All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:13
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Well, ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats have withdrawn plans to defund the war.
They've pulled the plans off.
They're going to reintroduce the Murtha plan, basically the slow bleed plan, but they're going to be a provision in a bill that 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 anchorman, 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 corner on the bronchitis that I got on the Sunday, February 12th.
I'll never forget it at Pebble Beach.
Woke up out there and knew something was out of whack.
So I'm 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 whole global warming 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.
What kind of arrogance is this?
A climate 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 Algor hypocrisy with his, and Anne Schwarzenegger, too, registering his jet with some carbon registry and explaining these carbon offsets.
One of the best ways to explain it to people, I think, is to say, I have concocted the Algore diet.
It's a variation of the old Marie Antoinette diet.
And basically, Brian, let's say that you and I, no, take that back.
Dawn, let's say that you and I live together.
All right.
I hypothetically here.
And you tell me that you think I need to go on a diet.
I say, okay, I totally agree with you.
I'm going to go on a diet.
We're going to do the Algor 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.
And I call it a diet.
Also known as the Marie Antoinette diet.
At any rate, lots more coming up in the Global Warming Stack today, including, did you get a hold of Roy, Mr. Snerdley?
And he's ready for one o'clock.
The caller, last caller of the day yesterday was Roy Spencer, who is a highly acclaimed climatologist.
He used to work for NASA.
And 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 gratefully granted us that.
And the bottom line, his theory is that among many, because I've now done Wikipedia searches, Google searches on Mr. Spencer.
He's truly a brilliant man.
And he has 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 he's made a career studying this.
He also is not a global warming advocate.
He thinks it's basically a hyped crisis.
He also, for example, used to believe in evolution and has become an ardent believer of intelligent design combined with evolutionary things because evolution does take place, but it doesn't explain creation.
Obviously, it can't.
Just giving a little heads up on who he is.
He also said precipitation and clouds have a great factor.
But the whole point is that 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.
And it's all politics.
There are people who have scientists who have in the manufacture of semiconductors that they have studied atmospherics in a closed environment, which limits the complexity of the variables.
And even those model predictions are wrong.
And those are tiny compared to climate models.
Anyway, we will talk with him in great detail at the top of the next hour.
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'm sorry, folks.
I'm going to try to explain this to you, but I don't think.
I mean, 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 Iraq, as well as the Syrians, and they are killing U.S. soldiers.
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 and Syria was the equivalent to extortion.
And now they're reversing course.
I mean, we keep drawing lines in the sand and then drawing new lines in the sand.
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 foreign policy of Iran as if the United States was talking to me about Iranian foreign policy.
But the line here that Secretary Rice 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 launching.
What?
Iraq's running our foreign policy.
They launched the initiative.
We're just going to go along with it.
I know that Malachi has said to us that he's going to have diplomatic relations with Iran regardless what we do, either before we leave or after we leave.
Well, after we leave, fine and dandy.
But for this guy to sit up, for us to allow him to 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 out, to force them to make a move or something, that's a tactic as opposed to something being strategic.
And I have read that Malachi told the White House he's going to have relations with Iran regardless.
And apparently, one of the stories is the White House said, okay, if you're going to 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 Malachi 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.
The question is, are these regimes killing U.S. soldiers or not?
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 that Bill Clinton did this.
Now, you can attempt to justify the change of position, the White House and the administration clearly doing that, but it doesn't work.
I mean, 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.
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 going to have a neighbor's policy, a good neighbors sit down.
We're going to have tea.
We're going to have crumpets.
We're going to have couscous.
What are we going to do?
Good neighbors.
This is what Jimmy Carter did.
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'm stupefied.
Brief time out.
We'll be back.
Got to take a break here because of the 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 going to talk to Iran.
We're not going to talk to Syria.
Then Malachi says, well, I am.
I'm going to talk to him.
I'm going to have a meeting.
I'm going to have a good neighbor's meeting of tea and crumpets, a little coffee thrown in there, maybe, maybe some espresso.
And we say, oh, okay, well, we'll join you.
It's your talks.
We'll join you.
We'll have a good neighbor's meeting and so forth and so on.
Now, one of the analyses to explain this has been to say that we have drawn Mahmoud Ahmadinejad out and sort of exposed him as a fraud, and he's lost some of his power base with the Iranian mullahs, the Ayatollahs.
Amir Tahari today, writing in the New York Post, says the exact opposite is the case.
And because of the way Mahmoud has run rings around the world on these nuclear negotiations, that he is stronger than ever with the mullahs.
Philip Zeliko, who has recently departed from the senior staff of Condolizer 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 going to 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 Islamofascists.
How many times do 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 going to stop them?
I mean, Ahmadinejad, I don't know how this word got out that he lost face anyway.
He's 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 Russians.
He's been able to arm the Hezbollahs, which fought the Israelis to a standstill because of the weak leadership in Israel.
This guy's a hero.
Ahmadinejad's a hero of Islamofascism.
I just remember all the Kremlin watchers.
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.
I have no doubt that there are great intentions here, but it's, I don't know, it's delusional.
These people are who they are.
And I just, I'm floored by this, still stunned over this reversal of course on such a fundamental strategic issue as talking to the enemy.
I don't know.
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 good neighbor policies.
You don't win wars with T. Crumpet and all of this.
In the midst of this, we got the Democrats.
We got some feeble-minded Republicans trying to undermine us here at home.
And now Bush and Rice, who are out there steadfastly maintaining we're not going to talk to the Iranians.
We're not going to talk to the Syrians.
We're not going to bring them into this, have reversed course.
And the signal that sends is yet to be determined.
And we'll have to see how people react to it.
You know, Jimmy Carter talked to him until he was blue in the face when he was president.
The UN's been talking to them about nuclear weapons and so forth, to no avail.
The EU has been talking to them and has gotten literally nowhere on this.
I don't know what we expect to come of this, but it and that's a good question.
What do we expect to come of it?
What, HR, you support this?
What do you expect the result of this to be?
Okay.
No, but I'm not.
Don't I'm not calling it a sellout.
I understand.
Look, it all depends whether this is tactical or strategic, and that we don't know.
If this is a tactic, and there are things that I don't know, you know, 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.
And I'm perplexed.
I have to share my doubts and questions here with him.
I'm not going to sit here.
Well, I'm not, I don't know about the North Korea.
I've just been asked if I thought they reversed on North Korea.
I just saw a news story today.
North Korea has got a missile capable of reaching us.
There are people that do think that it was a sellout on North Korea.
Some of the so-called conservative intelligentsia in the think tanks and the media think that it was a sellout.
That's tougher to say because if the North Koreans backtrack on this, they're also insulting their patrons, the Chikoms.
And they were involved in all this.
But that remains to be seen.
It boils down to whether this is a tactical move or whether it signals a new strategy.
And if it's tactical, and if there's something going on here that we expect this not to work 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.
And the State Department would always talk, talk, talk rather than fire, fire, fire.
And I just, this State Department to me is not the repository where you go out and find the recipe for victory over the nation's enemies.
At any rate, in spite of all this, 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 Times, because it's, and their kook fringe on the left is going to be beside itself over this.
The reason they don't have the votes, they can't do it.
And 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.
L.A. Times story today that the divisions in the Democrat Party are even deeper when it comes to 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 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 Dashel soundbite coming up.
Pelosi, they're just not being able to do anything that they promised they were going to do.
Finding it tough to govern back in a sec here.
I'm getting phone calls.
I'm going to email some people.
What do you mean?
The Mirtha plan's going to go forward, but there's a provision in it that lets Bush ignore it.
You just make this stuff up.
No, I've got the San Francisco Chronicle here.
Democrats to push tough bill on redeployments.
Measure says troops must be fully rested, equipped, trained, blah, The same old thing.
House Democrat leaders who have decided they cannot defund the war are now defending the Mirtha plan, the slow bleed plan, said yesterday going to press ahead with legislation requiring all troops to be fully equipped and trained and rested before being sent back to Iraq.
Despite rumors that Pelosi was backing away from the plan, the speaker said Murtha'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 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 fringe 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.
And he asked John McConnell about whatever steps are being taken to cut off weaponry coming from Syria.
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.
He was basically, when you say, I think we ought to take action on all fronts, including Syria, I haven't seen this anywhere.
Have you?
But it's studying.
So 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 going to talk to the Iranian Syrians.
We're going to have a good neighbors meeting.
Well, the Iraqis are going to have the good neighbors meeting, and they're running our foreign policy now.
So we'll join them under the palm trees there for the good neighbors meeting.
And the same day, Carl Levin's wondering whether or not we got a battle plan for Iran and Syria.
Go figure.
Anyway, that's the news out there.
By the way, a little presidential politics here, I have to note that McCain is losing ground fast to Rudy Giuliani.
Have you noticed this out there?
And a big story here in the snack of stuff that Obama is picking up the black vote.
Not good news for Clinton, Inc.
You know, I think back if McCain had actually been a Reagan conservative and not a pretender, he could have won the nomination in 2000, I think.
And he would be president today.
But he found the media more seductive than Reaganism.
And that's going to cost him.
And, you know, that, I think, signals shows illustrates the biggest difference between Giuliani and McCain.
Giuliani despises the big media, like the rest of us.
New York Times hates Rudy's guts, folks.
But, you know, McCain has pandered to them.
The biggest difference here is that Giuliani has been running for the Republican nomination.
McCain has been running for the presidency.
He's been running for the White House all along.
That's what pandering and catering to the media has been all about.
Big news yesterday from the Libby trial jurors.
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, we're clear on what we have to do now.
And the judge said, Fine and dandy, go back in that room and keep deliberating.
So no 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, 30 minutes is all that would take.
But still, not predicting anything because it's impossible to do so.
Let's go to some audio soundbites.
ESPN.
They just can't get me off their mind.
What did you see this yesterday?
Wait, here this.
Jim Rome is burning is the show.
I like Jim Rome.
I've met Jim Rome, and he had a couple guests on there.
St. Louis Post to scratch writer Brian Burwell, huge radical, doesn't make much sense in much of anything he says, and Terence Moore from the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation and discussing Shaquille O'Neill.
Shaquille O'Neal, the NBA, came out yesterday and said that the MVP award in the NBA is tainted.
There's something not right about it.
He didn't go further, but the thing is that the last two MVPs, I think, have been won by Steve Nash, at least last year's one, Steve Nash from the Phoenix Suns who happens to, how shall I say, not be black.
And so this exchange, and O'Neill said the last five or six years, the MVP award doesn't mean much.
It doesn't mean much because it's tainted or some such thing.
That prompted this exchange on Jim Rome is burning.
The one thing I'm glad of is he didn't go limbo on us and say that it was the media 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, who are they?
The media.
Nash, I mean, Shaquille and Neil didn't say it.
Who is it that's obsessed with the media?
Mr. Burwell, you are such a dunce.
You open your mouth and you validate everything I say about you guys.
Of course, the last comment came from Terence Moore 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 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 hitting it.
I love these guys.
Well, they did get the premise right on the McNabb.
Yeah, big deal.
I mean, okay, but it's been four years.
You want to give them credit for getting it right after four years, Snerdley?
You do?
Finally, I 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 they didn't go limbo on us and say it was the media desirous of a white point guard.
Of course, I didn't think about McNab, talked about the media, but it's on their brains.
It's still on their brains.
I also mentioned Dingy Harry starting to sound like Dashel.
Concerned, he's upset.
Senate Democrats are going nowhere.
I've told you Mitch McConnell's running the Senate.
He's the most powerful man there.
And this Dingy Harry, we put together a little montage to illustrate this.
Dingy Harry's remarks after meeting with his fellow Democrats regarding their new resolution for the war in Iraq.
The last vote we had on this, virtually every Democrat voted for.
So 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 Congress.
I'm sure you can.
That's really bold leadership there.
Well, we'll continue to do that.
We're concerned.
I mean, there's a word popularized by the puffster, Puff Dashel.
Well, we're concerned, Tim, very concerned about what's going on.
We're determined to change the course of the war in Iraq.
We're going to continue to talk, do what we can to make sure that's the case.
Do what we can.
You got the majority, Dingy Harry.
We're going to 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 when applied to individuals, especially to 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?
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.
She encountered the situation when trying to pass a bill allowing children of foreigners to get in-state tuition at colleges and 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 use illegal.
Well, it hasn't passed yet.
She says, what?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And she says, I like undocumented better instead of illegal.
So, hey, put her in charge of the Iraqi situation, foreign policy.
Out.
What do you mean her arrogance?
Of course, her arrogance is a Democrat.
Of course, her arrogance is unbelievable.
But it's not her arrogance.
You're missing the point here.
You're making me say this.
I would think everybody could conclude the obvious here after me giving the details of the story.
The woman, you know, is an order of french fries short of a happy meal.
And we're back, El Rush Boats serving humanity.
Cutting edge.
Societal evolution.
One more little story here, and then to your phone calls.
The opening stages.
This is 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 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.
Have been treated to stories in the Los Angeles Times and a number of other drive-by media outlets telling us that Obama is not black enough.
I guess he's getting blacker.
Well, I might have helped because I pointed out he was black since he has it renounced it.
He's obviously being perceived here as becoming more black or blacker, black enough for African Americans to get on board.
Something's happened here.
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 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.
Listen, in regards to the talks or the negotiations or whatever they want to call them with Iran and Syria, if there's one thing that the President and Ms. Rice have been consistent on, it's foreign policy and the war on terror.
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 some sort of military action is taken.
I understand you're wanting to say that.
I understand the fact that you did say that.
What you're saying is basically that this is the administration making a point.
All right.
We're going to talk.
Everybody wants us to talk.
Jim Baker, Iraq Surrender Group, wants to talk.
We're going to talk.
And then when it doesn't work, we're going to 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 going to do it, and then you say we're going to do it.
You're saying 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 Malachi told us he's going to talk to him regardless, either while we're there or after we leave, but he's going to talk to him.
And, you know, we're saying, okay, Iraq, you're a sovereign government, and that's what our desire was.
So we're going to say, Malachi, we can't stop you.
That wouldn't look good, but it still boggles my mind.
We're not going to throw him under the bus.
We're not going to throw him overboard.
So we've said, okay, we're going to get on board.
But 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 the Sunnis.
And that was announced yesterday.
And that supposedly is the price that we exacted from Malachi in order for him to go ahead with the good neighbors.
They feel like it's a state farm insurance policy.
Like a good neighbor, state farm is.
Good neighbors, Pop.
Sorry, Pod.
Call it something the Good Neighbors Party.
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 on, I just wanted to tell you I am a mother of a 20-year-old Marine who's serving his second time in Iraq.
And When I heard that these people, these liberals and some Republicans were going to 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 reversed 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.
There are two things at work here.
There's no question that tagging them as owners of defeat has reverberated and got back to them 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, that they claimed.
They have failed to mobilize public opinion on this to make it happen.
That's an indication.
I got to go.
Quick break.
▲
Export Selection