All Episodes
Previous Next
March 15, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
March 15, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we're back, folks.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, serving humanity, emitting vocal vibrations, rhetoric, and resonance.
All across the fruited plain.
Serving humanity by showing up here on the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Fuddy Studies.
This is the fastest week in media.
I mean it's already Thursday.
As far as our program's concerned, Thursday's almost over.
Tomorrow, Friday, a reminder, Tom DeLay here to talk about his new book.
Tomorrow at the top of our second hour, here's the telephone number, 800-282-2882.
If you want to send an email, and by the way, our spam filter's working really well.
We've really tightened the spam filter.
Spam filter's gotten rid of half the junk.
And it was, you know, I normally get 10,000 emails a day at the rush at EIB net.com email address.
It's been up to 14 or 15,000 lately with spam.
Just absurd.
I was thinking of changing it.
What good would it do?
Because it's I only get the spam because of you people.
Because I hardly ever send mail from it.
It's a reading uh address.
I mean, I can reply to it if I want.
But all these, all you people using Vista and Windows XP and Windows BB, whatever it is, and all your viruses in there infecting me.
Well, I don't get infected, I just get your spam.
And it wouldn't change.
He got a new address.
It'd build back up there, and it'd be the same thing, so I'm just going to leave it alone.
All right, uh, more on this uh U.S. attorney uh firing and the attempt here by the Democrats to equate this with Watergate.
As is the usual case, there are lots of facts that the Democrats and media are not telling us.
I want to go back, I'm not going to play the soundbite because it's not important.
The question that Wolf Blitzer asked uh Pat Lahey last night on the situation room on CNN.
His question, is there anything illegal in putting one of Carl Rove's associates in and making him the U.S. attorney in Arkansas?
And Leahy had to say nothing illegal about it.
Firing a U.S. attorney.
What I am saying is that that hurts law enforcement, hurts fighting against crime, which is an absolute joke.
Well, let me tell you about this guy, this Carl Rove guy, this Carl Rove associate.
And by the way, why should that be a disqualifier for anybody?
Only because of the image that the uh the media, the drive-by's, and the Democrats have crafted about Carl Rowe.
But Carl Rove's guy is Tim Griffin.
Uh, he is a veteran, military veteran.
He has a solid prosecutorial record.
Here's what the drive-by's will not tell you about Tim Griffin, apart from the fact that he worked at the White House.
That's, of course, uh a disqualifier as far as the drive-by's and the Democrats are concerned.
Tim Griffin is in his tenth year as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve.
He's in the JAG Corps, the Judge Advocate General's Corps.
He holds the rank of Major.
In September of 2005, Tim was mobilized to active duty to serve as an Army prosecutor at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, which is the home of the 101st Airborne Division, air assault unit.
At Fort Campbell, he prosecuted 40 criminal cases.
One of those cases drew national interest after a soldier attempted to murder his platoon sergeant and fired upon his unit early morning formation.
Sentenced to 25 years in prison for his crime.
That's a prosecution conducted by Rove's guy, Tim Griffin.
In May of 2006, Tim Griffin was assigned to the 501st Special Troops Battalion, 100 First Airborne Division, sent to serve in Iraq.
From May through August of 2006, Tim Griffin served as an Army JAG Judge Advocans General with the 100 First Airborne Division in Mosul, Iraq, as a member of the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team.
He was the brigade operational law team member.
And before that, he served as the U.S. Department of Justice, or at the DOJ, where he was special assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, that would be Michael Churtoff, who was the criminal division chief.
In the summer of 2001, Chertoff granted Tim Griffin a year detail as a special assistant U.S. attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern Dick District of Arkansas in Little Rock, and while he was in Little Rock, Tim Griffin prosecuted a variety of federal cases with an emphasis on firearms and drugs.
He also served as the coordinator for Project Safe Neighborhoods, the Bush administration's strategy to reduce firearm-related violence by promoting close cooperation between state and federal law enforcement.
That is who the Democrats say is a hack.
He's a veteran.
He has served in Iraq.
He has prosecuted cases.
He has years and years experience.
He's in a Jag Corps.
As is Lindsey Graham.
This is Carl Rovesguy.
This is the hack that the Democrats, one of the hacks, the uh new U.S. attorney for Little Rock, uh, that uh that the Democrats are so exercised about here.
Interesting little sidebar.
And this is from the Arkansas Times.
The U.S. attorney, Bud Cummins of Little Rock, says that he'll likely be leaving his job in the next few weeks or months, but almost certainly by the end of the year, he had early told us he didn't intend to serve out the entirety of the Bush administration's second term, and that he'd be looking for private sector work.
This can be found at uh Arkansas Truthblogspot.com, and this is a story about Tim Griffin.
Tim Griffin is replacing Bud Cummins, who himself predicted back in August that he wouldn't finish out the term of the administration because he was going to leave.
And he's on this list of fired prosecutors that the drive-bys and everybody are so exercised about, so up in arms about, so it's a scandal, it's getting in the way of fighting crime.
I don't know anything about Bud Cummins, but I can tell you there's nothing wrong with Tim Griffin.
Now, I love being able to tell you people this, but where's the Justice Department telling people this?
Instead of acting like, oh, please, we did mistakes were made.
What mistakes?
Where's the administration understanding that they are at war with people who want to wipe them out?
I I'm at a loss for I I genuinely am at a loss.
Be it Iraq, be it this or Libby, I'm at a loss to understand now, maybe they do understand it, they're just choosing to fight it with a different strategy by not fighting it.
I don't know.
I have I have I have no clue.
Either way, it doesn't seem sensible to me, especially after after all of these years of having these attacks mounted.
And now these comparisons to Watergate arising from the uh so-called U.S. attorney firing scandal uh is mystifying to me.
As I say, I love being the one to pass this on to you, but wouldn't be now I don't want to hear this.
Well, we can't get coverage.
Gonzalez could have gone on TV the other day and mentioned this when he was on TV for other reasons, when his press conference or what have you?
Why they don't defend their actions and instead make excuses, mistakes were made.
Yeah, we've beyond me.
One more sound bite.
This is Arlan Spector, and this was this morning at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
It's number seven.
Audio soundbite number seven.
I think the subpoena issue has to be handled with great delicacy.
Because when a subpoena is issued, uh, there is a suggestion that the person will not come in voluntarily.
And when the person will not come in voluntarily, there's a suggestion that a person has something to hide.
Now there are two ways to look at this.
Uh one is that uh uh Spectre is attempting to cast doubt on potential witnesses.
I don't think that's the case.
I think he's warning the committee, hey, let's just don't start issuing subpoenas because everybody thinks if you get a subpoena, you're reluctant.
If these people have come up here without a subpoena, bring them up without a subpoena.
That's what he's saying, or I hope he's saying.
But that's not the game.
Why why would Leahy do that?
Why would the chairman of the committee want to give anybody a break here?
This is being made to look like a Watergate scandal.
It's being made to look like the administration won't be forthcoming about anything going on.
It's such a conspiracy.
It's so closed off in there.
They're trying to take over all of government.
You people realize this.
The Bush administration is trying to take over all branches of the government.
The executive, they already have.
They want the judiciary, they're trying to take over the country.
It's a laughing joke.
But this is the impression that they're trying to leave with people.
Inspector is saying, they better be careful.
You start subpoenaing people who will come up here willing, you're already casting a poll on them.
We'll be right back.
We'll roll right on right after this.
All right, folks, I want you to listen up because this is the bottom line of this whole trumped up nothing scandal about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush Justice Department.
What are the Democrats saying?
Well, leaky leahy.
There's nothing illegal by itself firing U.S. attorney.
What I'm saying is hurts law enforcement.
Hertz fighting against crime.
Really?
All right, well, try this.
It's a matter of logic.
When you're Bill Clinton and you just were inaugurated, January of 1993, two months later, you fire all 93 U.S. attorneys at once and give them 10 days to clear out.
You are necessarily and absolutely interfering with sensitive investigations and corruption investigation.
By definition that has to happen.
And yet that is the very charge that's being leveled here by these dishonest.
Know that they are lying through their teeth, liberal Democrats, aided and abetted by their willing accomplices in the drive-by media.
Eight U.S. attorneys, two-year review.
Somehow this is in this is i i interrupting investigations.
Do you understand?
93 U.S. attorneys gone at one time.
Whatever they are all working on kaput, you are well, maybe not kaput, but you are definitely interfering with sensitive investigations and corruption investigations.
It's about the most disruptive thing that you can do.
Which is why, as a tradition pre-Clinton.
Generally, new presidents let the sitting U.S. attorney finish out his four-year term before getting rid of him.
And these terms don't run on the same uh clock as presidential elections on purpose so that you end up with staggered replacements.
It's more orderly for the country and for the DOJ.
Not to mention this.
When you lop off 93 U.S. attorneys at once, what do you do?
You are taxing the Judiciary Committee.
They have to vet, they have to hold hearings, and they have to confirm these nominees.
The FB is uh FBI's out there doing all these background checks in a hurry.
93 new people at the same time.
And then, of course, these districts that have U.S. attorneys are left without an appointed U.S. attorney for months while all this gets sorted out.
You talk about a disruption to so-called fighting crime.
You talk about disruptions in her in law enforcement.
There is nothing more dramatic as an example of both taking place than what Bill Clinton did compared to this.
And yet, this is just common sense.
The drive-by media ignoring all of this.
In fact, saying Clinton did it the right way.
Well, yeah, just if you're gonna do it at the beginning of administration, do it and get rid of these people.
It's sickening.
It is pathetic.
It is journalistic malpractice.
We know who the Democrats are.
We know what the drive-by media is, but it is still journalistic malpractice and it is still pathetic.
It is sickening and it is irresponsible.
For these claims to be made about eight U.S. attorneys whose work was under review for two years before the moves were made versus Clinton.
Because the Democrats are forced to say it's not illegal.
The president can do it.
It's just it's it's just bad.
It hurts fighting crime.
And it it interrupts uh law enforcement.
Yeah, what I don't know how much more interruptive and uh what how many you could put the brakes on any harder on any investigations than to fire all 93 U.S. attorneys at one time.
And of course now the mismirching of the nominees to replace these eight led by Tim Griffin in Arkansas, who is a decorated veteran of the Iraq War of the U.S. military.
Yeah, I got Folks, I I know exactly how you feel.
where are these people fighting back?
As I say, I am more than happy to pass this information on to more than happy to share my own thoughts, but I'm not the administration.
And I'm not the Department of Justice.
All right, let's go to the phones because people have been waiting patiently out there.
Margot in uh in Burr Ridge, Illinois.
Great to have you.
I'm glad you waited and welcome.
Thank you, Russ.
I I thank you so much for all that you do.
I appreciate it so much.
I wanted to say that we cannot give up Alberto Gonzalez.
We must never, never give up with these people because we started something when we let them get away with Watergate, and they are just following a typical career criminal path.
Um and and that was started with Watergate.
They got away with that, and they've been emboldened ever since.
Um, you know, we've we've let them get away with so many things.
I mean a serial killer, every single killer starts the same way.
They kill their family pet.
Well, that was Watergate.
You know, that was the family pet.
And every time we let them get away with it, they just they just know they're gonna get away with more and more and more.
I mean, look, you know, Bork, the Lorale sale of the technology to China, uh Anita Hill.
I mean, they're Nick Garrett's having to give up his four million dollar um uh, you know, uh book deal.
I mean, it was ridiculous.
They they ever it seems like every other week they're getting away with more and more and more, and I I just don't see us fighting back.
We have got to stop and make a stand.
I agree with you, but who is we?
Uh well, I don't know.
I do all the talking I can to my friends and my family.
No, but no, but I mean I'm being I'm being rhetorical.
We is the administration we is the people under attack.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
They especially.
Uh we are fighting back.
We're fighting back the best we can, but uh if it if it you know, i yesterday, I give you I give you a great example.
Yesterday, um, when this whole thing was was was percolating, I went to great lengths with a lot of patience and care and precision here behind the golden EIB microphone to explain, and I don't mean to sound egotistical here.
Um to Republicans, look, you don't have to defend Bush if you're scared of doing that.
You can go out and attack Democrats and defend your own party.
Because whether you understand it or not, you're under attack too.
It's not just Bush.
And they are in the process of trying to isolate Bush so that you won't defend him, and the process isolate you so that you won't speak up.
Provided a pathway, a lighted pathway for these people to finally stand up and say what was going on here was ridiculous, and to refute some of these charges that have been made about the firing of these eight attorneys.
What happens?
John Sununu goes out and suggests that Gonzalez needs to go.
A Republican senator.
Gonzalez has to go.
Now, do you know that Sununu's up for re-election?
What does this tell you?
It tells me that the that the the real entity running the Republican Party, or not running it, but the entity that is most influencing Republican Party behavior is the drive-by media.
You look at somebody who's up for re-election, take a look at what they do, and it'll tell you right away who they think they have to placate.
In this case, it's not the voters of the state of New Hampshire.
In this case, it's the drive-by media and what might be said.
This is this is uh this is the McCain ploy, the McCain tech.
And look how much it got him and where he is in the polling right now, at least it's early in the uh in the presidential sweepstakes.
Nick and Elizabeth Town um what is that?
Tennessee.
Thanks, Nick.
Wait uh thank you for waiting and welcome the program.
No problem.
Elizabethtown, Kentucky.
Um the only reason this is a scandal is because the Republicans are behaving as though it's a scandal.
I mean, if you go back to Gonzalez's uh press conference the other day, what does he say?
He says this was mishandled and we're gonna get to the bottom of it, et cetera, et cetera.
And then finally gets around, but it was the right thing to do.
Well, if it was the right thing to do, why are we gonna have to get to the bottom of it?
I mean, why was it mishandled if it's the right thing to do?
Right.
It's a don't forget handled perfectly.
The president said the same thing though.
Yeah, oh yeah, he's he's very unhappy.
And Rush, it is just so disgusting.
And and it goes it goes what you were just saying.
It's it's because they they read the the papers and they hear that this is a big scandal and they act like it is.
The Republicans ought to know the very fact that George Bush is in office and that we manage to have the majority for a while, is that the the American people don't believe the media.
And and I don't know why they can't learn that lesson and go ahead and get something done and stand up.
Because they're let me tell you something, their universe of reality is different than everybody else's.
They're in Washington, and Washington is run by the media.
It's run by the left.
As I keep saying, socially as well.
The social pecking order, it's huge.
Just as big as it ever was in high school, you know, it'd be a big click.
Uh it's a distorted sense of reality.
Washington is not the country, but it's where most of these people live and work.
They think it is.
We'll be back.
Turn it up, folks.
At least 800 decibels out there.
Make sure you miss not one syllable of the excellence in broadcasting network and the Rush Limbaugh program.
I am your highly trained broadcast specialist executing assigned duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
All right, a couple of other things in the news.
Let me uh let me touch uh on them.
Um the guy from Elizabethtown, Kentucky just mentioned that and I've I've said this myself too, the people trying to they call here worry about the media.
Look, Ronald Reagan won two landslides, George W. Bush uh won twice, Republicans won the House in nineteen ninety-four, George H. W. Bush won the White House in 1988.
Uh there's all kinds of evidence that the drive-by's can be overcome.
Although I think the drive-by's are at a more fevered pitch than ever before.
They realize now that there's a divided media, just like there's a divided country, and they um they're a business like anybody else, and they're going further and further left to serve their audience.
And as such, they are drifting further and further away from legitimate journalism.
And I've always made the point that uh uh you know, don't don't don't be that depressed about it.
But then again, I find myself questioning it because I like I got a Zogby poll here.
And we knew this.
We knew what's in the poll, but the number is still staggering.
Now the headline of this voters believe media bias is very real.
The vast majority of American voters believe media and not the American people here.
American voters.
A different number than that of the entire population.
The vast majority of American voters believe media bias is alive and well.
83% of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another.
Only 11% believe the media doesn't take political sides.
This is a poll conducted by Zogby Interactive and the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet.
The Institute of Politics, Democracy, and the Internet, based at George Washington University, In uh in Washington, nearly two-thirds of the online respondents who detected bias in the media, sixty-four percent, said they lean left.
Slightly more than uh twenty-five percent, it's twenty-eight percent actually said they see a conservative bias on their TV sets and in their column inches.
The survey, which focuses on perceptions of the old and new media will be released today at the politics online conference at GWU, George Washington University, also featured in the March issue of Zogby's Real American newsletter.
Now we knew that a lot of people think there's media bias.
83 percent.
Now, this is of likely voters.
But I find myself being dubious about all this, because if this is true, then how the hell do you have so many dupes in this country buying the global warming hoax?
And of course, I think there are really I think there's psychological reasons for that.
Uh um you you've got all the ingredients there that just melt people's hearts, the the poor polar bears and all this other rot gut.
I don't want to be repetitive on this, but I see conflicting evidence.
If if, for example, if 83% believe the media is biased one way or the other, and almost 65% think it's biased to the left, then why would they believe anything the left says, or the media says.
And clearly they do sometimes.
So it's it's still a dilemma out there, folks.
I do think that the uh the media is getting more competitive.
Well, wrong word.
They're getting angrier.
They don't have the monopoly they used to have.
Like I say, it took Walter Cronkite one day to end the Vietnam War to convince the American people it was hopeless.
Took the drive-by's four years to accomplish the same thing with the Iraq War, and they still haven't really pulled it off because despite what the polling data is, the American people do not want to defund it or pull out of there without a victory.
But you would never know that watching the rest of the media.
A couple of other things here.
This is from the UK Daily Mail.
I had a great interview yesterday with Rick Santorum, by the way, for the next issue of the limbo letter, and talked about uh interesting point of view about uh his is I guess primary focus here now is attempting to educate people on the dangers of Islamo fascism.
And he says, look, the Europeans have lost their culture and in the process of losing it more and more every day.
We had the story yesterday about the highest French court came out and said that gay marriage is illegal.
Now, when you heard me report that, if you did, were you not a little surprised?
I mean, if there's one country on the face of the earth that you would think would embrace this instead of leading the way, it'd be the French, right?
Something doesn't jibe there.
Until you understand the large population of militant Islamists that live in France.
And when you put that together with the natural tendency to surrender that the French have, coming up with something to permit gay marriage, whoa.
Can you imagine the riots that might ensue?
They might spread beyond the ghettos outside Paris and into the city proper again.
You look at the uh the UK and a number of uh Western European democracies.
You'll find a continued capitulation, not much to being done on immigration, and they are slowly losing their cultures.
And here is an example.
And it could happen here.
Not nearly as close to happening here, but it could, without the proper vigilance.
You've all heard of the story of the three little pigs and the three little pigs battle with the big bad wolf.
Do your daughter know about this story, Dawn.
Well, that story of the three little pigs battling the big bad wolf that's delighted little crumb crunchers since it was written more than 150 years ago.
However, the Daily Mail in the UK says that uh this story, which highlights the merits of hard work and practicality, has now fallen victim to political correctness.
A junior production of the children's story has been named the Three Little Puppies for fear of offending Muslims.
Organizers of a children's music festival have altered the characters and lyrics of the three little pigs and a big bad wolf because of the multicultural nature of the youngsters involved and their parents in the audience.
Yesterday, Islamic leaders condemned the politically correct move as misguided, said decisions like this were turning Muslims into misfits in society.
Children from the Honley Church of England Junior Hascral in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire were due to perform in a reworking of the popular tale, which features the three little pigs.
The kids that were going to participate in this are between seven and eleven years old.
They were due to perform on uh in June, with 250 churin from 630, I'm sorry, 63 schools singing along, but organizers decided to change the script to be sensitive to Muslims.
Committee member Gil Goodswin, head teacher of the style common junior high school, defended the move.
She said, We we have to be sensitive.
We want to be multicultural, and it was felt that it would be more responsible not to use the three little pigs.
We feared some Muslim children wouldn't sing along out of the words about pigs.
We didn't want to take that risk.
If changing a few words avoids offense, then we will do so.
She stressed the decision was not prompted by a complaint from any school.
This is not a unique occurrence.
Other recent problems have involved Baba Black Sheep being changed to Baba Rainbow Sheep.
And Christmas events called winter festivities, of course.
Now, in this case, the Islamo fascists say that they didn't even lodge a complaint about it.
So what we have here is abject total fear.
This is what what's the term for this?
This this would be the preemptive destruction of your own culture.
Doing things you don't even have to do.
It's maddening out there.
And this is the you got we hey.
We have these same PC little spineless linguini people out there in our country trying to foist upon everybody the same kinds of things.
Tom in Waterloo, Iowa, he'd been on hold for over two hours.
Tom, welcome to the program.
Thank you so much, Rush.
It's uh it's an honor to talk to you.
And uh once again, I've talked to you one other time, and I it is just it's a true honor.
Listening to you every day just makes me want to be a better American, and that's that's why I continue.
I appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
Uh Rush, I had a I had uh uh a question I wanted to ask you, and I more wanted your take on whether you think this is uh is a trend or something that's going on out there.
Um I noticed like just especially in the last few weeks, uh you see things happening that that normally would shock me if I would see it go on uh within the media or or or the scope of what's happening politically out there, things like the New York Times slapping Al Gore down.
I see uh uh uh go let's go one by one and I'll explain this to you because I understand you're you're you you think is there uh uh is there a trend here of of liberals and democrats cracking up.
Yeah.
All right, in the case of Al Gore being ripped and his movie being ripped, uh the inconvenient truth being ripped by the New York Times.
I'll give you a possibility here.
Possibility is the Clintons are behind this story to make sure Gore doesn't get any notions about getting in the presidential race.
There's always something possible behind the scenes and between the lines.
One question, though, Rush.
Yes.
Dan Rather, uh on the news talking uh uh in a different way than I've ever seen, especially coming from Dan Rather about the Iraq war.
I mean, you you see things that are that are pillar.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Dan Rather or Ted Coppel.
Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, I'm sorry.
Uh yeah, yeah.
Yes.
Dan rather, you have to have the HD net, and then you have to watch the HD net to see Dan rather.
Yeah.
And another thing I want to make.
You have HD net on your TV?
Yes, I do, Rush.
You watch it?
Do you watch Rather on it?
Dan Ratter reports.
Uh, you know, every now and then I just I I I flip over.
I do.
I mean, I scan around.
I watch HD and I've I haven't watched the whole report.
He has been doing some Iraq stuff.
Uh uh, but um okay, keep going with your examples.
Well, and and another example, uh, we we saw uh uh an excerpt in the media of representatives uh in Washington, D.C. shouting down liberal activists in the back hallways.
And and I'm just wondering, is this a trend?
Is this something we're we're seeing liberalism kind of being being sort of pushed out of the eye at a time when Democrats are normally moving to the left to gain support in primaries?
We're seeing pieces in the media of liberalism being pushed back.
Uh I I don't I don't look at it that way.
All these examples that you've cited are accurate, but I don't think that's what's happening.
I I think that the Democratic Party is simply fractious.
It's not monolithic.
It never has been.
It's always been comprised of various coalitions, big labor to feminizes, teachers' unions, and so forth and so on, the civil rights coalitions.
Uh but there's a there's a uh uh the the the the fringe kooks, the people out there call the net roots, the uh the nut roots, the blogosphere.
They're really unhappy that the party's not left enough, and they're trying to take it that way, and that's the example you cited about David Obi.
You know, these people believe the Democrats when they said after the election, we're gonna get you out of Iraq.
We're gonna get these troops, we're gonna bring them home.
The left wants them out of now.
They want them out of there now.
And Obi simply got frustrated.
They're protesting him, they're protesting Pelosi.
And he said, You people don't understand how this stuff works.
They're creating their own monster by feeding it.
But they need every coalition in order to win elections.
If the nutroots flee, they'll find their own wacko candidate like a Ned, what was his name in Connecticut?
And and and go down and uh go down in flames.
They're just they're trying to stay unified.
It's getting it's getting frustrated, uh, frustrating for them.
I don't think there's total unity there.
I don't think it represents uh a crack up.
You could say that about the different factions in the House and the arguments they're having over how to get out of Iraq and how soon to do it and so forth.
Uh way over time in this segment, I'd love to discuss this in greater detail, and we will, as uh uh other programs unfold.
But it's a great question.
I'm glad you called.
We'll be right back, my good friends.
Ha, welcome back.
Can't get out of here without mentioning this today.
Mrs. Bill Clinton.
This is not gonna help her with the nut roots of the uh the Democrat Party, the Kook Fringe, and it may indicate she's not concerned about it.
I'd slap them down if I were a Democrat rather than pander to them.
Small bunch of people, a bunch of literal nuts.
Mrs. Bill Clinton foresees a remaining military as well as political mission in Iraq.
And she says that if she's elected president, she would keep a reduced military there to fight Al Qaeda.
Deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds, and possibly support the Iraqi military.
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate orifice, this with the New York Times, Mrs. Bill Clinton said that the scaled down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad.
Make no longer uh would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence, even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
And she's asked in this interview, well, whoa, whoa, what about ethnic cleansing in Kosovo?
What about ethnic cleansing in Darfur and so forth?
Now, the but the point of all this is Mrs. Bill Clinton, my vote was a mistake.
I was misled.
I dig it, and I she hasn't come out.
Apologize for the vote, but she's let it be known that she's again we she told, she told Bush, she said she would be offended if Iraq is not settled and over with by the time she is inaugurated in January of 2009.
Now, in an interview with the New York Times, Mrs. Bill Clinton says she's going to keep troops there to go after Al Qaeda and watch ethnic cleansing.
She's not going to stop it, she's going to watch it.
Folks, you try to make sense of this.
I cannot.
She said the United States security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state that serves as a Petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda.
So we can't, we gotta maintain a presist a presence in Iraq because we can't let Iran take over.
This is astounding.
We we essentially she's saying we're gonna stay there, we're just gonna watch it.
We're gonna stay in Iraq and we're gonna watch, we're gonna watch the ethnic cleansing, we're gonna make sure the Iranians don't come, we're gonna keep a sharp eye on Al Qaeda.
This is her containment strategy.
And the Times published a transcript of her interview, which is much too long for me to go into now.
But she basically says that Kosovo is ethnically cleansed today.
Um we're still there with uh with NATO.
Uh we're gonna look out for Americans' interests, uh, we're gonna uh region's interest because ultimately that's our basic responsibility.
She is echoing words used by the Bush administration and by President Bush himself.
I haven't seen much of this reported during the drive-by media broadcast today, but I uh you gotta wonder how this is gonna play in a party.
You know, Nancy Pelosi.
Just imagine Nancy Pelosi hearing about this and reading this when she's trying to put together best she can some coalition that will at least cut off the funding or get us out of Iraq.
Here's Mrs. Clinton, Queen B Syndrome.
They're both trying to be the most powerful woman in Washington, say, oh no, we can't get out of there.
Um I'm gonna leave a force.
We're gonna watch.
We're gonna we're gonna watch, we're gonna, even if there's ethnic cleansing, we're gonna watch.
We're gonna make sure Al Qaeda doesn't get big, we're gonna keep Iran out of there.
But we're not gonna shoot.
We're just gonna watch.
Go figure, folks.
This Twilight Zone day as far as I'm I am so sorry it's over, folks.
But it is.
We have run out of precious broadcast moments here on the EIB network.
Can't do a fourth hour today.
I have to go home and pay bills.
Which I just hate.
So much wasted time licking envelopes and all that stuffing them.
▲
Export Selection