All Episodes
Previous Next
May 1, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:14
May 1, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Hang on here, folks.
I just got the roster of the cue sheet, and I'm just doing a cursory glance at what I got here.
Tenant, tenant, tenant, George Tennett.
I mean, if there was ever an example of how newly arrived presidents ought to just get rid of everybody that's a holdover, it's George Tennett.
Anyway, greetings, my friends.
Great to have you with us.
Great to be back here in the saddle, so to speak, the prestigious Attila the Hun chair at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, Rush Limbaugh, ready to serve humanity simply by showing up.
The telephone number here, 800-282-2882, and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Well, it's May Day, and there's a whole bunch of stuff going on on May Day.
We've got global warming stuff.
We're going to do Tennant.
We're going to do Hillary changing her name, bunch of stuff about that.
We've got a full plate here today.
So just sit tight.
Takes three hours to go through all of broadcast excellence on each and every day, but you can take solace in the fact that this is the fastest three hours in media and, of course, the fastest week in media.
So it's May Day out there, and you've got the requisite immigration protests and rallies and so forth, but you also have the drive-by media absorbed with Cuba.
You got Andrea Mitchell down there.
Everybody on the body watch waiting to see if Fidel Castro is going to show up at the standard viewing place where he reviews all these slaves walking by and proclaims them great workers and so forth.
And of course, Fidel didn't show up.
He didn't make it.
But the thing I want to focus on here is the, you know, you don't know if it's just ignorance.
More and more, I'm coming to the conclusion that in addition to the agenda that drives the drive-by media, there's just some profound ignorance that is masked by an all-encompassing arrogance and conceit that makes them think they can't possibly be wrong about anything.
And their arrogance and their conceit has closed them off.
It has insulated them from anything other than the world view that they have, well, been taught or evolved or adopted over the course of their years as adults.
Let's start here with a little montage.
Late night and this morning, we have Katie Couric, Lara Logan from CBS, Contessa Brewer from PMSNBC, Russ Mitchell from CBS, Charlie Gibson, ABC, of course, and Ann Curry.
And they're all reporting on Castro and May Day.
In Cuba tonight, a lot of anticipation.
Reports there say Fidel Castro made lead tomorrow's May Day celebration.
Cubans are hoping that Fidel Castro will make his first public appearance.
Is there any indication the crowds out there could see Castro today?
Cubans will mark May Day in Havana.
The big question is, will Fidel Castro join them?
There is drama in Cuba tonight about whether Fidel Castro is about to make his first appearance since a mysterious illness and emergency surgery last summer.
In Havana, all eyes are on its May Day celebration for any signs of Fidel Castro.
Do you think the American people were waiting with bated breath to find out what might happen whether or not Castro shows up?
Does anybody really think that?
These people are the ones who are obsessed with it.
Here is Andrea Mitchell from, well, she was on, I guess, MSNBC and reported the following about Castro appearing.
The signs are that he is not going to appear in public.
Cuban officials say that he's not going to appear today.
He is more comfortable now behind the scenes, but clearly he is not the same old Fidel Castro.
And even if he were to appear, he could not live up to the expectations, perhaps, of these hundreds of thousands of people who for decades saw him at all of these May Day celebrations.
Really?
He's going to deflate their expectations.
I won't have a gun, won't start gunning people down, huh?
Won't order the protesters back in line, huh?
But that's not the worst of it.
Andrea Mitchell said that Cuba's only major problem is the U.S. embargo.
She was talking to, I kid you not, and this is the part of the story.
These people are just plain ignorant.
And there certainly has to be a part of that.
She said, officials are pointing out, it's certainly true from my visits here, that the government runs its business as usual.
They've managed this succession rather well.
Raul Castro is here today, and other leaders are very much in charge.
There have been no major problems other than, now we're talking about May Day.
There have been no major problems at May Day in Cuba other than the continuing economic difficulties that, of course, Cuba faces because of the U.S. embargo, the economic embargo.
Yeah, that's boy, you know, folks, if our economic embargo were lifted, if only that, why, communism could flourish and work its wonders.
And the drive-by media, still depressed over the collapse of the Soviet Union, could maybe point south to Havana and say, see, it works.
Cuba's only major problem is the U.S. embargo.
Cuba's problem is communism and a tyrannical dictator.
Now, let me illustrate this.
What are you laughing at in there?
What in the world is so funny?
That's Cuba's problem.
There I go with this communism thing.
Well, let me just ask you this, or pose this question to you.
Cuba trades with every country in the world.
They trade with Hugo Chavez.
They trade with Canada.
They trade with the European Union.
You can go anywhere but the United States and buy anything Cuba exports.
Other than cigars, I don't know why you would.
Maybe rum, but I don't know why you would.
But you can.
And by the same token, those countries export to Cuba.
So if the world, now, there's two things about this.
It does indicate the power of the U.S. economy and how it can uplift, there's no question.
But when you throw in the economic giants of the rest of the world, the Canadians and the U.K., the EU, and the emerging former Soviet bloc nations, and the Saudis, the Saudis trade with them.
Saddam trade with them.
I mean, Castro sent Saddam cigars.
Saddam sent back who knows what.
Probably weapons and arms, maybe some WMDs in the presidential palace there.
You never know.
But the idea that a country that trades with the entire world, that exports whatever it has and imports whatever it can pay for, every country in the world but the United States is somehow still an armpit of economic destruction.
That this somehow is the fault of the U.S. embargo is just intellectually absurd.
I'm not arguing to lift it or to keep it or what have you.
I frankly think it's silly to have it, given that we've traded with all of our other commie enemies and they're down to tubes.
The Soviets are down to tubes.
Well, as communists, they're down to tubes.
Vietnam down to tubes as communists.
We have Americans designing and building golf courses in Vietnam, in Hanoi.
It's an emerging golf market.
You can't get more conservative capitalists than that.
So I just, you know, lift it for whatever.
But the problem with lifting it is that whatever results from it will end up in Castro's Swiss bank accounts or Raul's or whatever.
Now, there's also news from the southern hemisphere.
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last remaining privately run oil fields on Tuesday, intensifying a decisive struggle with big oil over one of the world's most lucrative deposits.
The oil minister there, Rafael Ramirez, declared that the oil fields had reverted to state control just after midnight.
TV footage showed workers in hard hats raising the flags of Venezuela and the National Oil Company at a refinery and four drilling fields in the oil-rich Orinoco River basin.
Chavez planned a more elaborate celebration this afternoon: red-clad oil workers, soldiers, and a flyover by Russian-made fighter jets.
Now, despite all this fanfare, and by the way, the company's ceding control, they're not ceding anything, they're losing it.
The way this is makes it sound like these big oil companies are giving it up.
They are British Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Chevron, France's Total SA, and Norway's State Oil ASA.
All but ConocoPhillips have agreed in principle to state control.
What are they going to do?
And Venezuela has warned it may expropriate that company's assets if it doesn't follow suit.
Now, you might be, so what, Rush?
So what?
This is cool.
You know, big oil, it's about time big oil got it handed to them.
It's about time.
I want to warn you people: remember what Hillary Clinton said about big oil profits, ExxonMobil.
She wants to take them and she wants to take them and plow them back into health care.
Now, despite all this fanfare, these big oil companies in Venezuela remain locked in a behind-the-scenes struggle with the Chavez government.
They appear to be taking a decisive stand, demanding conditions and presumably compensation to convince them that Venezuela will continue to be good business.
I'll tell you, what's going to happen with Chavez here is going to start with big oil, but eventually, the Venezuelan government is going to own everything.
And this, if we aren't careful, we've just raised the Venetian blinds here.
And we can look through the window of North America in the not-too-distant future if people like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama ever get deeply entrenched in power.
You know, you look at the Democrat Party enemies list, folks.
Look at who it is they're routinely criticizing.
Walmart, big oil, big pharma.
They're out for national health care.
They want socialized medicine.
You hear the term single-payer.
That's what that's a code word for socialized medicine.
They clearly want it.
And it is about power.
It is about power and control.
It's not about like their supporters, the Democrats and the left, think it's all about getting even with big oil.
It's all about bringing fairness back to the marketplace and lowering gasoline.
It has nothing to do with it, folks.
It's all about power.
It's like we've got a record quarter for tax receipts.
Tax receipts have gone through the roof.
Tax cuts work.
They increase revenue to the Treasury.
It works every time it's tried.
Now, the Democrats steadfastly oppose tax cuts, even though what people think they really want is the money.
Well, look at all the money Washington's rolling in now that it wouldn't have had without the cap gains tax cuts and the income tax rate reductions and so forth.
And you hear them talking about the first thing we're going to do is raise taxes.
John Edwards out there saying he's going to do it even better than Clinton did in 93.
Brett girl's going to raise taxes even more than Clinton did.
And you look at this and you say, well, why?
They want money.
No, folks.
Yeah, they want the money.
It's about power.
It's about control.
It is about making the government bigger.
And it is about making citizenry have fewer choices and so forth and less economic mobility.
This is liberalism.
Never forget it.
A quick time out.
We'll be back.
All the rest of the program right around the corner.
Ha!
Welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Talent on loan from a God.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
I remember some years ago describing for you a conversation I had had with the United Screeners of America union thug by the name of Mo Thacker.
Mo Thacker is the union thug that runs the screeners union and so forth in New York.
And Mo and I, I mean, you get Mo away from the business.
He could be a decent guy.
In the radio station, he's a strict union hack.
And he's always confrontational and he's waiting for somebody to make a mistake or violate some little third-rate clause on a union contract.
One time I went out to Mo's house in a gesture of goodwill.
He lives out there on Long Island, drove out there.
No, Mo doesn't live in a big mansion, has one, doesn't live in it, doesn't want the union membership to know what he's got.
Lives in a little shack, actually.
Anyway, Mo and I are the same age, and we got to talking about things.
And I said to Mo, this had to be, I'm 56 now.
I was probably 42 or 43 at the time.
I said, you know, there are days that I feel like I'm 18.
I'm 20.
There are days that I look back and I think I've just got all this lost time I got to make up for for all the fun that I didn't have back in when I was a teenager and young young 20s early 20s.
I started working when I was 16.
And Mo said, you know, I got a theory about that.
I think that it is because of how easy a life we've had.
He said, you look at our parents and grandparents, and they had real challenges in life.
They had to grow up real fast.
They went through the Great Depression and they went through World War II and they had Khrushchev banging his shoe at the United Nations.
I said, you know, you're right.
I said, I think back when my dad was 42, 43, that was it.
Life was established.
It was set.
Job, whatever.
My mom, too, and all of the friends that I had, same way.
And yet, I was talking about this with somebody else, because I talk about it a lot, actually, because I think it's interesting.
But this was, I don't know, a month or two ago or whatever.
And I even forget who I was talking about.
I constantly ask people my age if they feel their age.
No, no, no, no.
Don't feel nice.
I still feel young.
They're a lot ahead of me.
I'm just now hitting my stride, so forth and so on.
And there's no question to me that life for baby boomers, just in a static sense, has been far better than life for their parents or their grandparents.
We've had to go out and invent our traumas.
We've had to go out and invent these things that make us feel like we've got stress.
Now, the stress is real, and it's bad.
I mean, people in my age feel it, but they had to invent it because it wasn't there compared to the way it was for our parents and grandparents.
And of course, the baby boom generation, because of this overwhelming opportunity and the prosperity and the affluence that they've had the opportunity to achieve, and in many cases have achieved in this country, have been self-focused.
And you've heard this riff about baby boomers that everything's about me, and them, then, them, then, them, and their feelings.
And why is it everybody thinking about me?
Why everybody talking about me and so forth.
That's sort of now dwindled down to even Generation X, Generation Y, because they're just vomiting everything about themselves they can on these MySpace websites and YouTube.
By the way, has George Tennant put his Medal of Honor for sale on eBay yet?
Somebody go to eBay, see if you can find George Tennant's Medal of Honor for sale.
If he hasn't put it up, it ought to be for sale up there.
I never understood why he got the Medal of Honor in the first place.
I actually thought that they were trying to buy him off.
And if they were, that really worked, didn't it?
At any rate, doing show prep.
Last night, getting ready for my big return to the golden EIB microphone.
And lo and behold, this is a story from the Times Online in the UK, why 50-somethings live like 20-somethings.
I said, man, old Mo Thacker and I were on the cutting edge 13 years ago.
Get this.
And this is in the women's section of the Times Online UK paper.
As teenagers, they fought for their right to grow their hair, wear what they wanted, explore the possibilities of the contraceptive pill.
Now a new study that compares the lifestyle of the over 50s today with that of a half century ago has found that baby boomers are doing battle with age with equal vigor.
Traveling, playing golf, going out with their friends.
They're living the lives that 25-year-olds were in 1957.
This, according to the Future Foundation think tank, they've issued a report here called Forever Young.
In 1957, men could look forward to just 7.6 years of retirement, women just under 14.
But with general health improving significantly, life expectancy soaring, men who are 60 now have 15 years and women over 22 years to fill after they leave work.
Today, 50 is closer to the middle of our life than it is to the end, with many economic and psychological factors bringing this change, said Martin Lloyd Elliott, a shrink, who was consulted for the report.
Psychologically, there's been a shift from a closing down expectation for the second half of life towards a much more optimistic, opening up new doors spirit of good times ahead.
Yes, there's no question.
Think back, folks.
Think back to your, if you're my age, a little younger, think back to your parents and grandparents when they were your age now.
And just look at how they spent the remaining years of their lives.
They might have had a garden.
One of them went to the garden to avoid the other.
Sat there looking at roses and daisies all day.
But you look back on them and you know at some point they reached a stage where they were near our age, exceptions to this, of course, where their life had been lived and their focus became other things.
And it had been, by the way, because they had gone through hell when they were young.
They had faced challenges and hardships.
I'm sorry if this offends some of you, that their children and grandchildren could no more contemplate.
You and I have never been to the Great Depression.
You may talk about how the Iraq war has you all out of sorts.
You have no idea what it was like in World War II, Korea, and that sort of thing.
And the emergence social.
Don't give me UA Jimmy Carter.
We got rid of him in four years.
Back in just a second.
Ah, yes, the truth.
That's what we're known for.
You're on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Here we have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Iraqi officials, by the way, are saying that the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq was killed by a Sunni tribesman.
The chief government spokesman said that the information hasn't been confirmed.
The U.S. government's saying the same thing.
Well, U.S. government said, we'd love for it to be true, but we don't know.
We can't confirm this.
The statement by a spokesman, Ali al-Dabag, followed a welder of reports from other Iraqi officials that Abu Ayyub al-Masri has been killed.
Iraqi officials have released similar reports in the past, only to acknowledge later that they were inaccurate.
Preliminary reports said he was killed yesterday in the Taji area in a battle involving a couple of insurgent groups, possibly some tribal people who have problems with al-Qaeda.
These reports have to be confirmed.
This is the guy that succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Turns out to be true.
Obviously, things are not well with Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
This is hardly a sign of victory for them, if this is true.
Keep it sharp.
My big story, too.
What is this?
You see, the NAALCP is going to give the N-word a funeral.
Yeah, a symbolic funeral for the N-Word at their convention in July as part of its national stop campaign to end the prevalence of racist and sexist language images and concepts in the media.
Also going to push for minority hires on cable network, which means MSNBC.
Here it is.
April death toll highest of 2007 for U.S. troops.
That sort of happens when you go on offense.
Sort of happens when you kick up the action and you get into a surge.
Also, the Democrats just gleeful, told you last week, going to send this bill up to the president today.
This is the mission accomplished day.
And they hope to embarrass the president by sending it.
Let me just tell you one thing.
George Bush doesn't care when they send it up.
He's going to veto it tomorrow.
And then they all go back to work with whatever they are going to try to come up with next in order to secure defeat.
Now, I had some people over for dinner on Sunday night in preparation of this little charity thing that I did yesterday.
And one of them, one of them was, well, I wouldn't say a lib, but not quite conservative.
And the subject of the Democrats came up in Iraq.
And, of course, I get all the questions when these things happen.
What do you think is going to happen?
Income Democrats are really going to pull us out of there.
And I said, here's the dirty little secret.
And I know some of you are going to disagree with me on this, and I want you to listen to the full explanation.
Because I am here to tell you that if, I don't care who it is, if it's Mrs. Clinton, who, by the way, she's dropped her maiden name again.
She dropped Rodham from her name.
Just decided to drop it.
And the drive-by said, oh, yeah, well, whatever you want, Mrs. Clinton, we want to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Fine.
You want to be called Hillary Clinton.
I'm sure this is poll-driven.
Nothing other than pure poll-driven.
More on that as the program unfolds, by the way.
And I said, if it's Mrs. Clinton that's the next president, or if it is the Brecht girl, or if it's Obama, my guess is they will not pull us out of Iraq.
They're not going to do that.
They are going to act like it.
They're going to still engineer defeat.
Don't suggest that I've changed my mind about the Democrats owning defeat.
You don't have to be in the White House to secure defeat.
They're doing everything they can to mobilize the enemy.
They're doing everything they can to motivate the enemy.
They're doing everything to demotivate and demoralize U.S. troops.
But primarily, you have to understand everything they do is through the political prism.
And this is all about reacquiring the White House in this massive surge for power that they're trying to get.
But if that ever happens and Iraq is still going, what I'm saying is you've heard Carl Levin say it, who, by the way, got protested in Michigan.
He got protested at University of Michigan at Ann Arbor because he said, we're never going to defund the troops.
We've never done that.
We're not going to do it now.
And a couple of other Democrats have said this, too.
So what's going on now is pure show.
It's pure theatrics.
They still haven't figured out that they are the majority in Congress.
They can propose anything they want.
They can do whatever they want.
They're still, though, acting like the minority.
They just say a no to everything.
They're just running around complaining and ragging and doing all sorts of screaming like spoiled little brats.
But if they get to the White House, if they ever do, you have to think that they know what the real result would be of a massive pullout.
What they're trying to do is get Bush to either A, do it, and they know he's not going to pull out either.
So they are strictly, this is primary campaign mode, and this is keep their kook base happy time right now.
And I think there's a 60-40 chance they would not pull the troops out of Iraq.
I mean this.
I don't think they would.
They know full well what's going to happen to that region if we pull out of there.
They know they, well, Snerdley is shouting in the IFB at me what makes you think they care.
This is a gut instinct of mine.
And I admit I'm being charitable and generous with these people.
They think anybody would have to know what happened.
If we declare defeat and pull out of there, they would love for it to happen when Bush is president, but not when they're running the show.
Do you think they want defeat saddled around their necks?
No.
They don't think that defeat will be saddled around their necks if they secure it before Bush leaves office.
That's what all this legislation is about.
This legislation set up that Bush won't fund the troops.
Bush is vetoing our funding bill.
Yeah, your funding bill requires a pullout in less than a year.
Well, that doesn't matter.
He says the troops need the money and then he's vetoing us.
They're going to be set up.
They're trying to transfer total authority of the war, again, in a PR sense, a political sense, to the president.
They're trying to eliminate from anybody's memory that they all voted for it, or 80% of them did.
They're trying to eliminate from anybody's memory that they all saw the intelligence and they all knew what was going on in Iraq with Saddam and weapons of mass destruction.
They're trying to get rid of any of that from as many memories as possible and transfer this whole thing to Bush.
It's his war.
Even though they've been saying it's Bush's war for years, they want to try to affect this in a political sense as best they can.
So in their convoluted world, their way of doing things, they have just passed legislation that would, in effect, defund and bring home the troops.
They are going to tell people, and they'll have their willing accomplices in the DriveMy Media and say, no, no, no, Bush vetoed the spending bill.
We were willing to give him the $100 billion that he asked for, but he vetoed it.
And so we've got to go back to the drawing board, and they'll come up with some sort of compromise on this.
But they do not really, when it comes down to it, want defeat secured around their necks when there is no question they are in power.
They just don't.
Dingy Harry can run around all day and talk about the war is lost and so forth, but that's just aimed at George W. Bush.
That is aimed at Democrat voters.
That's keeping them interested.
He knows the Republicans aren't going to say much about it because they're not even on the playing field.
As I said last week, if the Republicans were fully functioning, they'd be running around asking every Democrat, you agree with what Senator Reed says.
The war lost.
Make them go on record.
And Chuck Schumer started circling the wagons around Reed.
Well, what he meant was that we can't win a civil war.
Did their best to cover their tracks.
When this goes too far, you always have some of the quote-unquote adults in the Democrat Party back up and try to cover the tracks of the perp.
In this case, Dingy.
Look at Broder.
Broder wrote the most scathing piece on Dingy Harry that has been written about Dingy Harry since the L.A. Times exposed his land fraud deals out in Nevada.
And what happened?
They had to circle the wagons around him on that.
You know, Broder saying it is not me saying it, or anybody from the Weekly Standard or National Review Online or even the White House saying it.
When Broder, the dean, the 80-year-old dean of D.C. columnists and pundits, says that Dingy Harry is an embarrassment and is incompetent.
You saw how they circle the wagons.
If they really, really, really wanted defeat while they are in charge and the defeat gets tagged to them, then they would have all circle of wagons around Dingy Harry and they would have really beat up Broder and so forth.
But what they're trying to do is just the opposite.
And that, I think, and I'm still getting perplexed looks of disbelief from people across the glass at me.
If they can secure this defeat with Bush in office, they'll be happy to do that.
But they will not do that when they run the show.
They will not.
They will not.
They were happy to tag defeat Nixon in Vietnam.
They're happy to make that his war and his defeat and his loss and Kissinger's and all that.
They don't want that themselves.
That's why it's important to keep hammering on the fact that right now they own it.
And in the process of trying to effect this political power change they want, they are, whether they realize it or not, helping to secure defeat.
They are motivating the enemy.
Al-Qaeda knows how to play those guys and our media like Strativarius's and they are demoralizing our troops and making them mad at the same time.
You know, if they could destroy the will to fight, which is really Sun Tzu art of war, that's one of the first things that you try to do, destroy the enemy's will to fight.
Well, we're not doing that with al-Qaeda.
We're building those guys up.
We don't even report death tolls of al-Qaeda.
We don't talk about any of their failures whatsoever.
Why, those guys are omnipotent.
They're everywhere, no matter what we do.
We kill off this latest leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
There'll be another one pop up out of the box.
And the Democrats are delivering, see, we can't stop these people.
They get them from all over the world.
We're doing the wrong thing.
Bush is to blame, started all of this.
And this is all part of the drive-bys in this country in the Democrat Party trying to destroy this nation's will to fight it, particularly among the American people.
That's where they're trying to secure it.
And if you look at the latest polls, 60%, the American people say get out or get out soon or whatever.
The Democrats think they're having success, as does the media.
So they are, we've said this before, the war in Iraq actually has two fronts.
Here is a big one, and it's every bit as big as the front in Baghdad and some of these other provinces where this war is being raged.
And al-Qaeda, Bin Laden has said this.
The American people have lost their will to fight.
They can't take casualties.
He made that observation after Mogadishu in the Black Hawk Down episode.
And who is it that's continually trying to create that same mentality among the American people?
The drive-by media, the Democrat Party.
They're making it so that if you keep pounding people with this for four or five years, you're going to, by virtue of attrition, you're going to pick a lot of people up.
Yeah, we can't win it.
Yeah, it's the wrong ward.
Yeah, it's a civil war.
We got to get out of there.
So you destroy the American public's will to see this through, and you make it even tougher on the president.
Anyway, I got to take quick time out here, folks.
Be back after this.
Don't go away.
Now, I realize some of you might be confused because you might think I'm changing my tune here on the Democrats owning defeat.
Not at all.
I'm simply talking about Iraq here and the fact that when push comes to show, I think you have to keep in mind they don't think they are in power, even though they run Congress.
They cannot pass legislation.
They cannot accomplish anything because they cannot overwrite a veto.
So in their minds, attitudinally, they are still behaving as a minority.
And a minority doesn't have to have accountability.
In fact, it cannot have accountability.
So, oh, it can say whatever they want, as Dingy Harry is doing.
If they were to win the White House, and if they were to hold on to Congress, either the House or the Senate or both, then a new reality would sweep over them, and they would know everything that happens is something that will be for which they will be held accountable.
By the way, I misidentified George Tennant's medal.
It was the Medal of Freedom, not the Medal of Honor.
Whatever.
Have you found it on eBay?
You looked and can't find it.
I thought by now his Medal of Freedom would have been for sale on eBay.
Maybe it was and it's been bought.
Anyway, don't misunderstand.
They're still pacifists and they're still not trustworthy with the U.S. National Defense.
I haven't changed anything on that.
I'm just saying, put it this way, if they happen to win the White House, the next week after, they're not pulling everybody out of Iraq, and their supporters are going to be stunned when it doesn't happen.
They are going to be, they're going to be gaga.
Now, the Democrats will talk a good game about it.
Well, you know, these withdrawals, they take planning and orderly, blah, blah.
And then a terrorist event's going to happen somewhere.
And then they'll say, well, this is premature here.
And they'll continue to blame all the chaos on Bush.
And the mess is far larger than they realized when they were simply out of power.
It's like John Kerry was asked in the campaign of 2004, what are you going to do on that?
Well, I can't tell you.
I can't give you a policy.
I don't know how much we've been lying to.
I don't know what I'm going to find there.
When I go to the Oval Office, same thing.
They'll come up with all the same semantic tricks that they've been using.
Oh, my gosh, it's worse than Bush ever let on.
We were not told a half of what's at stake in Iraq.
And blah, blah, blah.
You watch.
Now, the war on terror is another matter.
All I'm saying is they are not just going to unilaterally pull our troops out of Iraq if they're still there in the midst of hostilities where the obvious conclusion would be we lose.
They're just not going to do that.
Now, this went unnoticed at the Democrat press conference last week.
John Edwards actually said that he doesn't believe there's a global war on terror.
He was asked this question by Brian Williams.
A lot of Democrats say this privately.
And probably a lot of you, I don't know how many of you, but a lot of Americans think, what war on terror?
I mean, in fact, there's a couple of amazing pieces.
There's actually a companion piece to this.
Rosa Brooks, who I think teaches something at the University of Virginia, has a column in the Los Angeles Times.
Yeah, the 9-11 attack was bad, but they were appalling.
But those attacks don't pose the threat politicians make them out to be.
There's no war on terror.
We're going to have to get accustomed, she says, to the fact that this is the way of the world now.
We're going to have terrorist attacks all over the world.
We're not going to be able to stop them.
And Edwards, when he was asked if he thought it was a war on terror, the candidates were asked for a show of hands in that press conference.
He kept his hand down.
He says, I believe, and I think this goes to the question you asked earlier, global war on terror.
There are dangerous people or dangerous leaders that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs.
And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so these people who are sitting on the fence, terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side.
But he doesn't believe that there is a war on terror.
And of course, a number of Democrats try to remove that phrase from the defense budget authorization in the next fiscal year budget, which if it's passed on time, will go into effect on October 1.
That's something they don't believe that there's a war on terror.
Even though there are terrorist attacks, we chronicled them in our morning update yesterday of all the continued terrorist attacks, al-Qaeda-oriented around the world.
They just refuse to believe it.
Then that is not going to change.
Anyway.
Now, look at the time.
First hour is already history.
Yeah, I promise I'm going to get to some phone calls in the next hour.
But I've been gone here, folks.
I wasn't here yesterday.
A lot of things have been building up in there.
Deadly verbal buildup.
I had to get out there and get this stuff out of me.
▲
Export Selection