All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
June 18, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
For those of you who are with me in hour number one, we do have an update.
We had a caller to the program who shilled incessantly for Jimmy Carter's book.
There's been an impact.
It has now moved up to 42,347 on the Amazon list.
That's eleven points higher than it was prior to her call.
Not of this hour.
Anyone want to hear any political news?
I have some.
It's not an election year, we're dying with politics.
All right, I won't do much.
There's an interesting story in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend.
The latest poll on immigration.
And it shows that this issue is just a minefield for the Republicans.
That's probably stating the obvious.
All the Republicans have managed to do by getting involved in immigration is make everyone unhappy.
Many members of their base are unhappy.
You've got Trent Lott.
We've got to do something about talk radio.
Okay, get rid of us.
Who do you guys think you're going to have left carrying your water on anything else?
You're going to do rely on Time Magazine.
So they've managed to hack off a lot of people, including some people who might thought they were doing the right thing in immigration.
Now they're going to bring the issue back this week.
We're going to try to work out a deal.
The Democrats who control the Senate said, okay, we'll bring it back, we'll try to look at amendments, maybe increase some funding for Gordon Security, see if we can't get something passed.
This is just going to inflame the debate again.
On the one hand, President Bush has stuck his neck out on this issue.
And there are no political points to be gained by trying to fix anything in America right now.
Bush tried to fix fix Social Security.
Where did it get him?
Nowhere.
In that instance, he was right and was abandoned by moderates in his own party.
On this issue, he's being abandoned by conservatives in his own party.
So there's nothing to be gained by this.
Secondly, now that we've teed up the issue, if nothing gets done, and I don't think anything will get done, I think it's possible they'll pass a bill to the Senate, but they'll never get one through the House.
If nothing gets done, next year, Democrats are simply going to use this issue and run against the Republicans on them, particularly in Hispanic communities.
The Republicans wouldn't deliver any immigration reform.
Those racist Republicans captive to their right wing, they couldn't deliver elect us.
We can solve things.
If a bill is somehow passed, the Republicans will get all the blame for it from the people who are unhappy about it.
That's reality, but it's an absurd reality.
The Democrats run the Congress.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives is Nancy Pelosi, and she is not a Republican.
The majority leader of the Senate is Harry Reid, and he is a Democrat.
The Democrats have managed somehow to turn this into a Republican bill and a Republican issue, even though nothing, nothing can pass through either house of the Congress without Democratic votes.
The Democrats have the votes right now to pass an immigration bill, if not a single Republican votes for it.
They can get this done on their own.
Yet, as the Wall Street Journal piece pointed out, more Republicans seem to have a problem with the bill than do Democrats.
And more Republicans are up in arms over the bill than our Democrats.
Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said they strongly were favored requiring all immigrants to apply to become citizens and to learn English.
That is not a position that many on the left are willing to take.
I'm not going to get into immigration in any great depth.
In fact, I'm going to drop it right now and perhaps deal with it at some future point.
But politically, it's a non-winner for the Republicans specifically.
Bringing it up in the first place is doing nothing but hacking off people on no sides.
The thing that bothers me about it is the Democrats get a free pass on this.
Nobody's angry, no one on the right, no one on my side seems angry with them for this.
Who is it that you think is putting in these provisions that some call amnesty.
It's a Democrats.
Republicans are trying to make a deal because they want more border security and they're willing to give up the other.
The Democrats get a total pass, and if this thing blows up, when you get the backlash from the other side, they're going to blame the Republicans for that.
I would hope that those who do want a loosening of immigration laws who do want reform understand which party controls the Congress and which party could have given it to them.
Another interesting poll here, this one from USA Today Gallup.
Hillary is sprinting back to her big lead over Obama.
Had been down to a single point in the last USA Today Gallup poll, now up to 13 points.
39 to 26.
If Al Gore is included, things get a lot tighter.
John Edwards third at 13%.
Now most other polls had showed, have shown Hillary with a fairly healthy lead over Obama.
The USA Today Gallup poll, the most recent one was the only one that had really shown that it was tightening much, and now it's showing that Hillary is back in front.
I still believe at some point that Obama is going to pass her up, because I don't think most Democrats like Hillary Clinton all that much.
Los Angeles Times conducted an online poll last week.
Now, those aren't scientific.
Just means that people who are online and want to click on something could click on it.
They did it in connection with a couple of their political stories.
Who do you support for the Republican nomination?
Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?
presentation.
While those surveys aren't scientific, I do think they reveal which candidates have the most passionate supporters.
You may not have a lot of them, but have the most passionate supporters, and that's important in these primary fights because it's the people who are passionate that trudge off to things like the Iowa caucuses and this summer's Iowa Straw Poll and the primaries in these small states, they're the people who are willing to go down to the headquarters and make phone calls, they're the people who are willing to knock on the doors and do all of the legwork that helps you win in these early primary states.
On the Republican side, Fred Thompson was leading, not surprisingly, a couple of the more conservative candidates that are more on the fringe in terms of the overall thing.
Ron Paul did well again, showing deep commitment of support.
McCain was nowhere.
Very few Republicans passionately support John McCain.
But on the Democratic side, Hillary was way, way down.
I mean, Bill Richardson did well, Obama did well, so did a few others.
Now, to ch to punch in your vote on an online poll and another story is something that most people don't do.
If you ever read anything online now, there's always a survey that the news organizations conducting with it.
The people who would do that are people who feel fairly strongly.
And every time you tap into Democrats and ask, Well, who do you really like?
They never say, I really like Hillary.
She's there almost by default, and it's the reason I think she's eventually going to be toppled.
In the meantime, a couple of recent polls ask Americans, which party would you like to see win the presidency next year?
And let's be honest about this.
The Democrats are cleaning up.
In those polls, it's the numbers are like 51 to 37, some ludicrous landslide margin that more people say they want a Democrat to win the White House in 2008.
The impact of this is that conservatives and Republicans are almost despondent.
Everybody is writing off 2008, it's going to be a disaster.
The war is unpopular, there's fatigue, President Bush is unpopular.
The Democrats are on an ascendancy.
Maybe this is just their period.
Everybody's writing it off.
That's silly.
First of all, it's a year and a half away, and politically, a lot of things change in a year and a half.
You may recall that in 1991, the first president Bush had popularity ratings still in the 70s.
He had that huge bump after the first Gulf War, ruined everything by breaking the No Taxes Pledge, but in the interim, he had enormous numbers.
And he was considered to be almost a lack for re-election.
You know what?
Things can change.
There's another poll out, LA Times Bloomberg, that shows that if you actually put names in there rather than party, instead of saying, you want the next president to be a Democrat or do you want the next president to be a Republican?
Well, they actually use names of real live candidates, like, for example, the name Hillary Rodham Clinton, she loses one-on-one matchups to most of the Republican contenders.
When people vote in 08, they're not going to vote for Democrat or Republican.
They're going to vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is and whomever the Republican nominee is.
While people may think that they want a Democrat, one thing we're seeing from these polls is that they don't want the Democrats that are right now running.
Same thing is happening with Obama.
He's losing a lot of these one-on-one matchups.
As for the popularity of President Bush or lack there, where is Bush right now?
Around 35%.
Some terrible number.
The only thing lower in the popularity ratings than Bush is Congress.
Who runs that?
That's the Democrats.
The poll ratings, the approval ratings for Democrats in Congress are lower than they are for President Bush.
I don't see where we're seeing it.
I don't think we're seeing any great flocking over to the Democratic Party here.
There is unpopularity for a number of reasons with President Bush.
He's even soft in his own party right now, with the base angry with him on a number of issues.
To presume that that's going to mean anything for 2008, I think is just wrong.
And if you do what a caller earlier, the program say you need to dig deeper.
If you do dig a little deeper in these pools, you see that individual Republicans are preferred over individual Democrats.
It's working that way with Giuliani, who cleans up against Hillary Clinton, and it's working that way with Fred Thompson, who would beat most of the Democratic contenders when you match them up one-on-one.
One other point on this.
Don't underestimate how easy it's going to be to run against the do nothing Democratic Congress that has no agenda other than to bash Bush and try to obstruct what President Bush is doing.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling, sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Rush is on a golfing vacation this week.
So you got me.
The last time I was here, I threw a name out at you, and I said you'd be hearing more about it.
Well, we're starting to hear a lot more about it.
The name is Tony Rezco.
And he's somebody who's very close to Barack Obama.
Normally, in order to run for president, you have to go through an inspection process.
It's really a meat grinder.
You're scrutinized by everyone.
The media has pre-checked you.
The moment that somebody's name is mentioned as a potential candidate for president, the political operatives of both parties start digging into the background.
The media starts looking into who the person is.
There are whispers exchanged about the things the person has done in the past.
None of that has happened with Barack Obama.
He's emerged onto the scene in no time, started muttering about running for president, and enraptured media immediately, put him on the cover of all of the magazines.
His campaign appearances are attended by enormous groups of people.
Hayes described as eloquent.
All of the things that you all know about the coverage of Barack Obama has gone on.
What has not happened is the normal scrutiny that you would give a candidate for president.
I covered politics in Illinois for five years.
Anyone who comes out of the Illinois Democratic Party, I'm telling you, you'd better at least take a look.
It's almost impossible to emerge from the Illinois Democratic Party without having to take nine showers.
It's just the way it is down there.
And you're finally beginning to see some attention given to Barack Obama's political patron, fundraiser, and close buddy, Tony Rezco.
Tony Rezco has been close to Barack Obama for ten years.
As I speak right now, Tony Rezco is under federal indictment in Illinois, accused of massive fraud.
What he is is a businessman and a political fundraiser.
He's a guy who has been described as quote collecting politicians.
He befriends them, puts on fundraisers for them, gets close to them.
Obama has consistently denied ever having done any favors for Tony Rezco.
He's been saying this for months.
Every time the media is questioned about it, I've never done any favors for Tony Rezco.
He's an acquaintance, he's a friend, but I've never done any favors for him.
Two weeks ago, the Chicago Sun Times uncovered records that indicated that Barack Obama went to bat for Tony Rezco nine years ago when he was seeking development funds for a senior citizen housing project.
That story a day later showed up in the New York Times on page one, by the way, which I thought was rather telling.
It's the first time I've seen any national news organization really look into anything having to do with Obama and Rezco.
So we now know at least once a political favor was done for Tony Rezco by Barack Obama.
And the New York Times picked up on it.
Now where do you think that story came from?
You don't think that the Clintons might be digging into Barack Obama's past?
Well, today there's another story.
Once again, Chicago Sun Times.
For months, Obama has been saying, look, I never accepted that much money from him.
It was about $50,000 over my entire career, about $50,000 over my entire career.
I've got to stress to you, he's been saying this for months.
Every time he's questioned about his relationship, first he was saying I never did any favors for him.
Well, it was only about $50,000.
The story today in the Chicago Sun Times, can I give websites out here?
Yes, Suntimes.com if you want to find it.
Tony Rezco has given Barack Obama three times that.
The Chicago Sun Times says the number is about 168,000, and that doesn't even count the money that Rezco raised for him.
That's merely the contributions that can be traced directly to Rezco, the money that he raised at fundraisers where he brought in other people for Obama, that number is even higher.
So now we have a second case in which what Barack Obama said about Tony Rezco is not matched by the facts.
Now perhaps this is just a memory lapse.
If this were scooter libby, that would mean you'd have to go to prison.
Perhaps Obama just had to was is completely off about how much money he got from Rezco.
And perhaps he forgot the fact that he did do a political favor for him.
But remember also, and this is the thing that I brought up when I did the show the last time I was here.
A couple of years ago, the same week that Barack Obama bought his home.
The lot right next door was bought by Tony Rezco.
The lot that Rezco bought had no house on it.
The lot that Obama bought had a house on it.
Originally it was one lot, but the seller agreed to divide it into two pieces of property.
The part with the house on it and the part without the house on it.
Rezcoe buys the part without the house on it and doesn't pay much less than Obama pays for the part that has the house on it.
In the intervening couple of years, Rezcoe has never built on his piece of the property.
So what happened here is Barack Obama just happened to buy a house right next to an empty lot purchased the very same week by Tony Rezco, who's given him $168,000 over 10 years.
Tony Rezco, who is now under federal indictment.
Rezcoe somehow manages to pay almost as much as Obama paid, even though Obama got a house and now happens to have an empty lot next to him, meaning he doesn't have to worry about having a neighbor.
He essentially has a lot twice as large as he would otherwise have.
There may be a lot here, and my advice to the Democrats, not that I want to help them out, is you might want to look a little bit more deeply into just how sainted Barack Obama really is.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Time to talk about the war.
The surge is actually just starting now.
Now, I'm not sold on our current policy in Iraq.
Not sold on it.
The problem that I have is that President Bush has not made it clear to me what victory is.
He keeps trying to enunciate it, but I haven't picked up on what he is defining as victory.
And if I can't get it, somebody who wants to support the policy, I certainly understand why most Americans aren't getting it.
For me, the goal in Iraq ought to be stability, that that government survives.
It can't be that there's no violence or no crime, because if that's the goal we're setting, it's one we can't achieve in our own country.
We've got a lot of violence and crime here.
The goal has to be that the government is essentially stabilized, that while people may start trouble, and there may be violence, and there may be terror, that it doesn't really threaten the overall government.
In my mind, that is the best case scenario that we can achieve over there.
That's the best that can happen.
President Bush has been talking about winning in Iraq and defeating the terrorists in Iraq, and I really don't know what that means because I don't think they're ever going to go away.
They're always going to be there, and they are certainly threatened at the notion that there might be a democracy in that nation.
I would be willing to accept in Iraq that isn't quite as based on democracy as we have right now, if it means that the government is friendly to the United States and is not a haven for terrorists, but rather an enemy of terrorists.
So I'm not all that particular about the details, so long as the end result is one that's favorable to the United States.
With regard to the surge, I've said in the past, sitting behind the golden microphone, that I wasn't sold on the notion of the surge because I didn't understand what President Bush was trying to accomplish by it.
We're now seeing a new phase of this surge, and I think it's the first real sign of a changed policy over there.
A lot of the troops, particularly the new troops that were brought in, are now out in the suburbs of Baghdad, the areas surrounding the city, where they believe Al Qaeda has been holed up.
First of all, they don't seem to be targeting Shiites who are committing violence against Sunnis.
They also don't seem to be targeting Sunni Iraqis.
They're targeting Al Qaeda.
They believe that Al Qaeda is the principal problem there, that you may have Shiites who don't like Sunnis and Sunnis who don't like Shiites, but that Al Qaeda is the one that's trying to inflame the entire thing to literally light the match that gets the whole thing to blow up.
Well, what's been happening is Al Qaeda sneaks into Baghdad, they commit a few terrorist acts, and they run back out to the suburbs that they're holed up in.
Our policy to this point has been to try to preserve security in Baghdad.
And indeed, that is where most of the violence has occurred.
The flaw in it is that that isn't where the individuals causing the violence are based.
So you've got a lot of troops, and I mean a lot of troops.
Now in these suburban regions of Baghdad, hunting down Al Qaeda and trying to kill terrorists.
We're beginning to see some signs at least that that is starting to work.
Democrats are arguing, yeah, there hasn't been a reduction, though, in any of the violence.
Well, that's true, but do you know why that is?
It's because we're starting some of it.
For we are finally on the offensive in Iraq and taking this fight to the people who are causing trouble.
Yeah, I guess that if we go into an Al Qaeda strong and start shooting, that you can classify that as violence.
But it's the kind of violence that needs to be occurring.
This isn't always the bad guys starting it.
We're beginning to see an offensive action now by the American military.
In the meantime, General Petraeus, who I like, he has a very difficult job.
And the war that he is fighting is one in which we've got an ally that isn't a hundred percent on our side.
Many of them are determined to kill one another.
General Petraeus went on one of the Sunday shows, I think it was Fox News Sunday, and said, Look, this is going to take a long time.
We may be here for years.
I'm willing to accept that if there are results that are being achieved.
What I object to, what I object to are these clowns, politically motivated clowns in both the media and the Democratic Party, who have already declared the surge to be a failure.
I'm speaking as somebody who is a skeptic myself.
Harry Reid comes out and announces that the surge is already a failure.
We've barely even seen a change in policy because of the surge.
How does he know it's a failure?
How does he know what it's going to be?
But most of all, why is he saying that?
He's saying that for political reasons because he doesn't want it to succeed.
And that's the really important point.
They don't want it to succeed.
Democrats always object when conservatives like myself question their patriotism.
That's their fallback for everything.
Whenever you question their stance on any foreign policy or internal security matter, whether it's the terrorism act or the war, they're questioning my patriotism.
Well, whatever you want to call it, they are not rooting for us to win.
Declaring that the surge is a failure before we've even implemented most of the policies associated with the surge can do nothing but weaken the chances for success.
They're lusting for this thing to fail.
They've not only not given it any benefit of the doubt saying, well, let's see what happens, they are declaring it to be a loser strategy.
When the fact of the matter is no one really knows whether or not this change in strategy will work or not, including me.
I do believe, however, the decision to stop being essentially a police force and run around Baghdad with targets on our soldiers' backs, and instead being proactive and going after the terrorists, not just in Baghdad, but wherever they are, is a sound one.
The skeptic in me worries, okay, they root them out of these suburbs, they'll just go base somewhere else, and we've got to chase them there, and we're going to be spending the next ten years simply chasing them down.
If that's the case, maybe it is a viable military mission.
If it results in a non-terror-based Iraq and a stable Iraq, maybe it is worth it.
The key in all of this is going to be whether or not the majority of Iraqis, despite the attempts to overthrow their government from Al Qaeda, despite the attempts by Shiites to use their clout to engage in payback against Sunnis, despite the fact that the Sunnis don't seem to accept the Shi'ite government, that the majority of Iraqis say we support this government and we support this progress process.
I'm not sure if they will or they won't.
What's happening in Palestine makes you very skeptical about whether or not democracy can work in an Islamic Arab nation.
I don't know if they will accept that.
That is the key.
But it does seem to me that the policy that we are embarking on now is the one that would give that the best chance of success.
It is also absolutely wrong for any American politician at this very early stage of the new policy to be getting up and saying that it's a failure.
You'd only be saying that if that's what you want it to be.
And if you want it to bail uh to fail, what is that saying about you?
Let's go to the phones 1 800 2828 82 is the number on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Gary in Lexington, Kentucky, it's your turn.
Hi, Mark.
It's nice to talk to you.
Thank you.
Listen, I was trying to figure out how you don't know what the what the goal is in Iraq.
I I mean I live in flyover country and I I know what they're trying to do.
They're trying to build up the Iraqi police and military in such a way that uh the uh multinational forces can stand down a little bit at a time.
I read it on their on their website all the time about stuff that's happening and how they're how the uh Iraqi forces are working with the United States.
Yeah, no, but President Bush the problem I have, Gary is that President Bush talks about victory, but I don't know how you can define victory in that context.
See, I believe there's already been a victory.
The pre the previous government was overthrown and there is a new government in place.
What you are right now trying to do is preserve this government.
I mean, that's like suggesting that every day that our own country is an overthrown has been a victory.
I I I think that by calling for victory, rather than saying that we're trying to help this government remain in place and simply leave it at that, has been confusing for a lot of people because this it's like the end of the Sopranos.
The people who didn't like the end of the Sopranos are people who wanted closure.
They wanted something to be defined.
Well, it may well be that this is never really over.
Just as many other problems are never really over, but we can only manage it and manage it in such a way that is in our own best interest.
That's my point that I wish the president would that I wish the president would say that.
The point though that I make about the surge is there is a very good chance that this is going to advance stability for that government.
And I would think that politicians in this country who want to be called patriotic would be rooting for that rather than rooting against it and would look at it objectively and be open to the notion that maybe this thing is beginning to show signs of progress.
That's because they have an agenda of their own, and it and we have to ignore that in order to find out what was you have to ignore that for what's really happening in Iraq.
That's true, but I also think that agenda needs to be exposed.
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, for what they are for what they are and what they're trying to do, that that doesn't stop what's actually happening over there.
I mean, I see where where parts of Iraq are are being turned over to uh uh the the Iraqi security forces, and that that's never touted, of course, in the mainstream media.
Uh but uh but yet it's happening, and I never hear anyone ever talking about all the all the time.
Right.
I I agree with that, but I also don't want to be the bluebird of happiness because the fact of the matter is there are problems over there.
Some of them are very real and depress you when you see Shiites and Sunnis wanting to engage in all this payback and showing not much ability to work together.
But the big problem is that we've got imports coming in from the outside Al Qaeda.
They are terrorists and they want that government to fall because they want to have Iraq be one giant terror paradise.
That's what they want.
And that's the thing that ought to be our top priority to prevent.
Whether this government with these particular leaders, whether Malachi is the guy or somebody else remains in power, is far less important to me than we defeat the terrorists on this in the and that particular goal.
That's what ought to be critical, and if the surge helps us achieve that, then I'm willing to go along with it.
What I'm bothered by are people who are running around for pompous political this is failed, this proves that Bush has mismanaged the war.
That's nothing but a campaign statement.
It has nothing to do with what kind of policy our country should be pursuing over there.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
A lot of Americans have simply tuned out the war.
They just want it to be over.
They're tired of it.
They're suffering from their own form of battle fatigue.
The problem is is that this war is a result of things that were brought unto us.
We didn't create, as much as a lot of people want to blame us for it, we didn't create the threat of terror.
We didn't invent that.
It's there though and it's real.
9 11 wasn't an aberration.
Well, it was still a unique event in the United States.
It's part and parcel of a strategy that's been played out throughout the Middle East and throughout Europe of using terror in an attempt in an attempt to achieve political goals.
And every day the technology advances makes the potential for a very, very awful attack greater.
That's what's at stake in Iraq.
This is not to say we can't ever leave.
If our point, if our purpose there is simply a waste of time, if we're achieving nothing, then we've got to look at leaving.
If the threat is no longer real in Iraq, then we can leave.
In the interim, this is the fight that we happen to have.
And while a lot of people have tuned it out, those who actually have an interest in learning what is going on need to know that there's been a major offensive that was started at the end of last week by American forces using the many new troops that have been brought in going into the areas around Baghdad, going after this group that calls itself either Al Qaeda in Iraq or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
It's the offshoot of Al Qaeda.
They are the ones that are responsible for a good percentage of the attacks, including the bombing of the Shiite shrine in, I believe Samara.
We are now going after them out where they are.
The problem I have had with our policy to this point is that we have been in a defensive policing mode.
Rather than an offensive war type mode.
While the first aspect of the war was over, the second war is being brought by terrorists.
And rather than sit back and try to control violence, what you need to do is go out and get them.
I think this particular strategy has a far greater chance of success than the old one.
And I'm willing to at least have an open mind as to whether or not it is working, and we'll consider the evidence as it goes forward.
Poughkeepsie New York and Tim, Tim, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, uh, I just want to say I do agree with you that it's going to come down to a management issue.
Um, but the thing is is if it's a global war on terror, then it's it's much like the United States war on drugs.
It's it's it's insurmountable in that fact that terrorism will never go away.
So it has to be a management issue in Iraq as far as just the terrorism there and keeping the state stable.
Well, I think a lot of people want to pretend that it could somehow go away if we waved a magic wand.
But you're right, I don't think it's going to go away, but it certainly can be controlled.
We have not, for example, had a major terror attack in the United States since 9 11.
I don't think that's by accident.
It's been because of specific policies.
With regard to Iraq, the notion of that country being what Afghanistan was to them in the past is terrible.
It's just terrifying.
We cannot allow it to happen.
And the way to get there is something that's open to debate.
What I object to are politicians who stand up and start declaring this latest strategy as a failure before we see what it is.
It's not patriotic, it's not supportive of the troops, and it's done solely because they want to weaken President Bush to help set the stage for the next election.
And if that's their number one priority rather than what happens in Iraq and what's in the interest of the United States of America, you tell me what word is supposed to apply.
I know which word they recoil at, but you tell me what it ought to be then.
Thank you for the call.
My name is Mark Gelling.
I'm in for Rush.
Mark Belling's sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Uh, General Patreus, as I mentioned, was on uh Fox News Sunday yesterday, and his comments were really frank.
They said uh he was asked by Chris Wallace, 30,000 troops that you have.
Do you think that they'll do the job by September and will begin to be able to draw troops down for Trius?
No, I do not.
No, I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do.
He went on to say that there are many, many challenges would not be resolved in a year or even two years.
Similar counterinsurgency operations like Northern Ireland have gone on at least nine or ten.
So he's certainly preparing us for a long slog.
I think it would be a mistake to tie all of our hopes to this current government in Iraq.
I don't care who that government is, so long as it is not one that is friendly to terror.
If the Iraqi people want to have a different form, we ought to accept that.
We simply can't accept Al Qaeda running that country.
▲
Export Selection