All Episodes
Previous Next
May 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
May 2, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hi, folks.
How are you?
Greetings.
Great to have you with us.
Broadcast excellence the next three hours exclusively for you here on the EIB network.
Others will hear about this when websites distort what is said on this program.
And a warning for you websites, lots to distort for you today.
And to take out of context, it's a big day out there.
This is the EIB network.
I'm Rush Limbaugh, and this is the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, as you hear about this poor guy, the uh CEO of British petroleum.
Uh Lord John Brown, an aggressive but mannerly British magnate who transformed British petroleum into one of the most successful global companies, resigned abruptly yesterday after losing a court battle with a London tabloid over disclosure of his sexual relationship with a younger man.
In one of the most humiliating come downs in British business life, Mr. Brown acknowledged offering an untruthful account to a court about the circumstances under which he had met the man, a former companion at the height of his powers.
Lord Brown had been knighted in 1998.
Prime Minister Blair made him a life peer in 2001.
A token of the close relationship between the company and the uh and the prime minister.
Now uh apparently this guy had a had a little uh uh tryst with another man and and uh lied about it and it got it got uh reported and so forth.
And I folks, I'm I'm gonna tell you, I I I don't think this can be true.
I I I think I think enemies of Lord Brown have totally made this up.
How in the world can this possibly be true?
It couldn't have happened.
I mean, no one ever loses his job because of lying under oath uh in a civil case.
It's especially about sex.
Is it just about sex?
Didn't affect his job, didn't affect the way he performed his job at all.
Who whoever loses their job because of lying under oath in a civil case?
I mean, certainly not for lying under oath about sex in civil litigation.
Everybody lies under oath about sex.
I mean, everybody's supposed to lie.
You got to protect your family, you gotta protect your company, got to protect the country, you gotta protect the you have to lie.
It's what we were all told.
So this can't be true.
This this there's something uh something up.
And by the way, I do have a question, and I mean this, because you know I have compassion.
I'm sitting here with lots of compassion, especially today, and I have a question for gay rights groups uh out there.
What when are you guys gonna start yelling BS at guys like Lord Brown and Jim McGreevy?
They get caught putting boyfriends on the payroll, then they claim that uh uh that that this was their truth or their private life.
In other words, being gay has somehow made them corrupt.
These guys are all saying that being gay made them corrupt, and that's what and and it's like McCain saying dollars make politicians corrupt.
You know, and when are you gay activists gonna rise up in righteous indignation at this slur every time this happens?
Uh being gay, it turns out to be some sort of uh of uh uh corrupting influence and becomes the excuse.
As you know, we're going to Detroit uh tomorrow.
We'll not be here behind the golden EIB microphone.
Who's gonna be here tomorrow?
Is it uh Roger Hedgecock will be here tomorrow.
I've got to go to Detroit.
We're um, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, brand new sponsored General Motors.
In fact, they brought by what totally unexpected.
General Motors brought by a car yesterday, and we're gonna have it for about a month, and we're all gonna drive it here.
Uh, and it's uh it's one of these crossover cars.
Uh it it it's a combo SUV station wagons, a V6, and Snerdly won the lottery.
He gets to drive it this week.
He took it out of here last night, put it through its paces.
He came back raving about it.
I got a little demo in it before snurdily drove off in it.
Uh and uh they they it it's uh it's got a great navigation system.
It's uh it's got, I guess, version system seven of uh of OnStar.
And uh, you know, they honestly you can do anything you want with OnStar, but what one of the things that you can do is uh if you you can't use the nav system when you're driving.
Safety feature, you have to put it in park.
So if you're driving around out there and you're lost and you don't want to put it in park, simply call the OnStar operator.
I need to go to X such and such an address.
And they download it to the car.
And it displays on the uh, and they don't talk you through it.
It downloads the directions to the car, displays in a dashboard display, complete with audio.
Turn by turn, gets you to where you need to go.
But just a fabulous looking car.
It's black at black interior.
And I guess Snerdley was stunned.
You know, Snerdley uh is one of these uh uh people that is hard to please and doesn't believe a bunch of hype, and he came in raving about it today.
Anyway, we're gonna meet with the GM people to meet with Bob Lutz tomorrow, who is in charge of uh future projects.
Uh Bob Lutz goes to the annual cigar dinner now and then.
And I'm gonna see some of the future cars that General Motors has planned.
They're gonna do that.
I'm gonna go by see our people at Quick and Loans.
And then tomorrow night, uh big sold-out show.
Probably if they got a bigger place, they sold it out.
This uh 2500 people, they sold it out 30 minutes about a month ago uh for our affiliate there, WJR, and and coincidentally this morning, Paul W. Smith, uh frequent guest host on this program, had on his program Barack Obama.
And he had to ask Barack Obama about Barack the Magic Negro.
And he did, he did.
We've got the audio coming out.
He set it up.
He uh it's not on it's not on the uh the little bite that we have, but he's he told Obama the roots of this.
LA Times article by David Arenstein, black man wrote the piece, Magic Negro and so forth.
And then he said to Obama, after setting it up that way, he said, I do uh I have to do this because uh Rush is on our radio station.
We're gonna see him tomorrow.
You've heard the parody song Barack the Magic Negro.
I you know, I I have not heard it, but I've heard of it.
I I confess that I I don't listen to Russia on a daily basis.
Uh on the other hand, I'm not one of these people who uh who takes myself so seriously that uh I get offended by uh every every comment made about me.
Uh you know, the uh you know what Rush does is uh uh entertainment.
And uh although it's it's probably not something that uh you know I listen to much.
Uh I don't know.
But you said not every day, so you do listen a little then.
Uh you know, why wouldn't you?
I don't mind I don't mind folks uh poking fun at me.
Uh that's part of the job.
Barack Obama that's right, Barack Obama laughed it off.
He doesn't he he he he he uh uh laughed it off.
He said, I did I'm an entertainer does it being made fun of, poking fun at uh him.
That's uh that's part of the job.
Snurdley's looking at me with mouth wide open in a gape.
What do you not believe about this?
Well Yeah, he's but but uh there's look look, we don't need to belabor this.
Uh uh but but th there's a reason for the there there's a reason he's laughing it off.
A, it's funny, B, the roots of it are the Los Angeles Times.
C, there's there's there's nothing to accomplish by doing something other than this.
And it I don't want to go into it any further, but this is a class way to deal with it.
This is the way he should have dealt with it.
If any well, I'm sure it's the first time he's probably been asked about it.
But this is the way for these guys to deal with it.
Blow it off, laugh it off.
No big deal.
Um very, very now, he didn't react that way, we know when Maureen Dowd wrote about his ears.
When Maureen Dowd, well, we have that bite, and I think this to show you how he's maturing uh in in the campaign.
He is an experienced in this foxhole.
But well, let's go to Soundbite uh number four.
This is back in uh December, December 10th last year in New Hampshire.
And he held a press conference, and he made a beeline right after the press conference, straight to uh uh Maureen Down Modo of the uh New York Times and had this exchange with him.
I just want to put you on notice.
I'm very sensitive about what I told him, was I was pleased relentlessly when I was a kid about my beings.
I don't know, could you hear that very well?
What what what Obama said was look, I I I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears, and Maureen said, We're just trying to toughen you up.
Now it sounded like Helen Thomas, but it was uh Maureen Dowd.
Uh the voices of those two are distinct.
Uh but uh so he is he's he's matured quite a bit.
And I want to thank Paul W. Smith for sending this along and asking uh asking Obama the question.
Now, when we come back, we're gonna get started with all this Iraq stuff, because boy, did I nail it yesterday.
Did I the Democrats are proving me exactly right in telling you what they're gonna do and say before they do and say it?
And I even have the transcript here formerly Nicotine Stainfingers of a commentary that Ted Coppel, my friend, gave on NPR, in which he warns the Democrats, he says that what are they gonna do if we're still in Iraq and they win the White House.
He thinks they're totally misplaying this right now.
Uh it's uh you know, I'll share you excerpts of that.
Lots coming up on the program today.
Hillary Clinton and the way she uses private jets to get around campaign appearances, big story, exclusive in the uh in the New York Post today.
We'll have some comments on the uh the the fizzled out immigration rallies yesterday.
So and your phone calls as well at 800-282-2882.
So don't go anywhere, sit tight.
We'll be back before you know it.
One other thing, for some of you nervous Nellies out there.
We've been talking about this uh uh Barack Obama soundbite with Paul W. Smith, and as I told you, Paul W. Smith told him before he aired before he asked the question what he thinks of the uh parody, Barack the Magic Negro.
He gave him the source of it.
It was this L.A. Times piece.
Uh but what I think that Barack Obama knows is uh is that what that parody for people who listen to this program in in a continuous fashion, do it in in a in a contextual way.
People, and I Obama knows this.
I have railed against the liberals out there who are trying to say he's not black enough.
The LA Times has run three such pieces, two of them devoted uh expressly to that topic.
Is Obama black enough?
The U.K. Times did one uh late last week.
They have uh been three of those.
And then of course you had the magic Nero Negro story.
I've I've just I think that parody doesn't make fun of Obama at all.
A parody, all it does is make fun of the left, and that's what all of these parodies do.
That's what everything that we do on this program does.
It has an element of truth in it, which makes it funny, but it's also it's also oriented toward making a point.
Uh we've always called it illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
There's nothing more absurd than a bunch of Democrats out there wringing their hands, liberal media types over whether or not some candidate is black enough while they're shouting racist, racist, racist at every conservative they know.
And it's not conservatives talking about Barack's skin color until they do, and then we parody it, and then they call us racist.
Well, it doesn't wash, and Obama knows it.
Uh you got these knee-jerk liberals out there that that uh these nervous nellies that they're just waiting for anything to pounce and they do, and they get it wrong each and every time they do.
So there was there's nothing of substance here to criticize.
There's only you ought to be critical of it if you're panicked, or if you are uh uh uh reactionary and don't know what you're talking about, which describes much of the left.
Right, let's move on.
The president vetoed the Iraq surrender bill, 6'10 last night, uh, chose the timing to make sure he was on some newscast in the Eastern and Central time zones.
Uh here's a portion of what he said.
The bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq.
I believe setting a deadline for withdrawal would demoralize the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments.
Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible.
Another portion of the President's remarks after he vetoed the Democrats' Iraq surrender bill.
After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms on which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy.
That means Americans' commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops.
Can anybody say Vietnam?
I mean, the Democrats keep harping on uh we got another Vietnam going in Iraq, and they they author a bill in which they determine when the troops can fire, how they can fire, where they can fire, uh what circumstances they can uh return fire, but it's very patently absurd the thing was asking for a veto.
The bill was begging for a veto, especially with all of the uh the pork in it.
Now, the president interesting did not use the word pork.
This is how he described it.
The bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non-emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror.
Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits and not as a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.
Now that's very eloquently stated.
But I think if he would have put the word pork in there, it would have connected with uh with people.
Not a major criticism.
Uh you know, we just think about words and their communicative power.
Uh but as usual, he has high respect for the office, very deep reverence, and uh doesn't want to sully it.
That's why he doesn't get partisan very often.
It's why he doesn't uh uh attack Democrats in a partisan way, which also shuts down other Republicans from doing so because he's the top, and if he's not gonna do it, they're not gonna engage in it.
Let's move on to the Democrat response.
So one of the things I told you yesterday that the Democrats trying to do with this is get this war out of their hands.
They have tried to lie after lie after lie.
I've got a little monologue coming up on this.
Lie after lie after lie.
There are so many lies that have been told about this war that and for so long now that so many people believe the lies are true.
The Democrats have succeeded now in large measure in convincing a majority of Americans that they were tricked.
Faulty intelligence, it was ginned up and cooked, and that Bush lied, and there was never any reason to go to Iraq in terms of the war on terror.
And that after four years of a daily pummeling of that kind of thing, just like four years of daily pummeling of how we're losing and nothing's being done uh in in in Iraq that's making progress, you're gonna have just by virtue of the daily pounding, you have people the resistance gonna break down, they're finally, eh, all right, fine, that's true.
Um so the Democrats, in addition now to convincing everybody that um, well, their votes were were obtained under trickery.
They were deceived.
These brilliant, brilliant Democrats were deceived by this idiot cowboy.
They are asking us to believe that this dunce, George W. Bush, how they characterize him frat boy is dunce, this barbecue expert from Texas blah blah just outmaneuvered them and tricked them, these good, honest, decent Democrats.
Why it was just it was it was just a breathtaking thing to watch how how these guys got tricked.
And now, since he lied to them and he tricked them, so goes the tale.
Uh they finally they taken the the war off of their hands and they've given it totally back.
It is Bush's war.
And I told you yesterday that that's what this was about.
Because they're still trying to engineer defeat, and they want to make it sure that they've got this thing.
He vetoed it, and they're gonna out there, they're be they're out there saying, and their buddies in the press are out there saying Bush voted against funding.
Bush doesn't support the troops.
Bush is the one.
And that was that's their tactic here.
And they know that they've got cover in the uh in the drive-by press.
Here is Dingy Harry after the president addressed the nation.
The President refused to sign this bill.
That's his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly on this war.
If the president thinks by vetoing this bill, he'll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq.
He is mistaken.
Next up is the speakerette, Nancy Pelosi.
She says that Bush disrespected their bill.
We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that a bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people, deserved.
Instead, the president vetoed the bill outright.
And frankly, misrepresented what this legislation does.
The president wants a blank check.
But Congress is not going to give it to him.
We have some comments on all this.
I just want to get the sound bites in and out of the way.
Last Friday, I want to go back.
South Carolina at Jim Clyburn's annual fish fry.
Uh Senator Biden, Democrat Delaware, was mingling with audience members, an unidentified audience member said, when the president vetoes the bill, what's going to be the next version of the bill that you will send him?
"The idea that we're not building these new, some people, these things, it's just crap man.
Just to die, you don't have to die.
The second day I'm gonna do another one is gonna go home." Could you read that you understand?
Okay, I only read that.
That's internet quality, and again, somebody probably refor recorded it on uh cheap uh cell phone.
Uh but what he said was the idea that we're not building these new Humvees with a V-shaped thing is just crap, man.
Kids are dying.
Don't have to die.
And the second thing is we're gonna shove it down his throat.
And then later on Meet the Press on Sunday, Biden was talking about the lack of civility that exists in uh American culture today.
Here's Barbara Boxer Whining about Bush's macho veto on the Senate floor yesterday.
Doesn't this president understand it's time for a change?
Doesn't he listen to the voters?
Send me the bill.
I'm gonna veto it.
Very macho-like.
I don't think it's macho like.
I think it's just wrong.
Yeah, you you you people need to be happy.
Exactly what you want has happened.
Because now you're gonna be able to go out and say this is Bush's war.
Bush owns it entirely.
You Democrats voted to get out, but the president wouldn't follow your estimable advice.
The president disrespected you, he's out there acting too macho.
Uh and I'll I'll prove this whole thing I said yesterday about the press, willing accomplices of the Democrats.
Well, now turn as this is totally Bush's war.
It's not even really new.
They've been calling it Bush's war for a while, but now it's official in the intersectum of DC liberalism back in a sec.
You see where uh well-known communist sympathizer Joan Baez was refused permission to sing for the troops at Walter Reed Army Hospital.
She can't figure out why.
She can't figure it out.
Why wouldn't the troops want her to show up at Walter Reed?
Greetings, welcome back.
El Rushbow.
I said yesterday, this is about Bush's war.
This this whole piece of legislation that the president vetoed was about getting the Democrats now totally off the hook, and they, in their minds, now have no accountability for what even when we lose.
Everything is gonna be Bush's fault, and they think they can make the case via this legislation that he vetoed yesterday.
Yesterday on MSNBC, the anchorette Mika Brzezinski, I think she's the daughter of Zabigniev Brzezinski, uh, talked to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter.
And uh Mika Bzhinski said it it took the Democrats 94 votes over six years to end the funding for the Vietnam War.
My question to you is do you think history will repeat itself?
The Congress today is not ready to cut off funding yet, but it is sending other signals, putting down markers that say this is Bush's war, it's not our war.
They know that right now polls show the public is with the Congress and not the president.
Oh, there you have just I want to play that bite for you just to illustrate.
That uh that's that was in a game plan.
I mean, that Alder, they didn't come up with this.
This is a product of a strategic recession that happened long ago in uh putting all this together.
Now moving on, Wesley Clark, affectionately known here as Ashley Wilkes, uh, was on Fox and Friends this morning.
And the sports guy Brian Kilmead said, uh, how would uh how how would Wesley Clark uh do all this?
You have to have diplomatic strategy, a political strategy and a military strategy.
And you have to be able to talk to Iraq's neighbors.
Right, right.
Administration has basically played this as a war.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's emphasized the military component.
Yeah, it is.
And we're still fighting about troops and tactics when what we really ought to be fighting about is strategy.
The administration's calling it a war.
They don't even think it's a war.
There is no war.
John Edwards has said it.
Now Wesley Clark, Ashley Wilkes is saying it.
Do I know these people or do I know that you don't even need to leave spend any time watching the media?
And I don't either.
I know what they're gonna do before they do it.
And I'm gonna tell you what they do, and you can make book on the fact that that I'm right.
This is so much psychobabble.
Well, you have to have a diplomatic strategy, you've got to have political strategy, you don't have a military strategy.
You have to be able to talk to Iraq's neighbors and say, I mean, the administration basically played this as a war.
Played this as a war.
And now, yesterday, I said to you in a quite provocative uh monologue based on the email I received, that the dirty little secret is that the Democrats are not gonna leave Iraq if we're still there and they win the White House.
They're not gonna get out of there.
They're not gonna have defeat hung around their necks.
That isn't gonna happen.
They'll be glad to do that when Bush is in the White House, but they're not gonna have that happen to them.
They're not going to do it.
And they're in a between a rock and a hard place on this.
Here is Senator Kerry last night with Wolf Blitzer, who said, why not simply stop the funding for the war, put a specific hard timeline, get the votes and bring the troops home as a result of that?
I don't think it's that simple.
I think every one of us has an understanding of the complexity Of the region and the dangers in the region.
We're not trying to be irresponsible.
Even under our plan, we maintain some troops regionally in order to buffer against Iran and continue the process of prosecuting Al Qaeda.
Really?
So they're going to keep troops in the region to make sure that Iran doesn't move in there and take over, and the only place the troops can prevent that is in Iraq.
They're not going to take them out of there, folks.
And here, you know, the press and all these liberal kooks out there getting all jazzed up about that.
They're going to bring them home.
They're finally going to bring them home.
And now you've got Kerry saying it.
You've had Carl Levin saying a number of other Democrats, we're not going to bring them out of there.
Especially if they win.
If they win, the White House ain't gonna happen.
I'm just telling you.
Now, you just heard you just heard Kerry, who by the way, uh served in Vietnam, uh, say that they need troops in that region to buffer against Iran and continue the process of prosecuting Al Qaeda.
Let's go to Hardball last night.
Chris Matthews talking to uh I I actually I want to say this as politely as I can, but I'm wondering about the constitution and quality of the brain cells remaining, those that remain functioning in the mind of Jack Mertha.
Well, you listen to these two bites and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Chris Matthews said, hey, General Petraeus says that we're fighting the Central Front against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Is that true?
That's absolutely not true.
That's an exaggeration.
That's Petraeus saying that.
That's Petraus saying these comments that General Petrez made are absolutely inaccurate, according to the intelligence we have.
Well, but he never produces any.
He never produces any intel.
So Petraeus, what do you think is exaggerating?
We're supposed to listen to Mertha.
Carey just said, well, we got to process, uh, prosecute Al Qaeda over there.
Now, Matthews, he's getting all excited at this now.
You know, the s the spittle starts coming out of both corners of his mouth.
Well, why wouldn't Petraeus tell the truth?
Why is he blaming it all on Al Qaeda?
The people who blew up the World Trade Center.
Why is he doing that?
This whole whole war, ever since I diverted the attention away from where Al Qaeda started, uh the Taliban in Afghanistan and the war in Afghanistan where we should have stayed ever since that time, uh, they but they've been trying to tie this into terrorism.
All of us know uh there's uh there's uh terrorism all over the world.
But he's not a but Congressman, he's not a PR man, he's not a flack for the White House.
He's a general in the field.
Why would he be a minute?
You're saying he's singing the song of the ideologues.
I'm saying he came back here at the White House's request to purely make uh political statements.
That's what I'm saying.
There's no question in my mind about it.
So the White House told Petraeus to lie, and Petraeus is out there lying, and Jack Mirtha knows the truth.
Petraeus is lying about.
By the way, uh, Congress, we're still in Afghanistan.
We killed 125 Taliban uh earlier this week or over the weekend.
They haven't seen that in the drive-by media because you you never see stories about the uh enemy deaths, but um we whacked a whole bunch of them.
We're still in Afghanistan.
Uh we didn't leave Afghanistan to go to Iraq.
We got the tenant book.
We know that Al Qaeda was there prior to 9-11.
Nobody has ever asserted that Al Qaeda was uh uh in in cahoots with uh with Saddam when it comes to 9-11.
But that that's just one of the many myths and lies that have uh been steadily broadcast for four years now, and the American people uh have lost the resistance factor necessary to resist it, because you get barraged daily with this.
It goebels or goring whoever it was said that keep pounding the lie, people will believe it.
Now, this Ted Coppel piece, uh National Public Radio aired yesterday.
Democrats, especially their presidential candidates, are painting themselves into a corner.
Their determination to force an early troop withdrawal from Iraq may put the men in harmony with the majority of American public opinion, but what are they gonna do if they win the White House and the bulk of American forces are still at Iraq?
This is not an unlikely scenario.
This may be a particularly awkward day for President Bush receiving that tainted military spending bill on the fourth anniversary of his mission accomplished moment, but if the Democrats think that they're even close to accomplishing their mission, they have another thing coming.
The president has no particular incentive to begin substantive troop withdrawals, while conditions in Iraq remain this uncertain.
There is, first of all, the very real danger that Iraq's civil war will spill over to the rest of the Persian Gulf, interrupting the flow of oil and natural gas.
If anything is gonna have a disastrous impact on the U.S. economy, that would.
Both for purely political reasons, the president will also be inclined to keep significant forces in Iraq until the end of his term.
If he withdraws all or even a majority of those troops while he's still in office, what happens next in Iraq and throughout the region can be placed directly at his feet.
That's exactly what the Democrats are trying to do.
It's exactly what I told you yesterday.
If, on the other hand, the Democrats win the White House and most U.S. troops are still in Iraq, what do they do?
Well, we addressed this yesterday.
They will stay.
Coppel says, do the Democrats keep them in place?
If they do, they validate the Bush policy, and they've broken their commitment to the American public.
If they pull them out, and suddenly the Democrats are responsible then for the chaos that ensues.
There are really U.S. interests at stake in the creation of a relatively stable Iraq rights Koppel.
And if the Democrats pull those troops out of there, they are the ones responsible for the chaos that ensues.
Exactly what I told you yesterday.
This is why they're not going to pull the troops out of there, and Bush isn't going to pull them out of there before his terms expired.
So the Democrats are painting themselves into a corner.
It's like every almost every bit of legislation the liberals come up with.
It's got uh an immediate feel-good aspect to it, but all of the unintended consequences down the road are never even considered.
Uh they just they just do this stuff for the feel-good of the moment, and they don't, and and Coppel's right, they have painted themselves into a huge corner.
He says, even from the purely partisan point of view, the Democrats are making a mistake.
They should depoliticize the Iraq issue, if anything.
They should publicly hope for the success of the president's policies.
If he wins, we all win.
We don't want either our friends or our enemies in Iraq calculating their strategies on the premise of a divided and weakened America.
Three cheers for Ted Coppel here.
I know it's a little late where it.
Well, point that the point, well, I know he's using the we here, but what he has written is not what the Democrats, the Democrats cannot all of a sudden depoliticize this.
It's the reason they think they won the election.
And they're wrong, but it's the reason they think they won the election in November.
They can't depoliticize it, and they can't come back off the cliff now and join the chorus for victory.
They own defeat.
Particularly now with that piece of legislation they set up that the president vetoed.
They own it.
So Ted's wish here is a pipe dream.
And he concludes with this.
It bears repeating if George Bush doesn't secede Iraq, succeed in Iraq, and the Democrats win the White House in 2008.
Guess who inherits a problem?
And you know how this works.
After a few months, it'll be their war.
And if they have any strategy beyond simply pulling the troops out, wouldn't this be a useful time to put aside politics and start talking about it?
This is Ted Koppel, is how we uh ended it.
Uh uh.
I mean, I we we addressed so much of this stuff yesterday.
That's why it's great to see this here today.
Uh actually it aired yesterday morning on uh NPR.
And I just got the transcript of it uh today.
But I I'm I'm I'm s frank, I'm still you don't see this.
You don't hear this kind of uh analysis in a drive-by media, but he nailed it.
They're in trouble.
That's what I was trying to tell you yesterday.
There, and they can't afford to pull out, they're not gonna have defeat saddled around their shoulders and around their neck, and they can't come out and articulate a plan for victory because they've already said, and Dingy Harry said it, we're we've lost.
We've already lost.
That this white, folks, you gotta be patient, and you have to trust me.
They are sowing the seeds of their eventual landslide defeat.
I keep I keep qualifying this.
It may not be in 2008.
But I'm telling you, this is this is this is we this is the kind of thing they win in 2008, could give us the equivalent of four years of Jimmy Carter.
Which Jimmy Carter led to their landslide defeat.
McGovern set him up with Nixon in between.
Quick timeout, we'll be back and continue in just a second.
And we are back.
I got a question.
Folks, how how can you um lose a war that you're not even in?
You have John Edwards, the Breck Girl saying there's no war.
You just we just played the soundbite of uh of Ashley Wilkes saying uh the no war here.
There we and Dingy Harry's out saying we've lost the war.
How do you lose a war you're not in?
And the point is the Democrats are st are changing their verbiage, their their talking points consistently.
Bush is not.
His talking points are consistent.
The Democrats change them consistently.
Snerdley, still a holdout, still thinks that I'm nuts.
And he said I thought about it all night.
But he thinks I'm nuts when I say the Democrats, if they win the White House in 08, we're still in Iraq, as we will be.
He thinks there's no way they can't pull out.
That'd be the biggest act of political suicide in the world, Snerdley thinks.
And he told me there'd be riots in the streets just like 1968 again.
I said, yes.
That's what I'm talking about.
That's what Coppels point.
They're painting themselves into a corner here.
They they've done this to themselves.
And by the way, those riots in the streets in 68 were at the Democrat convention, and it was a Republican that quote unquote ended the war.
The Democrats never pulled us out of there.
They didn't pull us out of there.
They kept escalating it.
First JFK, then LBJ, and then when Johnson said, when uh when uh Cronkite said we've lost, John says, Hell, I can't even win the war.
I can't even win re-election.
I'm going back to Texas.
Sip some uh mint julepes there with Lady Bird.
And of course, then Nixon comes along, peace with honor.
Well, Nick Kissinger's uh flitting off to China, setting up uh the the grand strategy there.
That's that that this is my whole point.
They they're they're they've and they box themselves in here that if they don't pull out, they there is gonna be hell to pay in their party.
But they're not going here.
Look, dirty little secret.
Despite the rhetoric from these people, and this is gonna anger you even further if you already think I'm off my rocker.
But the dirty little secret is that there are some adults in the Democrat Party who fully well understand their party is headed down a suicide hole, and that suicide hole would be closed up on them, and they'd lose their air to breathe if they pull out of a rock in the midst of defeat.
They would love for Bush to surrender.
You can't forget they would love to lose.
Don't don't don't misunderstand.
I'm not saying that that they have uh given up on their idea of owning defeat.
They just don't want to own it themselves.
They want to transfer it.
They want Bush to surrender so that they don't have to surrender.
And they won't surrender when the time comes.
There'd be big arguments, there may be riots in the streets.
But that's what I mean.
They are sowing the seeds of their eventual demise somewhere down the road uh with all of this.
I mean, Democrats keep talking about uh that the election expressed the will of the people and their and their and their uh piece of legislation the president vetoed yesterday, expressed the will of the people.
Well, if that was the case, why did they need 24 billion dollars in pork to buy votes from Congress?
They needed 24 billion dollars to pass this legislation.
They needed pork in this bill to get the votes on the Democrat side for this legislation.
Now, where is the will of people here?
There isn't any will of the people.
President Bush did not veto a military spending bill.
He vetoed a lose the war bill.
He vetoed a 24 billion dollar bribes for support bill.
Dingy Harry, Harry Reed keeps saying, we are expressing the will of the people.
We are again expressing the will of the people.
We are expressing the will of the people again.
Uh and I respond not with your host's words, but Al Gore's words, he lied, he lied to the American people.
I I want to see a poll where the American people want to lose the war.
I want to see that poll.
That poll does not exist.
The American people do not want to lose.
The American people do not want defeat.
And the Democrats are essentially trying to say that that's what they do want, and they're doing it with polls.
And what are polls, but the opinions of uninformed non-experts on issues who then, because they say it become experts.
So, you know, it this polling is is an intricate part of the uh strategy.
I want to see the poll where the American people want 24 billion dollars in bribes for Democrats in Congress to support the troops.
I want to see that poll.
So uh Dingy Harry, Speaker Pelosi, if if you are expressing the will of the people, why do you need 24 billion dollars in bribes to get the votes you needed to pass your little bill?
As uh as Joe Biden says, uh tell the truth to the American people.
Quick timeout.
Sit tight, we'll be right back.
Democrat congressional approval at real clear politics right now.
Thirty-six percent.
How in the world can that be speaking for the American people?
Well, it can't.
And they aren't.
There weren't any anti-war protests yesterday, just a bunch of uh illegal immigrants out there raising hell.
▲
Export Selection