Rush Limbaugh Program - July 25, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 25, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:06

July 25, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The views expressed by the host on this program are correct.
	As judged by a consensus of the American people, this is the largest broadcast media audience.
	Talk radio for certain, including many on cable TV as well.
	And as such, more Americans listening to this show than any other show.
	There is a consensus that I am correct.
	Of course, there are rush deniers out there, but they are uh sickles.
	Greetings 800-282-2882.
	If you want to be on the program, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we face a serious problem out there, a near crisis, and we need your help.
	Our country is uh facing at this moment a dangerous shortage.
	You know, I try to be optimistic, but that doesn't mean I abandon reality.
	We face a scarcity that is slowing down your government.
	It is driving up costs, and it is threatening our federal budget.
	And the shortage that I refer to is of subpoena forms.
	The problem has been traced to Washington, D.C., the new Congress has apparently issued every subpoena that there is in that town.
	Available supplies are being uh spirited away from cities and towns across the land in order to accommodate this massive new need for subpoenas in Washington, D.C. The shortage of subpoenas is so serious that it's threatening the National Subpoena Reserve.
	Uh you may not know that we have a national subpoena reserve, but we do, and it's threatening that reserve.
	Um if you or your attorney uh planning a subpoena, you may be forced to wait until after the next election.
	Uh because there may not be any subpoena forms.
	If if if you have any blank subpoena forms in your attic, uh, please get them and federal expect uh federal express them to Henry Waxman, Washington, D.C., and Patrick Leahy, Washington, D.C., if you have blank subpoena forms and you don't send them to Washington to cover the shortage, you might be subpoenaed.
	Thank you.
	And God bless America.
	We care here at the EIB network, and that is evidence.
	You know, folks, I am constantly amazed.
	Constantly amazed at liberal talking points and how easily they are accepted by other liberals and uh independents and people who uh you know pay scant attention.
	Here are but three liberal talking points.
	Our country has to pull together.
	That's number one.
	Country has to pull together.
	Number two, we have to end all this White House secrecy.
	We just have to.
	And number three, we need to get Osama bin Laden.
	These are three liberal talking points accepted by other liberals, promulgated by the drive-by media.
	And what's the liberal answer to these three liberal talking points?
	Hillary.
	Hillary Rodham Clinton is the answer to our country has to pull together, we have to end White House secrecy, we need to get Osama bin Laden.
	Okay, well, let's take these one by one.
	Our country has to pull together.
	Yes, we're so divided, don't you know?
	There's so much vital partisanship out there.
	It's reached an all-time high, and we've got to do something about it.
	We have to pull together.
	Hillary Clinton is gonna do this.
	She is the most polarizing man or woman in politics.
	Rather than unite this country, she would pull us further apart.
	That's the reality.
	Number two, we must end White House secrecy.
	Uh Hillary Clinton is going to accomplish this.
	I mean, you don't have to be from Rio Linda to realize that the poster boy and girl for White House secrecy were Bill and Hillary Clinton.
	How long did it take us to find out who hired Craig Livingstone?
	500 FBI files they managed to uh to procure.
	And yet we're gonna we're gonna end White House secrecy with Hillary Clinton and Bill lurking around there as well.
	Number three of these talking points we have to pull together.
	We must end White House secrecy.
	Number three, we've got to get Osama bin Laden.
	Let me ask you a question.
	If Bill And Hillary Clinton did not get Osama bin Laden for eight years in the 1990s.
	What makes you think that she will get him in her third term?
	I mean, we have all this.
	We got to get Osama.
	We got to get Osama.
	And of course, Hillary's going to solve this.
	Hillary's going to solve all these.
	They had their chance.
	Three times Osama was presented to them.
	And they said, we don't have legal authority here.
	I don't want to mess with this because if it blows up my face, I mean, ha ha ha, my approval rate is going to go south.
	I can't handle that.
	I need a legacy.
	The Senate panel, a Senate panel, is nearing a vote, ladies and gentlemen, on a proposal to put tobacco under FDA regulation, despite objections that such a move would only entrench the market position of the nation's number one tobacco company.
	The bill, which was expected to be approved Wednesday by the Senate Health Committee and is identical to House legislation, would give the FDA the same authority over cigarettes and other tobacco products that the regulatory agency now has over drugs, over food, over medical devices, and other consumer products.
	Specifically, it would let the FDA regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components of tobacco products.
	The bill has broad bipartisan support.
	Though some Republican lawmakers believe it'll do nothing to stop people from smoking, President Bush, the FDA Commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Essenbach, and Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Levitt oppose the uh legislation.
	Now, Philip Morris makes Marlborough the nation's biggest selling brand.
	They support the bill.
	Philip Morris supports it.
	R.J. Reynolds and others oppose it, saying it would help cement Philip Morris as the market leader.
	So they want to this is because we want to take the amount of nicotine out of there because there's nicotine that's addictive.
	You can take the amount of nicotine out there, it's going to sell more cigarettes.
	That's what Philip Morris knows.
	You know, what's you know, you know what's you can't sue the No, you can't sue the government.
	No, you can't sue the government no matter what.
	No matter what.
	You can't sue the government over drugs that they recommend or approve that uh that uh end up having problems.
	You sue the manufacturer, even though the government's approved it.
	You know that.
	No, no, no.
	Look at here's the thing.
	They want to put tobacco under FDA control.
	They want to regulate it.
	Just ban the stuff.
	If it's this deadly, just get rid of it.
	Of course they can't.
	Tax revenue, health care for children would suffer.
	And then a companion story.
	Um thing about tobacco, I'm sitting here thinking, what what regulations are there that are already not on that product?
	Well, they could invent some new ones.
	All right.
	Uh former FDA head says agency cannot handle tobacco.
	The U.S. Food and Drug Administration not prepared to take on tobacco regulation, although a Senate committee is pushing to give the agency that power.
	This comes from the former commission, Dr. Mark McClellan.
	I think there's some potential for regulation of tobacco.
	I'm a little bit nervous about putting it in the FDA.
	Uh currently the tobacco industry very lightly regulated with me laugh.
	If that's lightly regulated, oh, let's see.
	Uh, very lightly regulated with the Department of Agriculture, the FTC, and the Department of Health and Human Services having some input, but no overall control over what goes into cigarettes.
	Well, that's a it's an agricultural product.
	You better give them overall control about what goes into a tangerine.
	Uh Senator Kennedy has introduced a bill that would allow the FDA to restrict tobacco advertising, prevent cigarette sales to minor.
	I thought we already had that.
	Mandate stronger warning.
	Redundancy.
	We have all of this and order removal of dangerous ingredients from uh from cigarettes.
	But McClellan, who was appointed by uh President Bush earlier in his term, said the FDA doesn't have any staff that's used to thinking about how do you make an unsafe product relatively more okay, then then shove it off to the consumer product safety committee.
	Shove it off to OSHA.
	We got we got endless agencies that would love to get their mitts on this product and regulate it.
	Quick timeout.
	We've got lots more straight ahead.
	All right, we are back.
	I am Rush Limbaugh.
	Uh Utilizing half my brain, uh other half tied behind my back, just to make it fair.
	All right, here's here's here's a story for the Wall Street Journal today.
	Um it isn't every day that you can observe in broad daylight Congressional Democrats mugging state budgets to benefit special interests, but that's precisely what's happening in a provision of the farm bill now making its way through Congress at the behest of the association of federal, state, county, and municipal employees, a union, uh huge public employees union.
	House Democrats are pushing a measure that would undermine state efforts to improve food stamp and welfare programs across the country.
	It's been sponsored by California Democrat Joe Bacca.
	And this uh provision effectively bans the states from working with private companies to improve the administration of these benefits.
	The the the unions this is all payback, by the way.
	This is a Democrats paying back their special interests for all the campaign contributions and the votes in last November's election.
	And so what's happening here, the public employees unions want uh uh this legislation that blocks the states from finding more economical ways of delivering welfare services by contracting work out to private enterprise.
	Never mind that it works better and saves money.
	The unions don't want it, and they're obedient little followers in Congress are glad to go along.
	Um word like this ever hit the drive-by media, Congress approval numbers would plummet even further.
	Who's next?
	Where are we going to on the phones here?
	We're going to uh Detroit.
	This is Lisa Lisa, welcome to the EIB network.
	Hello, Rush.
	I'm a relatively new listener.
	How are you?
	I'm fine.
	Thank you.
	Welcome to our program.
	Good, good.
	I just wanted to let you know, and maybe you can help me out with this.
	I called Dick Durbin's office this morning um an issue when the immigration was going on about the fairness doctrine being pulled back in.
	And I was speaking to one of his aides, or the the man who answered the phone, and um he was going on about how we need this and that.
	I said, Well, are you gonna do anything about the newspapers, the the cable stations, etc.?
	And he said, Do you know why move on.org failed?
	I said, Yeah, I think I can surmise because nobody wanted to listen to them.
	He told me no, it's because the radio stations charge the liberal broadcast three times more than they charge the uh conservative broadcast programs.
	And I said, gee, I just can't believe that that's Wait, wait, wait, wait, well, hold it a second.
	Yes.
	I want to make sure that I understood every word of what you just said.
	You said that somebody in Turban's office told you that the liberal talk radio network failed because the stations carrying the network charge the network three times what stations charge shows like mine.
	Yes.
	And I said I found that hard to be true, but I would call the FCC, and I did call the FCC, and they said they were not aware of that.
	Um they were going to look into it and they're gonna email me.
	Come on, no, no, no, no.
	The fact of the Well, I called a couple of uh organizations.
	You look at your you're s you're speaking to the world's foremost authority on this, and I can tell you that this is frankly absurd.
	I try not to talk about other broadcasters on this program, but since since you got since you since Turban's assistant told you this, the dirty little secret is that the liberal talk radio network you spoke about could not get on decent radio stations because the programming was lousy.
	They bored people to death.
	They were on small stations where the signal goes straight up.
	You'd have to be in a high rise no more than twenty floors up to hear 'em.
	The fact of the matter is they were paying stations to carry the program, and they defaulted on the payments.
	Well, then he also told me that his mother, this this um person who answered the phone for Senator Durbin's office.
	He told me his mother, one of the founders of of the um the Air America.
	I said, Well, what about anyway?
	You know, I just wanted I'm I'm trying to find out, you know, what what really is going on here.
	And then, you know, during our during our discussion, I um I asked him um if they w if this if the Congress was also going to look into balancing, you know, the free press.
	There, you know, there's um several liberal um, they're not looking at fairness doctrine is uh as they're as they're contemplating it right now, would be applicable to talk radio.
	It would not be applicable to cable because cable is not broadcast, doesn't go over the public airwaves.
	It would not, it would not apply to newspapers because of the First Amendment.
	Uh it wouldn't apply the television network news.
	This is this is this is strictly something that's being targeted at talk radio because the Libs can't control it and they can't haven't found a way to silence successful hosts uh on on conservative talk radio in the uh in the marketplace.
	So this is this is our liberals are the Stalinists.
	If you if they use things they don't want to hear, they're gonna try to shut you up one way or the other, and the best way they can think to do it is the power of big government.
	But I'm gonna tell you there was no station paying Air America.
	Air America was paying these stations and then defaulting.
	Uh I don't know about their current iteration.
	I don't know how they're, you know, they're trying to come back, but in the old days, and that's not how it works anyway.
	Uh I I can't get it, but I'm just to tell you that is a flat out at best, it's a glowing example of pure ignorance.
	At worst, it is a flat out lie.
	And I wouldn't be surprised if Turbin and his uh guys believe this.
	Because they think that one of the what they're saying, the problem is there's too much consolidation of ownership, and all the owners are rich Republicans and conservatives, which is frankly BS as well.
	Well, that's what they're trying to say.
	And so if they believe that, then they might believe that these stations were charging Air America three times what they're charging.
	Uh ladies and gentlemen, let me let me the only way I just want to say this one time.
	The only way a radio program or radio network pays the station to carry it, is if the radio program couldn't get on the air on its own weight.
	There are a number of hosts, and I'm not going to identify them.
	There are a number of current hosts whose networks pay stations to carry them.
	If you're doing that, you're guaranteed to lose money.
	That is not the business model.
	That is not how it works.
	Um the it it it's it's not the stations charging, it's the stations refusing to carry, and the network says, Oh, you got how about if we pay you?
	We'll pay you this, and and we'll buy some of the available spot locations uh during the program too.
	We'll do all that in order to get it on the air.
	Some of the names would stun you, ladies and gentlemen.
	And I'm not talking about liberal Air America.
	There are a whole bunch of this, but this is this is uh that ain't the way it happens.
	It's just that's not the successful route.
	Thank you.
	Uh thank you, sir, uh uh Lisa.
	Uh this is Sue in Boone, North Carolina.
	Welcome to the EIB network.
	Hello.
	Hi, Rush.
	Hi.
	Even though I have 24-7, I arranged my day around listening to your show.
	I appreciate that.
	Can't thank you enough.
	Well, I do think about what you say on a daily basis as I'm just doing my regular things, and we are I think we're so blessed in this country.
	We take it for granted.
	I went to buy a simple thing like pudding the other day.
	Putting.
	Putting.
	Just jello pudding.
	I hadn't bought it in years.
	My husband was sick.
	I thought that would help him, you know, feel better.
	It took me like five or ten minutes to find the kind of pudding I wanted.
	There were so many different kinds, different flavors.
	We're talking abundance.
	I mean, it's there was abundance of choice, and you had so many choices, it was difficult to choose one.
	Right.
	And so that told you what?
	It told me that we are just every day I think how lucky I am just to have been born in this country.
	I mean, just starting out with that, that I wasn't born in Ethiopia or India or Afghanistan.
	I mean, just the fact that I was born here.
	What a leg up that gave me.
	You know, I remember uh watching when I was a kid, Ernie Banks' retirement ceremony at Wrigley Field in Chicago.
	I was watching it on television Saturday afternoon.
	One of the CBS games.
	I know Dizzy Dean might have still been doing games.
	I'm not sure, but I I don't remember the announcers.
	I just remember Ernie Banks.
	And uh he was standing in the microphone there at home plate, and he said, I first off, I want to thank God for making me an American.
	And uh I've never forgotten, and that's what you just said in your own words.
	Well, I if you've ever read Ozzy Smith's uh induction to the Hall of Fame speech, he talks about you know being poor and what he did to achieve what he has achieved.
	Right.
	And it's an amazing speech.
	In fact, I copied it out and sent it to all my kids, talking about making a uh uh a glove out of a paper bag.
	Sue, thanks for the call.
	I'm out of time, but I appreciate very much that you're out there.
	We'll be back.
	Lots more straight ahead.
	Okay, let's let's revisit the uh the CNN YouTube debate.
	The uh ratings uh have been released for the debate on uh on Monday night, and uh about two and a half million total viewers, eight hundred and thirty-one thousand viewers in the uh 25 to 54 demographic.
	I pronounced the attempt a total failure based on those numbers.
	Two and a half million people watching a Democrat debate.
	You know what's gonna happen on make you a prediction.
	Before this is all said and done, the Democrats are gonna end up on Fox, because if they don't, they're not gonna get an audience for these debates.
	And I'll tell you who's gonna lead the charge.
	Hillary Clinton will lead the charge to get on Fox, and it'll be interesting to see what the Brett girl does because he was out there front and center.
	So I'm not going to Fox.
	You mark my words.
	I know nothing.
	I am following my instincts on this, ladies and gentlemen.
	This this and CNN, this whole charade with this YouTube stunt was designed to get them into the internet arena and era.
	And why do they want that?
	Because that's where these young acne-faced little narcissists are these days, and CNN wants them.
	Every broadcast outfit wants the young 25, 18 to 54 demographic.
	63,000.
	In the uh YouTube demo, 18 to 49, 63,000 in the 18 to 49.
	That is a failure.
	Of course, they're running around, and they're talking about what a success it was.
	But I'll tell you what, if you if if if uh if NBC had tried this, they told all of their their journalists that they have made stars.
	Okay, you guys take the night off, or we're gonna play videos from YouTube, is the question.
	You're gonna have a snowman up there asking questions about global warming.
	Uh, can you imagine what the professionals at NBC were they'd be seething behind the scenes, and I met at CNN there might have been some of that.
	But as Tim Russert pointed out yesterday, all these videos were available for all these candidates to consult.
	Like an open book test.
	And nothing is being made of that.
	In fact, get this.
	Uh they discovered somebody, I guess the CNN team that was uh examining the videos that were submitted on YouTube.
	The team discovered that maybe twenty supporters of Senator Biden had all submitted videos asking the exact same question.
	Biden had his people flood the U2 site, a YouTube site to try to get these questions answered.
	Uh and Mr. Cooper Anderson Cooper, that would be, gently chided the Biden camp at the beginning of the debate for trying to manipulate the process.
	Also, this some celebrities from the entertainment industry submitted YouTube videos, but uh David Borman, who is the uh uh Bureau chief here at CNN who went through all these videos, uh would not reveal who these celebrities were.
	He said he nicked them, these Hollywood celebrities, uh, as well as those from public officials because he wanted to keep the debate for real people.
	So Hollywood is unreal, and public officials are not real people.
	You want to give it to real people.
	All right, this takes us to Senator Biden.
	I want to play another soundbite or two from the debate itself.
	Here is the the question again, uh you can't see this because it's audio only, but it's uh a YouTube user named Jared Townsend.
	He's in Cleo, Michigan.
	He's sitting down on a chair, and he he pulls out at the end of his question when he starts talking about his baby.
	He's our baby's gonna keep her baby safe.
	He pulls out his Bushmaster A. R. 15.
	Remember that video?
	Here's his question.
	To all the candidates, tell me your position on gun control.
	As myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe.
	This is my baby.
	Purchase under the 1994 gun ban.
	Please tell me your views.
	So he pulls out his bush.
	He pushed it's that his baby, he says Bushmaster AR-15.
	Here's first Bill Richardson answering this question.
	The issue here, I believe, is instant background checks.
	Nobody who has a criminal background or is mentally ill should be able to get a stop the tape.
	Stop tape.
	Stop tape.
	He just called Jared Townsend of Clio, Michigan mentally ill.
	He may not think that he did, but he just did.
	And they probably Democrats for this guy's showing his gun, he's all happy about it.
	Oh my God, it's a wacko.
	They're playing me a video of a wacko.
	Okay, so Bill Richardson just called a guy mentally ill.
	That is the key.
	And that includes gun sales.
	That includes gun sales at gun shows.
	The key is going to be also attacking poverty, bringing people together, dealing with those kids in the ghettos that are heavy users of gun violence and they're victims of gun violence to make sure that this country attacks the core problems of poverty.
	Having child care, bringing parents together.
	So there you go.
	Bringing people got to bring people together.
	So gun control now is about solving poverty, too.
	Uh and uh child care.
	See how the liberals do this?
	All works together.
	Here is Biden's answer.
	The question uh Anderson Cooper says, Senator Biden, are you gonna keep Jarrett Townsend's baby safe?
	I tell you what, if that's his baby, he needs help.
	Uh I think he just made an admission against self-interest.
	I don't know that he's mentally qualified to own that gun.
	I'm being serious.
	Look, this idea we go around talking about people who who who own I'm the guy that originally wrote the assault weapons ban that that uh became law, and then we got defeated, and Diane Feinstein uh went to town on it and did a great job.
	Look, we should be working with law enforcement right now to make sure that we protect people against people who don't are not capable of knowing what to do with a gun because they're either mentally imbalanced and or because they have a criminal record.
	Anyway, one more question.
	Hope he doesn't come looking for me.
	This is now this is interesting because the 2000 election, Gore Bush debates, Gore tries to make it plain he is against gun control.
	He wants hunters to go out there and be able to uh, you know, shoot pit bulls or what have you, and then uh 2004 Kerry does the same thing.
	Goes out there, goes to some state, puts on that plaid jacket, get me a hunting license here.
	Uh but here in this debate, when they are targeting their base, they think guys like Jarrett uh Townsend of Cleo, Michigan, are mentally insane, mentally unstable.
	Yes, Mr. Snerdley.
	What?
	Well, what?
	Oh, pulls up he calls it a baby.
	Oh, come on.
	I think that this guy there's a gun only loves his gun for crying out.
	He it's a good question.
	He's asking Democrats, what are you gonna do here?
	You're gonna take my baby, or you're gonna take my gun away from it.
	He's always talking about using it to protect his babies.
	And so forth.
	But even so, to sit there and call a guy insane and mentally unstable and so forth, and you know what the audience liberals in that audience were going nuts.
	I mentioned earlier that Senator Kerry blew a gasket over President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he claimed that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is just Al Qaeda.
	There's no separate Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
	And he and because we know this because we captured the top gun.
	And the top gun said, hey, this isn't we know we're we're there is no Al-Qaeda to Rock.
	This is Al-Qaeda.
	We just set this up as a phony front to make it look like there's a civil war here.
	That Iraqis have joined this group and formed this group, so that you you guys in the press and everybody will think it's uh it's a civil war when it's not.
	So the president was simply repeating that.
	The the drive by's last night had it.
	Gord Carrie Harry Reed went nuts.
	Yesterday afternoon in Washington at the Capitol, Senator Carey responded to the uh president's speech earlier in the day, and he begins with this.
	The President is trying to scare the American people into believing that Al Qaeda is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq.
	And today he said nothing new about Al Qaeda itself, and basically nothing that we would differ with with respect to the purposes and goals of Al Qaeda.
	We all understand that Al Qaeda is a danger.
	And we all understand what its goals are.
	But 9-11 was not plotted in Iraq.
	9-11 did not happen from an Al Qaeda in Iraq.
	It happened from Osama bin Laden and an Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, an Al Qaeda that is now larger and reconstituted and dangerous, if not more so than it was that they just can't deal with the truth of what's happening in Iraq, getting out.
	They have to run to the microphones.
	I mean, if I were dingy Harry, I'd send somebody else out there besides Kerry.
	He's got about as much credibility on this as a beaver.
	Here's the next thing that he said.
	The President is picking the wrong rationale for this war.
	And he's also setting up a phony argument about what it is that we have to continue to do in Iraq.
	We are not in Iraq because Al Qaeda is the principal threat in Iraq.
	There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, as the President pointed out beforehand.
	And the fact is that Al Qaeda has grown in its strength and in its presence in Iraq because we are there.
	So I think it is important for us to realize that uh all of us are committed to destroying Al Qaeda.
	But Al Qaeda is not going to be ultimately destroyed in Iraq unless the Iraqis themselves join in this fight.
	And Al Qaeda is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq.
	Those forces are dying because of IEDs, because of insurgents, and because of the struggle between Shia and Sunni.
	This is exactly what I'm talking about.
	The IEDs are coming from Iran.
	Al Qaeda is using them.
	Al Qaeda is in Iraq, having expanded their operation from or maybe even transferring it from Pakistan, Afghanistan.
	And the Shia and the Sunni are aligning with us because they're being f they're getting fed up with the barbarism of Al Qaeda.
	Things are really going uh in a in a positive way there, as we've been discussing the past couple days, and they just can't handle it.
	These guys just can't deal with it.
	To go out and make such a passionate statement here, you it it it ought to convince you that the war is nothing more than the latest political issue for these people.
	They're arguing about this, not in the terms that the president sets forth, national security, protecting Americans.
	They're talking about it as if they were debating a social security reform bill or some such thing.
	By the way, Mr. Snerdley, you sit in there and you think that this guy, Jared Townsend from um from uh Cleo, Michigan, is a little nutty because he a little you know, you sit there and you think that he's a little off because he makes a video holding up his bushmaster AR-50, whatever it is, calling it his baby.
	How come nobody's calling that idiot who posed as a snowman with a global warming question a little off?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know.
	Just looking for something here.
	Oh, by the way, you know, folks, there is uh I just got a heads up from a friend.
	There is a there is a burgeoning well, what would you what would you call it?
	Um there's a system, a weather system in the southwest Gulf of Mexico.
	And looking at it out there, uh I've got it here on the satellite photo, and uh as a frequent observer of hurricanes since I've lived here in Florida, it looks really promising for development.
	And the people in Alabama would love it because they're in a drought.
	However, I checked.
	The National Hurricane Center says nothing about it.
	There's a wind shear uh effect that is ripping the top off of this storm.
	It's just not going to develop.
	It would be very well, it's a very disappointing thing to the drive-by's, uh, very disappointing for the uh global warming uh industry.
	But uh it looks like there's too much wind shear now for any development of uh of this uh of this system.
	Let's see.
	Um you know there's a the New York Times editorial here today, no exit strategy, and and the way I would characterize this editorial is the surge for defeat begins.
	And quickly.
	The surge for defeat.
	They don't have too much time here.
	No time to lose.
	Um the war plan drawn up by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker simply assumes that a large-scale U.S. military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years.
	So much for Mr. Bush's soothing incantations about a relatively short-term surge of additional troops.
	So they think Bush lied.
	Even more unrealistically, the plan assumes that with two more years of an American blank check Iraqi politicians will somehow decide to take responsibility for their political future, something they've refused to do for the last four years.
	Yeah, let's bring up that political progress.
	All of a sudden, that's so suddenly necessary.
	It didn't matter a hill of beans when the security was uh not working.
	Now, here's here's the point.
	There was a there was a poll, a Washington Post ABC poll yesterday.
	And it just dovetails great with this New York Times editorial.
	It was a splendid uh illustration of absurdity.
	Uh we're at war, and many of us want to win, but some of us want to quit.
	Some of us want to lose, some are eager for the United States to lose.
	Um the key poll question should not be when or how or do we leave.
	It should be should we win or should we quit?
	Because that would be a more accurate representation of people and their attitudes in this country.
	Uh the the question, check this question in this Washington Post poll.
	Who should decide when we leave?
	Who should decide when we leave Iraq?
	Now the answer, the president, 31%, the Congress, 62%.
	That is stunning to me.
	Uh another question.
	Um do you think Bush is or is not willing enough to change his administration's policies in Iraq?
	Well, how about this as a better question?
	Do you think the Democrats in Congress are playing politics with the war?
	But this question, who should decide when we leave, see the the the template and the action line is we have to get out.
	And so you go take a poll.
	Who should decide when we leave?
	Not should we win or do or should we lose?
	Somebody ought to ask that question.
	Some a responsible pollster ought to go out and say, Does should the United States win the war in Iraq or should we lose the war in Iraq?
	Instead of this, who should decide when we leave, and then you get 62% who say in the Washington Post poll that the Congress should decide.
	Frankly, I don't think we have that many stupid people in this country.
	I just don't.
	Just don't believe it.
	I don't believe we have that many uneducated people in this country.
	The Congress has the full authority to defund the war.
	That's how we uh got out of Vietnam.
	They don't have the guts to pull a trigger on that.
	Uh I I don't I don't really think this is a measure of true public opinion.
	I think this is a measure of liberal spin and drive by media uh repetition.
	And it's a it's a measure of ignorance of the Constitution, uh tragic lack of classes in uh in civics.
	For those of you who number yourselves in the 62 percent that Congress should decide when we leave, psst the president is the commander-in-chief.
	The Constitution grants him that authority.
	Congress doesn't have it, you idiots.
	Um that's a good point.
	I want to apologize for just now whispering uh that some of you people are idiots for not understanding uh constitutionals derogation of delegation of powers to the president, commander-in-chief, because I realize some of you may not even know what the hell the Constitution is.
	So I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	A quick question for you to ponder, ladies and gentlemen.
	How do we know which side in this war John Kerry is on in the last war, he was with the enemy, met with them, lied for them before a Senate committee.
	How do we really know what side he is on?
	Uh being pretty consistent.

▲