All Episodes
Previous Next
May 24, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:42
May 24, 2007, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying.
Just get used to it because it's it's right.
As uh as am I, I am right.
By virtue of the consensus of the American people.
I'm right.
Same thing with global warming and a consensus of scientists say that a hoax is not a hoax.
Fine.
A consensus of the American people's made me the biggest gun in radio, therefore I'm right.
Simple.
It's fun being right as often as I am, too, by the way.
800-282-2882.
If you want to be on the program, the email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
I have to repeat this to you because I did this toward the tail into the previous hour.
You might have missed it.
Bob Shrum's got a new book out, and it's it's just a soap opera about the Democrat Party.
He ran Kerry's losing campaign.
He hasn't run a winning Democrat campaign ever.
His uh memoir, as it's titled, uh, is uh No Excuses, Concessions of a Serial Campaigner.
And he's dumping all over John Edwards in this uh in this book.
And the and one of the uh one of the excerpts that I've read, Shrum recalls asking the Breck girl at the outset of the 2004 presidential campaign, what is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?
And Schrum quotes Edwards as saying, I'm not comfortable around those people.
At that point, Elizabeth said, John, you know that's wrong.
Edwards polster Harrison Hickman, who was in the room during the discussion, says that Schrum is sensationalizing and taking out of context what was an honest discussion about Edwards' lack of exposure to uh gay people and uh and the and these issues.
Uh Hickman says, I don't remember anything that expressed any kind of venom or judgment about uh about about gay people.
Now I'm gonna tell you something.
If John Edwards were a Republican, he would be off to some sort of rehab today, once this had uh appeared.
And when when Bob Schrum says that he didn't know anything about gay people, uh, was uncomfortable around gay people, John Edwards uncomfortable around gay people.
Uh he'd be he'd be either i if if Edwards were a Republican, he would either be going into rehab for a month or spending more time with his family starting this afternoon.
He he better be he better thank Lucky Stars he's a Democrat.
And this in the Washington Post, by the way, today, this uh this this uh little excerpt.
Also, this from the street.com.
The more the more we learn about this Edwards guy.
Uh why we got some sound bites of this guy.
Hang on just a second.
Uh do we want to care about this?
Uh yeah, we will, but not now.
Here's the headline, the street.com.
John Edwards stakes claim on pirate booty.
The question of the day.
Just how much of the $500 million sunken treasure found in the Atlantic last weekend belongs to John Edwards.
I put a call.
This uh story is written by Brett Arons.
I put a call into the Edwards campaign yesterday morning to find out, but I haven't heard back.
The reality, the populist one-term senator will get an undisclosed piece of the action from the sunken 17th century galleon.
The ship was laden with gold and silver found at the bottom of the Atlantic by a little known explorator exploration company, uh, Florida-based Odyssey Marine Research.
Even less well known as who owns Odyssey Marine Research.
The biggest shareholder is New York-based Fortress Investments, the hedge fund that Edwards works for.
He's out there charging 55 grand to universities to give speeches on poverty.
He said he went to the hedge fund to learn about poverty.
It turns out he's now invested a little bit in this in this uh project to find this 17th century ship.
Uh his his own personal financial disclosures show that he's an investor in the exclusive Drawbridge Global Macro Fund, which owns a 9.9% stake in Odyssey Marine Research, which is owned by the hedge fund, the Fortress uh investment group that he went to work for.
Uh so he stands to get 10% of 500 million.
Which is which is 50 million.
Fortress investor relations manager Lily Donahue didn't return a call or an email seeking information on the global macro fund.
And Fortress's stake in this is even bigger than it at first appears.
In a complex holding, it owns 3.1 million shares plus millions more in preferred stock and warrants.
Total economic interest is the equivalent of 6.98 million shares.
Profits in the last week already come to 19 million dollars.
Hey, Coco, here's the headline for the website tonight on these two stories.
Edwards gets booty says uncomfortable with gays.
Ha ha ha ha yes.
That's it right here in the headline.
John Edwards takes claim on pirate booty.
Edwards gets booty, says uncomfortable with gay.
He just doesn't like to walk the plank.
That's the subhead, Coco.
Gets booty, uncomfortable with gays, doesn't like to walk the plank.
All right.
Oh, San Francisco Chronicle.
I mentioned this yesterday, but I didn't get into uh any detail about this.
Story by Carla Maranucci, chronicle political writer.
Uh recent, this is the headline of the story.
Recent headlines threaten Edward's main campaign theme.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Headlines are the culprit here?
Headlines are going to do the bread girl.
Don't you just love the drive-by media?
Headlines.
What is his main campaign theme?
Booty.
It is the guy so focused on money.
You can't be with what else are we to conclude here?
Which is fine and dandy except when you're out there saying you're doing all this to learn about poverty.
Anyway, the story goes on to list all of his um gaffs and all of his problems of the big house and the all these all these things.
Here's a story from uh what is this?
Jerusalem Post.
Uh 70% of insurgents fighting in Iraq come from Gulf countries via Syria, where they are provided with forged passports, according to an Iraqi intelligence officer.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
I'm getting confused here.
Uh thought it was a civil war over there.
Can't be a civil war if 70% of Iraqi insurgents are coming from the uh from the Gulf states.
All right, from the newspaper.com.
Uh not quite sure what the newspaper.com is.
Our show prep knows no bounds, folks.
We'll go wherever it is and find it.
We found this.
Here's the headline.
Federal gas taxes fund seatbelt roadblocks.
Federal gas taxes fund seatbelt roadblocks.
That's how I should read this.
More than $30 million in federal gas tax funding is being spent setting up roadblocks to ticket motorists who neglect or choose not to wear a seatbelt.
You heard me right.
More than $30 million in federal gas tax dollars will be spent between now and June 3rd.
Between now and June 3rd?
They're going to spend that much to encourage local and state police to set up ticketing roadblocks under a program called Click It or Ticket.
Orchestrated by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, click it or ticket, offers a local law enforcement officer overtime pay to stop and search motorists at random locations.
Officers will then issue an expensive citation to anybody who neglects or chooses not to wear a seatbelt.
Often, officers are also able to issue.
All right, now what's the point of this?
You might be saying, why you why are you sharing uh why are you why are you sharing this with me?
Well, because we've had stories in the last couple of days that the states and the feds are crying, Wolf, oh no, we're running out of tax money for roads and highways that truck.
We might have to raise gas taxes.
Oh, that's so horrible.
In the here we are in the midst of rising gasoline prices and anger in the public over it.
The feds and the states are lamenting That they're losing money here.
And yet we find out that they are going to spend $30 million from the gas tax fund to set up roadblocks to make sure that you are wearing a seat belt.
And that $30 million.
How in the world can anybody be short of money?
This is the this is the kind of nickel and dime garbage that happens every day that eats up the money.
I mean, if this is important, why not go out and get a corporate sponsor to fund this and benefit from the publicity and the goodwill.
Why'd the government have to do all this stuff?
Catches and forces into paying them even more.
Next time you hear somebody in the federal state government say they are running out of money, remember these stories because there's no way we can be running out of money.
They're frivolously spending it.
And is stuff like this going to cause them to have to raise taxes?
I got a great email after yesterday's uh brilliant monologue performed by me on the free market that exists in gasoline and oil.
It's in Robert uh Robert uh Davidson said, dear rush, listening to your call.
Pardon me get the sniffles here, I'll fix it in a break.
Uh, listening to your caller yesterday who claimed that there is no free market in the oil industry, reminded me once again how many economic ignoramuses there are in this world.
I found myself wishing that you would challenge the caller to a homework assignment, ask him to study chapter two of Thomas Sowell's book Basic Economics, a citizen's guide to the economy, then call back to discuss it.
And I was remiss in not suggesting that.
I, among uh many people are constantly moaning and wailing about the inept economic education that's taught in this country at various levels.
And folks, if you want to have, if you want to go out, have an experience of true learning and education that will light you up, that you will you will so many things that seem mysterious and dark will become clear.
They are so simple.
This is the absolute best book that you could read to find out about basic economics.
It is called that basic economics, a citizen's guide to the economy.
It's written in real language.
It's not written in the eco speak that these economists and financial people use to keep you from knowing what they're talking about.
And no, nothing about basis points in here or any of that kind of stuff.
This is right.
I can't recommend this stronger.
Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics, a Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
I have my copy right over there.
If I'd had it in front of me, I would not have been remiss.
We'll be back.
San Francisco Chronicle today, dumping all over Nancy Pelosi.
Why Pelosi never stood a chance with the funding bill.
They refer to this as her most significant setback.
If this is the most significant setback, it means that there were others.
And the reality is that Democrats haven't done squat.
You know, the Republicans have run this commercial.
Or I haven't seen it.
Republicans have this uh 30-second TV commercial they're running against Pelosi.
And I didn't think it'd be possible.
You'd need a 30-minute commercial to chronicle all of the boondoggles that have been the Democrat House led by Nancy Pelosi.
They run a 30 second, how can you put it all in there?
What they had six things they were going to do, none of them have gotten done.
I mean, I I uh I marvel, I know brevity is the soul of wit, but there is no way you can chronicle her failures in 30 seconds.
You'd need 10 of those, 20 of those, to uh even get close.
All right, the gasoline price.
Uh today on CNN's American morning, the co-host John Roberts was interviewing Lynn Westfall, who is the chief economist at the Tesoro Corporation.
And Robert says, as we try to get to the bottom of why gasoline prices are so high in this country, critics are pointing fingers at the refining industry, which is this guy's industry, saying that you people are the ones responsible because the price of a barrel of oil isn't as high as it was a couple of years ago when gasoline prices were lower.
Are you refinery people responsible?
In a way, we're responsible in the way that it's a global market for gasoline.
We're now importing about 13% of our gasoline needs into the United States.
And those imports have to be supplied by foreign refineries who are very inefficient at making U.S. spec gasoline.
So we have to bid up the price of gasoline on the world scale to give the incentive to these very inefficient refineries to make something they weren't built to make.
And we also have to pay the price to ship the product over here.
So yes, when U.S. refineries are running at absolutely uh a hundred percent capacity and demand keeps growing, we do have to go overseas to very inefficient refineries to fill our supply-demand gap.
You hear that, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm bouncing off the call we had yesterday from the guy who said the oil companies own the product from the time it leaves the ground to the time it goes into your gas tank.
And so they're he didn't he's price fixing, it was my term.
How many of you knew that we had to import gasoline, not oil?
Everybody knows that.
How many of you knew we had to import gasoline?
We have to import um thirteen percent of our gasoline.
And guess what?
The places we're importing it from, these refineries aren't uh they aren't tooled to make all these different specs or these different grades of gasoline.
Chicago needs its own LA, California needs their own, all because of the environmentalist wackos.
So it's gonna cost more to get what we need than we got to pay to get it shipped over here.
Uh and and this guy from the refining industry is basically, yeah, it's our fault if you want to say so, but I mean, we're not allowed to build any more refineries, we're gonna buy gasoline from outside the country.
Uh, next question from John Roberts was well, we keep hearing from analysts that refineries in the U.S. are not able to keep up with demand.
Has your industry got a problem here domestically?
No, that's very correct.
Uh over the last nine months, gasoline demand has gone up at the rate of two and a half new refineries a year.
And we can't build that kind of capacity.
Uh the industry has never been able to build that kind of capacity.
So every year, if demand goes up that much, certainly we can do some things at existing refineries, and I think every refinery company is doing something at existing refineries to increase their capacity, but it's being far outpaced by demand growth.
So, in fact, we're getting more and more dependent on imports.
Of gasoline, not oil.
That's already established.
Imports of gasoline.
Now, uh why can't we build any more refineries?
Why can't we well go ask the left?
Go ask the environmentalist wackos.
I mean, that you realize what the permit process would be?
If you started a day trying to get permission, you realize the groups that would stop you and oppose you and demand this, you couldn't, you couldn't harm one sand flea in the construction process.
You couldn't display a white-tailed rat.
You couldn't do anything building the refinery.
And it the time from the time you start planning it, you go through the permit process, you pay the grease that you've got to do to get through all ten years to build a refinery.
One more uh soundbite from Mr. Lynn Westfall here from the Tesoro Corporation, John Roberts says, so what's the problem with expanding refinery capacity?
We keep hearing that there hasn't been a new refinery built uh in this country since the 70s.
We do hear about some expansion.
What are the disincentives to doing it?
Well, when you're looking at building a new refinery, uh it's a six to seven year proposition before you can get it built.
So for six to seven years, you're spending billions of dollars and getting no income.
After that, it would take even today's margins for 10 to 15 years to pay out that kind of a massive expenditure.
So to build a new refinery, you're basically asking someone to take a 20-year risk.
You're asking them to take a 20-year, and he didn't, you know, he's not going to talk about the hassles he's going to run into with the environmental.
He's not going to give himself any himself any problems doing it.
He left that out.
But that's part of this.
Uh it's it's going to be ten years.
Time you start winding your and plush, wherever you build it, you got to deal with the local government there.
You got to go to that town council or whatever they are, the city councilman.
And you know, you got to deal with those people the way you deal with the waste management people.
Uh and it's it's it's uh and so we're we're behind the eight ball here.
We haven't done it because of these very and and who's standing in the way of this, folks.
You know, we're a growing Economy progress.
Who's standing in the way of all this?
Same people standing in the way of drilling for more oil.
Democrats and the uh the American left.
So 20-year investment to make any money if we start today building a new refinery.
So it looks and sounds like we're going to be buying more gasoline from overseas.
We're going to be buying gasoline refined by uh by others.
And that's that's going to continue to put pressure on the price.
I found it interesting, the refinery guy's taking all the heat here.
Uh the refinery, this guy, he works for a uh, you know, the trade group that represents uh uh refineries, and he's taking all the heat.
He's taking all the heat off of uh off of big oil and uh all the oil companies combined, uh which is interesting.
Will the American people figure this out, hear it, learn it?
Or will they rely on the old taboo and the old cliches?
I know.
Somebody has to be.
Why not me?
All right, back to the phones.
People have been uh impatiently waiting here.
We'll go to Philadelphia.
Steve, you're up.
Nice to have you here.
Hey, Ross, pleasure to speak to you, sir.
Thank you.
Um I'm um I'm actually for this immigration bill.
At first I was against it, but after thinking about it on fork for uh two reasons.
I think uh if the Republicans don't pass this, and we get a Democrat uh president next time around and they pass an immigration bill, the Republicans are gonna pay for it because the Hispanic people will remember who made them citizens, and that is gonna hurt the Republicans for a long time.
How?
Because they're going to say the Republicans didn't do what the Democrats did, and they're going to reward the.
What if it destroys the country?
Do you still think the Republicans ought to share credit for that?
Well, that I don't think it will destroy the country.
And that brings me to my second point.
Because I think if someone has to pay, someone who's making minimum wage has to pay $5,000 and buy another ticket back somewhere.
I think that means they're somewhat self-reliant.
That they can save this money on minimum wage, so they're they're likely to be a harder worker, and maybe more likely even vote Republican.
Well, do you hear what I'm saying on that point?
Well, I understand what you're saying.
I I don't understand why you're saying it.
Uh I've but I don't I you know to to to uh discuss this with you would have to be redundant, and I assume you listen, so you know my point of view disagrees with like I don't think they're gonna pay the $5,000 fine.
I think after this thing becomes law, uh the Democrats are gonna say, well, we those fines are atrocious.
That's taking the uh food out of the mouths of starving babies.
And uh, where are they gonna come up with this?
Uh well, no, no, they'll waive that, they'll waive they'll uh they'll waive all of this.
I th there's there's not gonna be any disincentive to coming here.
Yeah.
There isn't.
So but you're looking at it purely politically.
You you think that this thing is going to pass you you're you're coming at it from the understanding that, ooh, legislation, big legislation.
And big legislation is always celebrated, and the Republicans better get their piece of it, or they're going to pay politically.
And you're not really examining the details of the program and the or the legislation and what the potential pitfalls of uh of this are.
But I mean, I understand your basic perspective.
You know you you're you you're of the school of thought that the Republicans, and they think this too, uh, will be wiped out if they are seen on the sidelines of this.
And that believe me, that is Washington think.
That's no different than thinking we got to do something, even if it's worse than what we got.
No, we've got to do a bill.
We have to get a bill.
That's how we're measured.
Do we get a bill?
Did the bill pass or did the bill go up in flames?
If it goes up in flames, oh my god, they're gonna think we're do nothing up here.
So this whole notion of do nothing Congress is what they're worried about.
And frankly, the more they do nothing, the better off we all are.
We have enough laws for crying out loud.
This is uh the media is obsessed with what goes on in the halls of Congress.
The average citizen isn't.
You know, we don't orient our lives around this notion.
Will they get the legislation passed today?
Yes, Mr. Snurdly, as program abs.
Yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
If you do nothing, it's a silent amnesty program.
Well, how about wait a s wait a sec?
No, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I understand that Sherdoff is saying if we do nothing, literally nothing, then we are conferring a silent amnesty on everybody.
Well, what we're c what's the difference?
A silent amnesty who who called here?
Well, Governor Schwarzenegger.
Governor Schwartz there, what we got?
Hidden taxes.
Well, I said, what so what my your taxes is gonna make it visible?
What's the difference?
A tax is a tax.
Amnesty's amnesty, whether it's hidden or visible.
Now, the the thing about the thing about that is those of us are saying do nothing are not saying do nothing.
Just do nothing with this bill.
Focus on border security.
Really get serious about that.
And then Churdoff also says in this story, well, some of these some of these people out there are just they're they're hoping and praying for something that isn't going to happen, and that's the deportation of 12 million people.
And of course, because we can't.
We can put a man on the moon, uh, we can get whales out of deltas and get them back to the ocean.
We can play romantic classical music for sharks, stupidly hoping that they mate.
But we can't find 12 million people and find a way.
Moving on.
I'm I was in a fine mood here.
I I really was.
Chuck in uh in Pittsburgh.
Nice to have you, sir.
How are you doing, Rush?
Uh I might put you in a fouler mood with this.
Earlier you were talking about uh terrorism.
Terrorism.
Right.
Right.
And uh I just want to mention that on August 23rd, 1996, Osama bin Laden declared war on Americans.
Yeah, but he didn't mean it then.
And sent a message to his brethren all over the world.
Yeah, but that was that was in a Clinton years.
He didn't mean it.
He doesn't mean it now.
Listen to Brett, listen to Brett Girl, the war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan.
Well, here's a quote from that uh declaration.
Terrorizing you while you're carrying arms in our land is a legitimate and morally demanded duty.
Well, it's I uh I I know that you're reminding us of this, and it's true.
I remember it.
Uh, you're reminding the audience of this so that they might take it seriously.
If they're not look it, he declares war, blows up the World Trade Center, and tries to Pentagon and then one other place.
If you still have a bunch of people who don't think that that we're at war after that, you know, giving them a um an 11-year-old quote from bin Laden isn't going to isn't gonna shake them loose.
David in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Hello, sir.
Hi, Rush.
Um I have a comment on the immigration.
I haven't changed my mind on that.
And I think that uh the American people, the outrage is a reflection and a reaction of how burdened we are with the cost of taxes and entitlement programs.
Yep, absolutely.
You nailed it.
Yeah, if there was a flat tax and private Social Security, a privatized Social Security, nobody would care.
We're uh we love immigrants, we love all people.
Most most conservatives I know uh never speak ill uh of can of immigration.
It's the inequity behind this uh this move of uh of socialized slavery that's you know infected our country since the the new raw deal, actually.
So you know a kinder and general approach would be to uh treat everyone fair, including the new immigrants.
Well, that's that's exactly right.
The people like the people live in California think it's lost.
California from a from a Republican political standpoint, California is lost.
We used to run California, used to own it.
If you want a little microcosm of what the what what this this legislation might mean to Republicans nationwide, take a look at California.
We've lost it, folks.
It's permanent Democrat.
Permanent Democrat.
Well, permanent is you know, for a while, who knows anything can change uh down the road.
But that's exactly when I go out there and talk to people about it.
It is the pressure.
You know, they know they're being forced to pay for hospital visits and health care and education for illegals and their kids.
Uh and they resent the hell out of it.
It's only going to get worse.
Um other thing, this I I want to the what business is it with Cherdoff?
Because you snerdily, you've you th you wave your hand in there.
Well, Churtoff says doing nobody's talking about doing nothing.
So this is a problem that the people in Washington have.
If you oppose this bill, they tell everybody else that we who oppose it want to do nothing.
And that's we want to fix it.
We do not want to make it worse.
We do not want to expand the status quo.
We do not want amnesty.
But again, it all boils down and reverts back to this notion that we can't fix anything without legislation.
Well, For crying out loud, what good is new?
All the new legislation is a whole bunch of new laws.
And what we're doing with these new laws is saying the current laws don't work.
What's magic about the new ones?
If we're not going to enforce these, why are we going to enforce tomorrow's new laws?
It's not about it's just about so politicians can parade around the Fourth of July picnics.
We got the bill done.
You can count on me.
I got the legislation through.
We made that bill happen.
And they think, Wow, wow, my guy got that bill done.
Oh, I'm so happy my guy got the bill in.
The American people don't run around and think about is the bill done or not.
I all the social occasions I go out on, I never hear anybody talking about I hope they get the bill done.
I mean, issues like this they do, but I mean, this is as as a matter of interest.
The American people are not following the intricacies of legislation and basing their happiness on whether or not the bill gets done.
We're gonna have a bill.
But these people in Washington, inside the beltway, that's all they think about.
So when you come out and you say, well, doing nothing is blind to amnesty.
Nobody's talking about doing nothing.
I mean, you don't really, all we'd have to do is enforce the current law.
Enforce the current law.
There's not even I mean, that's what I take from Chertoff's comment.
He's not even willing to do that.
So if he's not going to willingly be willing to enforce this law, why enforce the next one with those $5,000?
And that's such a smoke screen anyway.
There aren't going to be any $5,000 fines or payments.
Check out the Z Visa.
See if you see it in there.
Don't be fooled by this.
A little global warming news, ladies and gentlemen.
Both hemispheres of the world are reporting unusual cold and snow.
Can I share some headlines with you?
Colorado Mountains under Memorial Day snow advisory, up to eight inches expected.
Denver had one of the snowiest winters on record.
California seawater temperatures unusually cold.
Families stranded in Oregon snow found okay.
Highways closed, motorists stranded as snow buries China.
A taste of winter freezing rain, snow hits parts of Canada.
Heavy snow forecast for Wyoming Mountains.
Winter arrives early as Australia's snow season off to promising start.
South Africa sets 54 cold weather records as snow and ice continue.
First snow in parts of South Africa in 33 years leaves poor out in cold.
Cold causes power cuts in Pretoria.
Twenty-one killed as South African cold snap persists.
Homeless bear the brunt of the South African big chill.
Cold affects South African vegetable trade.
It's freezing out there.
I saw that forecast for Colorado, the mountains, over the Memorial Day weekend.
From the Cape Town Times in South Africa, the icy weather of snow, hail, and heavy rain that has swept across South Africa over the past few days has set 54 weather records.
Twenty-one dead in South African cold snap.
What global warming?
Oh, by the way, New York Times today's story, a bunch of idiot scientists out there saying that they've gone back.
They've gone back, they've studied all kinds of stuff thousands of years, and they've found, you know what, folks?
They've found that some of the worst hurricanes happened when sea surface temperatures were cold.
Yeah, the rising sea surface temperatures are not an indication of the sole factor in the number of storms or their violence.
Now why would they put that out?
Assuming it's true, and of course these are scientists infallible, so it is true.
Well, they're putting it out because everything's tied to global warming.
One way or the other.
So even if the sea surface temperatures are not as hot this year as everybody expects, doesn't mean anything.
Global warming is their culprit.
And we can still have killer hurricanes.
You could still die is the point of that.
Gene in Evansville, Indiana.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi, Rash.
Thanks for having me on your show.
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir, you've about any time.
Um I just wanted to make a comment on something I saw in C-Span earlier.
There was a congressman from California that was responding to one of the liberals about their constant um plack about failure in Iraq.
And um he said the Democrats have two words in their vocabulary, failure and loss.
He said their lexicon doesn't include any any victory plans at all.
Who was this Republican?
Uh it was um Dan.
His last name split my mind.
I apologize.
Is it a U.S. Congressman or California Congressman?
Uh U.S. Congressman from California.
Well, uh can't remember his name.
One thing for sure he'll never be back on CNN if he uh if he said that.
Accusing a Democrat of not wanting victory.
You can do that on this show.
You don't do that on CNN.
All right, some John Edwards sound bites uh in order.
This is yesterday afternoon on CNN, the situation room with Wolf Blitz.
Uh and Wolf plays a quote from President Bush at the Coast Guard commencement, in which the president said the enemy in Vietnam had neither the intent nor the capability to strike our homeland.
The enemy in Iraq does.
Bletcher then said to the Bret girl, what do you say to the Senator President?
I say the President has used this term that he uses over and over global war on terror as a political slogan.
He uses it to justify everything he does.
Guantanamo, the ongoing presence in Iraq, spying on Americans.
He uses it to bludgeon people who who disagree with him, who dissent and speak out in this democracy against him.
And he doesn't deal with the fact that he's completely devastated our military, both men and women and equipment during the course of this war at Iraq made us more vulnerable.
And on top of that, he's done incredible damage to the America's moral authority in the world.
Well, I mean, I'm telling you, this is right out of the handbook, and this is dangerous.
This this this um this is this is there aren't too many gray cells at work here, folks.
This is this is an empty suit.
This is nothing but cliched platitudes that represent no thought whatsoever.
Now let's go to his bumper sticker comment.
This is the Council on Foreign Relations speech yesterday.
Whether about manipulating threat levels leading up to the elections or by deeming opponents weak on terror.
They've shown no hesitation whatsoever.
Wait a second, stop the tape.
What do you mean we wait a minute?
What do you mean we go on terror?
You just got through saying the night before that there isn't a war on terror.
What do you mean we c on terror?
Anyway, here's the rest of it.
To divide.
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics.
It is not a strategy to make America safe.
It's a bumper sticker, not a plan.
It has damaged our alliances and it's weakened our standing in the world.
That's not a bumper sticker.
That's a bumper sticker.
But let's go back, shall we?
October 2001.
On the Fox News Channel, I think Edwards was on with uh with O'Reilly.
And the question when this war widens and it will, and Saddam Hussein comes into play, and maybe Libya, maybe Syria, maybe the Sudan, maybe even Iraq, when all this comes into play, are we going to be united as we are now?
I think that we will be united with the president throughout this war on terrorism.
Why we just hear him call we we just used the phrase war on terrorism.
It's October 2001.
He just used the phrase war on terror.
He's out there using bumper sticker slogans.
Rudy Giuliani heard about this in a campaign trail in uh New Hampshire and said this.
When you go so far as to suggest that the global war on terror is a bumper sticker or slogan, it kind of makes the point that I've been making over and over again that the Democrats, or at least some of them are in denial.
It's worse than that, Rudy.
And they're not in denial.
They are attempting to rewrite history, and they are securing defeat.
They own it.
Uh this is uh this is uh more of Giuliani uh from the campaign trail in New Hampshire yesterday.
Maybe the zeal to criticize President Bush is so great that it means he's kind of cloud out reality.
But that's that that's kind of dangerous.
I mean, this this global war on terror is going on, whether John Edwards recognizes it or not.
And then finally, Mrs. Clinton was asked in a campaign trail uh reporters you vote you fund the war Without a plan to bring the troops home.
Today we're talking about this very important immigration issue.
There'll be time to talk about that later.
Whoa, she's ducking the whole thing.
She ducked the whole question of the Democrats surrendering to surrender.
Retreating to retreat.
Um, you gotta keep these people talking, especially the Bret girl.
You just I mean I'm gonna take a break.
Otherwise, I'll insult.
Now look, folks, get this $5,000 fine that the illegals have to pay out of your head.
That's only if they choose citizenship.
And they don't have to choose citizenship because the minute the bills signed into law, they are legal.
They don't have to become citizens, and that's why they don't have to pay the $5,000.
▲
Export Selection