Rice at the State Department, told the New York Times that the intent of the rhetoric, that is, we're not meeting with you.
We're not talking six weeks ago.
We're not gonna have any meetings with you guys.
The intent of that rhetoric was to get the Iranians to take us seriously.
And Zeliko said we saw the result of that effort this week in Ahmadinejad's loss of face over his own careless rhetoric, but I'm here to hear he says there has been no loss of face.
Anyway, the State Department theory is that now that the Iranians understand it, we mean business, we can do business with them.
And this is what I think I don't know.
Is this naive?
As though we're dealing with rational people.
These are Islamo fascists.
How many times they need to tell us what their plans are and how they intend to annihilate us before we realize that talking to them is not gonna stop them.
I mean, Ahmedine John, I don't know how this this word got out that he lost face anyways, run circles around the UN.
He's run circles around the European Union over their nuclear arms issue.
He has successfully enlisted the help of the uh of the Russians, he'd been able to arm the Hezbows, which fought the Israelis to a standstill because of the weak leadership in Israel.
Uh this guy's a hero, Ahmadine Jan's a hero of Islamo fascism.
Uh I I I I just remember all the Kremlin watchers.
I uh I you just have you have to look at history here.
All during the 70s and 80s and even prior to that.
All the Kremlin watchers, now they would read things into dictators' body language or press releases or trips that they take or what have you.
Uh I have no doubt that there are there are great intentions here.
Uh but it's I don't know, it's it's delusional.
These people are who they are.
And I I just I'm I'm I'm floored uh by this, still stunned over this reversal, of course, on such a fundamental strategic issue is talking to the enemy.
I'm uh I don't know.
I just uh this is not the way you win a war.
I know you don't win wars with words.
You don't win wars with words, you don't win war with uh you know good neighbor policies, you don't win wars with T Crumpet uh and and and all of this.
In the midst of this, we got the Democrats, we got some uh some feeble-minded Republicans trying to undermine us here at home.
And now Bush and Rice are out there steadfastly maintaining we're not gonna talk to the Iranians, we're not gonna talk to the Syrians, we're not gonna bring them into this, have reversed course.
And I uh the signal that sends is yet to be determined, and uh, we'll have to see how people react to it.
Uh you know, Jimmy Carter talked to him till he was blue in the face when he was president.
The UN's been talking to them about nuclear weapons and and so forth, to no avail.
The EU has been talking to them and uh has gotten literally nowhere uh on this.
I don't know what we expect to come of this.
Uh but it it it.
And that's a good what do we expect to come of that?
What HR, you support this, what do you expect the result of this to be?
What what I'm not don't I I'm not calling it a sellout.
I understand look at it all depends whether this is tactical or strategic.
In that we don't know.
If this is a tactic, and there are things that I don't know, you know, I'm I'll I'm I'm I'm withholding judgment.
I'm just saying, as an ordinary common average Joe, this, and I listen to what they say publicly, and I watch what they do and how it seems to be a 180-degree reversal.
Um I'm I'm I'm perplexed.
I gotta sh I have I have to share my doubts and questions here with them.
I'm not gonna sit here.
Uh well, I'm not I don't know about the North Korea.
I've just been asked if I thought they reversed on uh on on North Korea.
Uh I don't just saw a news story today, North Korea's got a missile capable of reaching us.
Uh there are people that do think that it was a sellout on North Korea.
Some some of the so-called conservative intelligents in the uh think tanks and the media think that it was a uh sellout.
That that's tougher to say because uh, you know, that if if the if the North Koreans uh backtrack on this, they're also insulting their patrons, the Chicoms.
Uh and uh they were they were involved in all this.
But uh that that that remains to be seen.
I just it boils down to whether this is a tactical move or whether it signals a new strategy.
And if it's tactical, and if if if there's something going on here that uh like we expect this not to work uh and then allow us to move further after that, because you know that the State Department crowd and everybody wants to just talk talk talk.
We just want to sit there and jawbone these people to death.
Talk, talk, talk, that's all they do.
That's their job, and anything less than that or more than that, they feel threatened.
Uh uh and the State Department would always talk talk talk rather than fire, fire, fire.
Uh and I just uh this State Department to me is not the repository where you go out and find the recipe for victory over uh over the nation's over the nation's enemies.
At any rate, uh it in spite of all this, uh maybe in consort with all of this timing of this is so screwy.
The Democrats have withdrawn their plans to defund the war and the LA time because it's and their n their their kook fringe on the left is gonna be beside itself over this.
The reason that they don't have the votes, they can't do it, and it it adds up to the fact that there is not popular support among the American people for so doing.
Zilch.
Zero.
Nada.
They are backing off of it.
LA Times story today that the divisions in the Democrat Party are even deeper when it comes to uh hamstringing the military budget-wise.
And when you read the story, and I don't have time to get to it before the break here, but you you the have one conclusion.
Is this a Democrat quagmire yet?
Is the Democrat Party in the midst of a quagmire?
The Senate is frustrated they can't get anything done.
We got Dingy Harry sounding more and more like that crybaby whining Tom Dashell soundbite coming up.
Uh Pelosi, uh they're just they're just not being able to do anything that they promised they were gonna do, finding it tough to govern back in a sec here.
I'm getting phone calls.
I'm gonna emails some people.
What do you mean the Mirtha plan's gonna go forward, but there's a provision in it that lets Bush ignore it.
He just make this stuff up.
No, I I've got the San Francisco Chronicle here.
Uh Democrats to push tough bill on redeployments.
Measure says troops must be fully rested, equipped, trained, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The same old thing.
Uh House Democrat leaders who have uh decided they cannot defund the war, are now defending the Mertha plan, the slow bleed plan, said that yesterday going to press ahead with legislation requiring all troops to be fully equipped and trained and arrested before being sent back to Iraq.
Uh despite rumors that Pelosi was backing away from the plan.
Uh the speaker said Mertha's proposal on troop standards would be debated next week in committee, and that she hoped to move it quickly to the floor.
But here's here's the here's the money line.
It's all worthless and irrelevant.
The proposal, however, would allow President Bush to waive the rules if he wanted to deploy troops faster or under different standards than allowed by the measure.
So they're going to put forth the law, they're going to advance it, they're going to say, but by the way, if the president doesn't have to abide by any of it.
Right here in the San Francisco Chronicle.
This is not going to sit well out there with the Kook French on the left.
And this hasn't gotten a whole lot of play, ladies and gentlemen.
But Carl Levin at an armed services committee hearing yesterday said, I think we ought to take action on all fronts, including Syria.
I think we ought to take action on all fronts, including Syria and any other source of weapons coming into Iraq.
Obviously, Iran is the focus, but it shouldn't be the sole focus.
Uh and and he was he asked John McConnell about whatever steps are being taken to cut off weaponry coming from Syria.
He's he asked this question.
I was just wondering, does the military have a plan to, if necessary, go into Syria to get the source of any weapons coming from Syria.
Source on this is redstate.org, one of our favorite blogs here.
And they write that he wasn't arguing against such a plan.
Uh he was he was basically when you when you when you say, I think we ought to take action on all fronts, including Syria.
I haven't seen this anywhere.
Have you?
This I uh but it's it's stuck on so on on the day before the Bush administration, well, the same day the Bush administration says, you know what?
We didn't mean it six weeks ago when we said we weren't gonna talk to the Iranian Syrians, we're gonna have a good neighbors meeting.
Well, the Iraqis are gonna have the good neighbors meeting, and they're running our foreign policy now, so we'll join them uh uh at the under the palm trees there for the uh for the good neighbors meeting.
And the same day Carl Levin's wondering whether or not we got a battle plan for for Iran and Syria.
Go figure.
Anyway, that's uh that's that's the news out there.
By the way, if you have a little presidential politics here, I have to note uh that uh McCain is losing ground fast to Rudy Giuliani.
You notice this out there?
Uh and a big story here in the snack of stuff that Obama is picking up the black vote.
Not not good news for Clinton Inc.
Um, I think back if McCain had actually been a Reagan conservative and not a pretender.
Uh he he he could have won the nomination in 2000, I think.
Uh and he would he would be president today.
But he found the media more seductive than uh than Reaganism.
Uh and and That's gonna cost him.
Uh and and you know that that I think signals or shows illustrates the biggest difference between Giuliani and McCain.
Uh Giuliani despises the big media like the rest of us.
Uh New York Times hates Rudy's guts, folks.
Uh, but you know, McCain has uh has pandered to them.
The the the biggest difference here is that uh uh Giuliani has been running for the Republican nomination.
McCain has been running for the presidency, been running for the White House all along.
That's what pandering and catering to the uh to the media has uh has been all about.
Big uh big news yesterday from the uh Libby trial jurors.
Uh the jury supposedly sent a note to the judge saying we have a question.
Judge said, All right, well, it's late in the day, we'll get the question tomorrow, we'll figure it out.
Today the jury said, We figured it out.
Judge, we don't uh we're clear on what we have to do now.
And judge said, fine and dandy, go back in that room and keep deliberating.
So um, no uh indication of what the question from the jury was.
Deliberations continue.
This cannot please the prosecution.
Simple case here, lying to a grand jury.
If the jury was convinced that there was lying to the grand jury, thirty minutes is all that would take.
But still, not predicting anything because it's impossible to do so.
Let's go to some audio sound bites.
ESPN, they just can't get me off their mind.
What did you see this yesterday?
Oh, wait a year this.
Jim Rome is burning is the show.
I like Jim Rome.
I've I've met Jim Roman.
He had a couple guests on there.
St. Louis Post to scratch writer Brian Burwell.
Uh huge radical, doesn't make much sense in much of anything he says.
Uh, and uh Terrence Moore from the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation are discussing Shaquille O'Neal.
Shaquille O'Neal, the NBA came out yesterday and said that uh the MVP award in the NBA is tainted.
It's uh something not right about it.
He didn't go further, but the the thing is that uh the the last two MVPs, I think have been won by Steve Nash, at least last year's one with Steve Nash from the Phoenix Suns, uh, who happens uh to uh uh how shall I say, not be black.
Uh and so this exchange, and oh Neil said the last five or six years the MVP award doesn't mean much.
We doesn't mean much because it's tainted to some such thing.
Uh that prompted this exchange on Jim Rome is burning.
The one thing I'm glad of is he didn't go limb on us and say that it was the media's that was desirous of a white point guard doing well.
I'm glad he didn't go there.
Not yet he hasn't.
What's he saying?
Yeah, he was kind of hitting along there that way.
Didn't he?
Without saying it, was that where he was going?
There are a lot of people out there that's trying to make this Shaq Steve Nash thing into a racial thing.
Yeah, and who are they?
The media.
Nash!
I mean, Shaquille and Neil didn't say it.
Who is it that's obsessed with the media?
It's Mr. Burwell, you're such a dunce.
You open your mouth and you validate everything I say about you guys.
Of course, the last comment came from Terrence Moore of uh of the Atlanta Journal, but still, I mean, media is the media.
Sports media doesn't matter, they're all the same agenda orientation.
There's a lot of people trying to make this Shaq Nash thing a racial who?
The people talking about the media.
At least at least Shaq didn't go limbo on us and say it was the media desirous of a white point guard doing well, and Rome said, not yet he hasn't.
He was kind of hinting at.
I love these guys.
Uh well uh well, um they did get the premise right on the McNabb.
Yeah, but big deal.
I mean, okay, but it's been four years.
You want to give them credit for getting it right after four years, snurdly?
You do find they got it right.
What Snerdley's talking about here is that they got the premise right.
At least Burwell said the one thing I'm glad of is it didn't go limbo on us and say it was the media desirous of a white point guard.
As of course, I didn't think about McNabb.
Uh talked about the media.
But it's on their brains.
It's uh it's it's still on their brains.
I also mentioned Dingy Harry, starting to sound like uh Dashel.
Uh concerned, he's uh upset.
Uh Senate Democrats are going nowhere.
I've told you Mitch McConnell's running the Senate.
He's the most powerful man there.
Uh and this this dingy Harry, we put together a little montage to illustrate this.
Dingy Harry's remarks after meeting with his fellow Democrats uh regarding their new resolution for the war in Iraq.
The last vote we had on this, virtually every Democrat voted for.
So don't anyone no one should be concerned about the Democrats not sticking together.
We have stuck together on our approach to Iraq.
We will continue to do that.
We are so concerned about what's going on and so determined to change the course of war in Iraq.
We're going to continue to talk and do what we can to make sure that's the case.
I would hope that at a time in the near future that I will be able to offer an amendment on behalf of the Democratic caucus.
What?
I'm sure you can.
That's really bold leadership there.
I well, we'll continue to do that.
We're concerned.
I mean, there's a word popularized by the puffster, Puff Dashell.
Uh well, we're concerned, uh Tim.
Uh very uh concerned uh about what's going on.
We're determined to change the course of the war in Iraq.
We're gonna continue to talk, do what we can to make sure that's the case.
Do what we can.
You're you got the majority, Dingy Harry.
We're gonna do what we can.
He knows the score in the Senate.
Tallahassee, Florida State Capital of Florida, state legislator, whose district is home to thousands of Caribbean immigrants, wants to ban the term illegal alien from the state's official documents.
I personally find the word alien offensive uh when applied to individuals, especially the children, said Senator Frederica Wilson, a Democrat from Miami.
An alien to me is someone from out of space.
From out of space was the quote.
It's outer.
Alien offends me.
Is someone from out of space.
Uh she's introduced a bill providing that a state agency or official may not use the term illegal alien in an official document of the state.
There'd be no penalty for using the words, however.
In Miami Dade County, Wilson said, We don't say alien, we say immigrants, said the she encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners to get in state tuition at colleges and uh universities.
Wilson directs a dropout prevention and education program in Miami, said she politely asked witnesses at public hearings on such issues not to use the term.
There are students in our schools whose parents are trying to become citizens.
We shouldn't label them.
They're immigrants through no fault of their own.
So can't uh can't use illegal.
Well, it hasn't passed yet.
Uh she says what?
She's uh she says I like undocumented better uh instead of uh illegal.
So um hey, put her in charge of the uh Iraqi uh situation or foreign policy.
Out.
What do you what do you mean her arrogance?
Of course her arrogance is a Democrat.
Of course, her arrogance is unbelievable.
But but it's not it's not her arrogance.
You're missing the point here.
You're making me say this.
I would I would think everybody could conclude the obvious here after me giving the details of the story.
The woman, you know, is is uh is uh an order of French fries short of a happy meal.
And we're back, El Rush, both serving humanity, cutting edge.
Societal evolution, one more little story here, and then to your phone calls.
The opening stages, this the Washington Post today, the opening stages of the campaign for the 08 Democrat presidential nomination have produced a noticeable shift in sentiment among African American voters who little more than a month ago heavily supported Hillary, but they now favored the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.
Now, Clinton continues to lead Obama and other rivals in uh in polling, but her once sizable margin over Obama was sliced in half during the past month, largely because of Obama's growing support among black voters.
Now, I'm perplexed, ladies and gentlemen.
We have been treated the stories in the Los Angeles Times and number of other drive-by media outlets telling us that Obama is not black enough.
I guess he's getting blacker.
Uh well, I might have helped because I pointed out he was black since he hasn't renounced it.
Uh he's obviously uh being perceived here as as becoming uh more black or uh blacker black enough uh for African Americans to uh to to get on board.
Something's happened here.
Uh and look at when you have drive by media saying he's not black enough, and you have me saying but he is black, who do you think might be influencing the shift to Obama uh away from away from Hillary.
Here's Jim in Flint, Michigan.
Welcome, sir.
You're up first today.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, Rush.
Uh listen, in regards to the talks uh or the negotiations or whatever they want to call them with Iran and Syria.
Um if there's one thing that uh the president and Miss Rice have been consistent on, it's foreign policy and the war on terror.
I I've got to believe that they know this is not going to work.
And I think that they're just doing it so they can be on record as having tried everything before uh some sort of military action is taken.
Um I understand you're you're wanting to say that.
Uh I understand the fact that you did say that.
Um what what you're saying is basically that this is uh uh the administration making a point.
All right, we're gonna talk.
Everybody wants us to talk.
Jim Baker, Iraq surrender group wants to talk, we're gonna talk.
And then when it doesn't work, we're gonna say, see, we told you it doesn't work.
All right, let's put it on the table.
Let's say that's the real thing.
I still, as a supporter of the president and somebody who wants to support the administration because they are exactly what you said consistent in the war on terror.
I don't know why you draw a line in the sand six weeks ago and say we're not gonna do it, and then you say we're gonna do it.
Uh you're you're you're saying that that this is basically a tactical move, not strategic, and I hope you're right, but there are other factors here, and you cannot eliminate them.
And one of the factors is that Maliki told us he's gonna talk to him regardless, either while we're there or after we leave, but he's gonna talk to him.
Uh and uh, you know, we're we're we're saying, okay, Iraq, you're a sovereign government, and that's what our desire was.
So we we're gonna say, Maliki, we can't stop you.
Uh that that that wouldn't look good, but it still boggles my mind.
Uh we're not gonna throw him under the bus.
We're not gonna throw him overboard, so we've said, okay, we're gonna get on board, but the the story is that we exacted a price from him, and that is there must be a unity agreement on the sharing of oil revenues for all of the various groups in Iraq, the Kurds, the Shiites, and s and the and the Sunnis.
And that was announced yesterday.
And that supposedly is the price that we exacted from Maliki in order for him to uh go ahead with the good neighbors.
I feel like it's a state farm insurance policy we're talking like uh good neighbor state farm is good neighbors, Bob.
Sorry, Pop just good call it something the good neighbors, but back in a second.
All right, about a minute here, and we go to Medford, Oregon.
Mary, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Say I just wanted to tell you I um am a mother of a 20-year-old Marine who's serving his second time in Iraq.
And uh when I heard that these people, these liberals and some Republicans were gonna cut funding and support to my Marine and the guys that I know that are there, I just went ballistic.
So I wrote a bunch of letters, handwritten letters.
So when I heard yesterday that they were gonna they reversed their their decision, I told my family that it was because I wrote all those letters.
So anyway, my point is I think that a lot of people have let them know that that's just the wrong thing to do.
Punishing our soldiers.
Well, there's two things.
The two things that work here.
I there's there's no question that that tagging them as owners of defeat has reverberated and got back to him because they clearly do.
But there's also something else.
They're figuring out here that the November elections were not the mandate to do this.
Uh that they claimed uh they have failed to mobilize public opinion on this to um make it happen.
That's an indication.
I gotta go.
▲
Export Selection