All Episodes
Previous Next
July 31, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
July 31, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Tell you the luck is just rotten for the drive-by media to the Liberals.
We got a we got a tropical storm out there, but it's in the Northern Atlantic.
And it's headed nowhere near the United States.
And it's its name is uh Chantal, I believe.
Tropical storm Chantal.
Anyway, greetings, folks.
Great to have you with us.
It's Rush Limbaugh on the cutting edge of societal evolution, inaugurating another three hours of broadcast excellence here on the one and only EIB network.
A thrill and a delight to have you with us.
Uh telephone number if you'd like to join us is 800 282-2882.
And the uh email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
General Motors has swung to a net profit of $891 million or $1.56 a share on strong automotive revenue in key markets.
Now, what changed with General Motors?
I wonder what what what did General Motors do differently that led to this profit?
They've been reporting losses for all too long.
They have become an official sponsor of the EIB network, ladies and gentlemen.
And we uh want to take a moment here to congratulate General Motors on this.
This is great for America.
This is great for the EIB network, and it's great for Detroit, and it is great uh for General Motors.
Along the same lines, consumer confidence hits a six-year high.
Uh it is American consumers.
I'm sorry, folks, the good news abounds here.
American consumers shrugging off a struggling housing market as jobs remained plentiful, became more confident in July, and set a gauge of sediment to a six-year high.
According to the uh the conference boarder in New York, uh its consumer confidence index rebounded to 112.6 highest level since August of 2001, when it recorded a 114 point zero rating.
But there is uh there are a few stories oriented toward crisis and doom and gloom.
Nearly one-third of baby boomers between 51 and 61 are at risk of not having enough in savings to finance a comfortable retirement, according to a study being released today by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College with its analysis.
The center has joined the national debate over how much savings is enough, and never is it enough, folks, and has done so on the side that says there is a shortfall.
We just don't believe people are saving too much, said Alicia Munnell or Monell, a professor of management sciences at Boston College, director of the retirement research center.
Um what is this matter?
What does it matter that boomers are not saving enough money?
We're all going to die any second.
Anyway, we've got global warming out there, got skin cancer out there, got bowel cancer out there, got stroke, heart attack, seizures, guilt, we got tainted meat pouring in from China, we got the bird flu.
We got Bush leading the country.
Uh we got we got chief justices who pass out and foam at the mouth.
We got weak bones, we got uh the post-traumatic stress disorder, we got SUVs, we got the GOP, we got hurricanes, floods, heat waves, we got obesity.
Who the hell needs a retirement plan?
We can't survive any of this.
We're where are we all doomed?
Well, I I forgot, yes, baby boomers fear not, because if you survive all of these plagues that I just listed, you can rely on your social security.
However, however, how many people uh how many of you out there consume the adult beverage known popularly as red wine?
And how many of you in the process of consuming red wine have been told, hey, good for your heart.
Look at the French.
The French don't die of heart attacks, and they're very thin people.
The reason why they are girls, they eat cheese with their wine, and the protein in the cheese cuts the release of insulin in half.
Insulin is the biggest danger to people who don't want to gain weight.
Uh but but now those of you who have been consuming your red wine as much for health reasons, perhaps as because you enjoy it.
I have bad news.
A large glass of wine a day increases your risk of bowel cancer by ten percent.
A study.
Uh not amazing.
A study suggests uh that drinking a large glass of wine or a pint of beer a Day increases the risk of developing bowel cancer by around 10%.
Drink a large glass of wine or a pint of beer a day increases that uh that that that r uh in uh chance by ten percent, and drinking around two pints a day or two large glasses of wine increases the risk of bowel cancer by twenty-five percent.
You don't have to grab your ankles anymore, folks.
I mean, just drink, just drink the red wine or beer or whatever, and while you think you're saving your heart and lowering your cholesterol, you're getting bowel cancer out there.
I get so sick of all of this.
Cancer, cancer, cancer, cholesterol, bone density, all the time, every day we are bombarded with all of this.
You know, we all want to be healthy.
But I frankly, folks, I'm uh I don't know about you.
I'm getting sick of being hounded and nagged and guilted by every little thing.
When I die, I die.
And when I die because of a cause, the cause is going to be the cause.
Yep.
Well, well, that's right.
If you but that that's the next one.
That's exactly right.
See, if if if you're you you you uh you might you might go out there and and uh uh get bowel cancer.
However, uh exercise and caffeine now combine to fight skin cancer, researchers say.
Mice that mix the stimulant, caffeine with daily running, fight the cell damage caused by UV light better than animals that merely run or drink caffeine-laced water.
Where do animals go to get caffeine-laced water?
Is it is it in the jungle someplace?
Is it in the wild?
Where are these animals?
Are there animal bars that we don't know about?
They're going in to stoke up on caffeine.
Starbucks.
Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, it's uh not if it's if it's not one thing, it is another.
All right, just as I predicted yesterday, the drive-bys and the Democrats are in an utter state of denial.
This column that came out yesterday in the New York Times by uh former Kerry campaign advisor and a former member of the Clinton administration, both now at the Brookings institution, just have the drive-by drive-by's fit to be tied, not the the the the cable news drive-bys.
And the Democrats are in uh in total denial.
How not all of them, though.
Uh it's interesting that uh James Clyburn, uh, who is the House Democratic whip, he's from South Carolina, in an interview with uh Dan Balls and Chris Salisa of the Washington Post, said, I I I think there'd be enough support in that group uh to want to stay the course.
If the Republicans were to stay united as they've been, it would be a problem for us.
We by and large would be wise to wait on the report.
This is James Kleibert in the House.
He's talking about the September report from General Petraeus, and he's admitting that if the news continues to be good, it will be a problem for his party.
Um we have audio from this.
The web show Washington Post Talk with Salesa and Dan Balls.
They interviewed Cleburn uh and they had this exchange.
What do Democrats do if General Petraeus comes in in September and says, this is working very, very well at this point.
We would be foolish to back away from it.
Well, uh, that would be a a real big problem for us.
No question about that.
Great problem for us.
No they know, folks.
They absolutely know.
More on this in just a second.
I want to go back to last Tuesday on this program, the 24th of July.
I made a prediction uh about the surge.
It cannot be reported that the surge is succeeding.
So what we'll be focused on instead, ladies and gentlemen, is how the political situation is falling apart.
And not making progress and so forth.
So whatever wherever the good news is, it's like the drive-by's in a Democrat Party find a way uh to avoid it.
But this is uh the worst nightmare is for this news to start trickling out for the uh for the Democrat Party.
I was on the cutting edge of this last week before any of the rumblings of this weekend occurred.
Yesterday, actually, today on the Today Show.
Meredith Vieira talking to uh uh Senator Chiapet.
That would be Senator Biden.
Uh recently, two of the critics, members of the Brookings institution, went over to Iraq, they witnessed it firsthand, talked to members of the military, came back, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times, among other things, it says we're finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms, they recommend Congress sustain The surge at least until 2008.
In fact, uh things are getting better on the ground.
Would you recommend that the surge be continued, Senator Biden?
No, there's military success, but there's not any political success.
If you can't, all the military success does, we have enough forces there, we work hard enough, we can quell things in neighborhoods.
But once we leave, unless there's a political agreement among the parties, it explodes.
And contrast this to what he said in the last Democrat YouTube debate where he was warning Democrats we can't pull out of there overnight, all hell would break loose.
Somebody got to him.
Now he has to change his tune on this.
But note my prediction about they will find a way to say the news is bad, they'll focus on the political side, confronted with this New York Times op-ed.
Biden doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't mean anything.
The political side's not working well.
When the political side was working well and the military side wasn't working well, well, a political progress doesn't matter.
The fact they've got a constitution, we're doing lousy on the ground with security and so forth.
Yesterday on the Senate floor, Dingy Harry had this to say about the good news coming out of Iraq.
The present or the future seem particularly bright for the Iraqis and Iraq itself.
Our brave troops are fighting in this intractable civil war.
Utter denial uh and sticking to the talking points.
Uh an analysis monologue of all this coming up, plus audio sound bites of how the two columnists of the New York Times got ripped over the coals last night on cable TV, right after this.
Let me ask you a question to ponder, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome back, by the way.
Special welcome to those of you uh watching on the Ditto Cam at Rush Limbaugh.com today.
What kind of politicians?
And uh drive by media figures, force their armies from the battlefield with an enemy that has killed three thousand of its citizens and promises to kill more, especially when their armies are winning.
What kind of politicians and media people do this?
Force their armies from the battlefield into defeat against an enemy that's killed 3,000 of its civilians, our civilians, our citizens, promises to kill many more when their armies are winning.
When our army's winning and force them off the battlefield.
What kind of politician would do that?
You got James Kleibern of South Carolina, yeah, this uh this report uh could provide uh unity problem for our caucus and uh in the House.
Yeah, it could be a problem.
If a good report provides problems for the Democrat Party, what the hell would victory by the United States mean to the Democrats?
What kind of problem would that cause?
That would uh that's unthinkable to them.
What kind of politicians are these?
Back to the audio sound bites.
Ken Pollock, one of the co-authors of the New York Times piece yesterday, citing the success of the surge.
It was now with Wolf Blitzer on CNN last night.
Blitzer said, Ken Pollock.
Your column does paint a pretty optimistic assessment of the U.S. military strategy unfolding right now.
The reason for the optimism was we did see greater progress with U.S. military forces and Iraqi military forces in their effort to restore security.
I think we were all surprised by just how well things were going on that front.
All right, but this guy, he can't get away with that.
This is CNN after all.
He's got to get raked over the coals, and his credibility has to be challenged.
And blitzer says, Ken Pollock.
Was this part, though, of a U.S. military tour, if you will, that they took you around?
You were escorted from location to location to location, and they were the ones that took you to specific places?
Or did you have the freedom to say, I want to go here, I want to go there.
Who organized it in the words, the stopovers, the visits that you were having?
It was largely organized by the military.
We thought that was important because right now the big story is the military story.
We went specifically because we've finally had a change in strategy.
And you know, you're aware of this, Wolf.
I've been on your show after all my previous trips to Iraq.
Every single one of those trips, I came back more depressed and more frustrated than when I left.
This was the first one that I came back actually, somewhat more hopeful than when I left.
So uh Blitzer then uh gave up.
And we move on to Hardball last night, the fill-in host Mike Barnacle interviewing Michael O'Hanlin and Kenneth Pollock of the Brookings Institution.
Barnacle says, you're uh you're more optimistic than you were, say six months ago.
Is that a fair assessment?
Yeah, that's a fair assessment.
This is honest assessment and reporting.
It doesn't mean we're headed for victory in Iraq, but it's a very clear sense uh that we had in Iraq last week that the military aspect of this is finally beginning to show some results.
Barnacle then says, well, uh today again is uh as is every day, six killed, thirty wounded in the bus explosion in Baghdad.
You just said that without Baghdad being cohesive politically, nothing will work in Iraq, and yet nothing seems to be working in Baghdad, so how can you be so optimistic?
The military part of this strategy is working well enough to warrant a few more months of effort.
We talk about a number of places where there are good things going on, but we also say the sectarian problem has not by any means been resolved.
And what we're talking about is a situation where there is some progress on the military front that I think permits us to try for a few more months to have uh some effort at political reconciliation.
That's an inconvenient fact for someone who's already decided that the mission has failed, but it's the reality on the ground.
Ooh, oh, Hanlon just nailed the Democrats there, folks.
Did you did you did you hear that?
This is an inconvenient fact for someone who's already decided the mission has failed, but it is the reality on the ground.
These guys uh may end up persona non grata in their old haunts.
You know, there's a mantra out there in addition to the fact, well, we may be making some military progress, but the political situation is falling apart.
And without political stability, all the success on the battlefield in the world won't matter in Hill of Beans.
Blah, blah.
There's another mantra out there.
In addition to that one, which says that the Iraqis have to step up and defend themselves.
That one doesn't fly either because they are exclamation point.
They are joining the army.
They are joining police forces in record numbers.
The uh tribal leaders working with our forces as well, had the story last week.
Twenty-five different tribes of Sunni and Shia fed up with Al Qaeda tactics, joining with our guys.
So the Democrats continue to use old talking points uh before the surge uh for all the reasons that I have been saying.
They are invested in defeat.
And it's it's it's it's crucial to remember, they are also trying to create public opinion that echoes their own.
They don't have that.
They do not have a majority of the American people that want to lose.
The Democrats, well, the American people wanted us out of Iraq, and that's why we won the elections in November.
The American people are fed up with this president, and they're fed up with this.
They're not.
They're not fed up to the point that they want to lose.
So in addition to all these mantras, the Democrats are trying to create public opinion, being aided and abetted by their willing accomplices in the drive-by media.
But as we as we see now, uh it's beginning to turn against them.
I mean, even that that that uh the first Muslim congressman from Minnesota, Keith Ellison just back from Iraq.
Um, and he even he had a I saw some progress over there.
Uh we we've got it we've got to back off a little bit.
Joe Lieberman unloads on the Democrats uh recently in the Senate for their uh their their amateurish attitude here.
Uh I'm getting the feeling that the Democrats are beginning to see their strategy falling away.
I'm I think their strategy is falling apart.
They have failed to convince the American people that this is a lost cause and should be abandoned.
Because the American people don't want defeat for their country and they we are a nation of winners, and we do not want defeat for the U.S. military, uh, for whom uh most of us have uh uh an admiration and respect that we can't express properly.
The Democrats have failed, and you know when this stuff hit this weekend that they are having emergency meetings, and you see with the with the two sound bites we had with Harry Reed and Joe Biden, they're just gonna keep on with their old talking points.
Uh they're not going to abandon them.
They are trying to create a false picture and scenario.
They do it all the time.
I'm not saying this is this is gonna be easy, folks.
It's it it's gonna be difficult, and it's gonna be long term, but it is not.
The situation there is not uh as they portray it to be.
I mean, there's uh there's almost a mathematical formula to the to this that I have detected.
It to the extent that we make progress, the Democrats' political hopes are diminished.
Now, what what kind of political leaders position themselves that way so that they only win when their country loses?
And what kind of brains do they have to position themselves in such a way so that when we make progress, their political aspirations are diminished?
They're the ones that created the situation.
They have aligned themselves with the enemy.
They continue to align themselves with the enemy.
They won't admit it, obviously.
The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesmen here in the U.S. are the Democrats.
When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent.
And they say nothing.
But when we have reports of, you know, another IED or pictures of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al Qaeda.
So the two track Democrat strategy in play now lose the war and cripple the presidency.
Lose the war by undermining the armed forces, including their funding, crippled the presidency by unleashing all these investigations and prosecutions of the president's closest aides.
And note none of this, folks, none of it.
Not one part of it is intended to help or strengthen the country.
Just the opposite.
Back in a sec.
We're back.
Late arriving show prep here with instructions being given to the broadcast engineer by me, the host and architect, the engine, the fuel, the power, the sole reason for this show's existence.
I am Rush Linboy, your highly trained broadcast specialist showing everybody how it should and can be done.
800 282-2882.
We'll get to your phone calls here in uh in just a second.
Folks, notice the this entire strategery that the Democrat Party has laid out for the past four years since the invasion of Iraq.
Uh none of this is intended to help the country.
None of it is intended to strengthen.
Uh our homeland, none of it is uh in intended to advance the well-being of the citizenry.
None of it is.
It is a two-pronged agenda driven for one reason and one reason only, and that's to help a handful of extreme leftists who run the Democratic Party to expand their power.
It's the left wing elites of the Democrats versus the rest of us.
And that's the best way to understand it.
I gotta tell you, nothing that General Petraeus says in his September report will matter.
To Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid.
They are dug in.
They're entrenched.
They can't move off of this.
They cannot give up their attempt to convince you it's lost.
It's worthless.
We need to bring them home.
They cannot come off of that.
House Democrats, as uh uh evidenced by the statement made by James Kleiburn may have a little problem here.
I think a lot of Democrats are going to have problems here.
Lieberman is having problems.
Time will tell, but Pelosi and Reed are dug in.
Uh you know something else?
You know how odd the Democrat Party is getting?
The Democrat Leadership Council.
Do you know what that is?
The Democrat Leadership Council is an organization of supposedly centrist Democrats.
Used to be run by Bill Clinton.
I think he's one of the founders of the thing.
Uh that was then run by a guy named Al Fromm.
And the purpose of the Democrat Leadership Council was to act as a mask or a camouflage to hide the Democrat Party's extreme liberalism.
To show that they were moderates and centrists, that that's what Bill Clinton was, and that's why it was created.
It's now run by Harold Ford, who uh, you know, used to be a member of Congress from Tennessee.
Guess what?
There happens to be a convention of the Democrat Leadership Council, some point, I think it's this weekend or coming up soon, and it also happens to coincide with the convention of the Kook fringe blogosphere.
Guess what?
None of the Democrat presidential candidates are going to the DLC convention.
They are as afraid of the Democratic Leadership Council as they are afraid of going on Fox News.
They're not going to go to the convention that tries to establish Democrats as moderate centrists, because that would anger the kook fringe, and that's who these Democrats are playing to at this point in time for who knows what reasons.
But this is not going to redound to their benefit.
They are looking more and more like the people they are.
Their agenda, Pelosi and Reed, simply does not permit new talking points.
They've gone over the cliff.
Defeat or the perception of it must happen, as far as they are concerned.
The in fact, the Democrats' uh chances.
Their entire existence Now depends on defeat.
And I mean that seriously as I've ever meant anything I've said here.
Their entire existence now depends on our troops losing in Iraq.
They're going to be in full attack mode.
And let me say this.
You know, their poll numbers in Congress are somewhere around Osama bin Laden's.
I mean, and they're lower than uh than President Bush's.
And they may well be undermining themselves with this full-throated assault.
But there's also no denying that in the process of doing this, you know, they're not operating in a vacuum.
They are making victory more difficult.
We're making outstanding progress after a long time of fiddling around.
But it's much harder because of their behavior, no doubt about it.
And it's harder to get the news out because of their behavior because they can't tolerate it, folks.
I've what kind of politicians are these?
What kind of politicians are these that would pull troops off the battlefield in the midst of success, ensuring defeat?
What kind of politicians and media supporters that they have are these people?
It's time that they be held accountable.
They have to bear some responsibility for their behavior here.
They are making this difficult for their own selfish and extreme partisan liberal reasons and desires.
It is they, the Democrats who are prolonging these battles, not the president or the military.
And it's it's happening by virtue of their rhetoric.
Their rhetoric emboldens and advantages the enemy.
It encourages the enemy.
If it hadn't been for the Democrats' rhetoric specifically the past three years, who knows what tatters this enemy might actually be in.
But they have allies in this country, public relations allies.
It is it is they who withhold needed resources to slow the march of our forces.
It is they who do it.
It is they, the Democrats, who are in essence spitting on our soldiers and calling them baby killers by their official actions and statements.
And by the way, the public may well be war-weary, but it's always amazed me because most of the public has no role in this war.
What is there to be war weary about?
What there is to be war weary about is that we are losing.
At least the perception is put out by the media that we are losing, and we are a nation of winners.
The United States of America doesn't lose, especially to a ragtag bunch of seventh-century bombers.
And yet the Democrat Party wants us to lose, has proclaimed defeat.
The drive-by media echoes this.
The war weariness has nothing to do with the fact that we're at war.
It's that we're not winning it and that we've we're we're royaled over it.
And I blame the Democrats for that.
I blame the Democrats for the so-called war weariness.
Because most of the public has no personal stake in this.
I know the public is no doubt becoming fed up with the constant message of defeatism and surrender coming from the Democrat leadership.
The American people don't like defeat.
George Patton said it.
We are a nation of winners.
We hate losers.
And no American well, no, I take that back.
There are some Americans who do want to surrender.
The far left wing fringe of the Democrat Party, eager to surrender, want their country to lose.
And that's who the Democrat Party is listening to today.
That's who the leaders of the Democrat Party are trying to appease and make sure that they keep on board.
And it is sickening and disgusting because it is a sickening small, deranged little minority of people.
But you have a major American political party pandering to them for all the obvious reasons.
Let's go to the phones.
Bruce in Blairsville, Pennsylvania.
Uh glad to have you with us, sir.
You're up first today.
Okay, hi, Rush.
I'm calling about uh two things about these recent reports.
One is uh they're the timing, the people who are reporting in the paper make me suspect that it may be designed to raise expectations of success so high that anything less can be framed by the democratic uh politicians as as being a failure.
And secondly, uh I'd be weary of a tet-like offensive uh by the terrorists uh right before the general's uh report.
Yeah.
Well, let me comment on both of those things.
Um uh and in order.
Uh note that most people will respond to the second question posed by uh an interrogator because they forgot the first one.
I'm gonna speak to yours in order.
First place, it is entirely possible that there is a ruse going on.
After all, we're dealing with the New York Times.
It's entirely possible that people are trying to raise expectations uh so high in people's minds that nothing short of full-fledged victory and surrender, waving the white flag by Al-Qaeda can see can make that happen.
But I don't think that there, I think this re this column has caught a bunch of Democrats off guard.
I think it's caught a bunch of the drive-by media off guard, and they're now trying to come up with new spin strategies to explain it, and that's going to be one of them.
Well, they're raising expectations too high.
Remember, folks, you have to look at this through the lens they're looking at it in, or through, and that's the 0-8 presidential election.
That's it for them.
Everything they're doing is oriented toward that.
So they're going to stick to their talking points, and they'll find a way to massage these.
They'll have enough willing accomplices in a drive-by media to put out what they want.
But I don't think that the Times ran this, and I don't think these two scholars wrote this piece as a as a means of uh building up phony expectations.
It would be much easier to come back and say, it didn't work, and this surge, whatever you've heard about it, it isn't working.
The military took us around.
They tried to make it look the best, but we are scholars, and we've been there numerous times.
They could accomplish much more for the Democrats by simply coming out and saying whatever you're hearing about the surge being successful, we didn't see.
And that would have caused uh, you know, a tsunami of Democrats running to the cameras and microphones.
So I don't think anything uh is uh conspiratorial about this.
As to the uh as to the Tet Offensive, uh, this is a uh the well, the Iraqi version of the Tet Offensive.
That's just a theory based on intelligence guided by experience.
When the side losing knows that a crucial point is coming up, either on the political frame of its enemy, which we have the September report coming up.
Uh so that would be the thing that the so-called uh Tet Offensive in Iraq would be geared to.
They will launch everything they've got.
They will kill as many innocent people, they will do it as visually as they can, they'll set as many explosions off, as many cars, they'll have burning bodies.
That's the theory.
And it is designed to weaken the resolve, the will, if you will, of the uh of the enemy.
Not our troops, but of you.
The American people.
That offensive, if it happens, will be aimed right at the U.S. media to broadcast and amplify all over this country and around the world.
To try to get people's, all right.
I'm so weary of this one.
That's it.
Screw it.
I've heard all of this wonderful news about the surge, and we can't even stop something like this when we knew it was coming.
Uh, whether it happens or not is uh is a guess, but it's uh it it did happen in Vietnam.
It happens uh Al Qaeda's done this in a number of cases when there have been benchmark days coming up.
They tried to stop the elections of uh of Iraqi parliamentarians.
They tried to stop the vote on the ratification of the Constitution.
They've done it, and they'll probably do something like it again.
The key here for me is how successful will they be.
That will be a measure of how successful the surge has been as well.
Uh let me take a brief time out here, folks.
We'll come back and uh and continue after this.
All right, uh, welcome back, uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, Il Rushboard here, talent uh on lawn from God.
Headline to an AP story.
U.S. toll in Iraq lowest in eight months.
My initial reaction to that is well, there's more bad news for the left.
More bad news for Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi.
When you stop and think of that, what what is it that that I'm saying?
Fewer American deaths and casualties are bad news for the Democrats.
This is not good.
They can't, they cannot advance.
This is a talking point.
They can't say surge isn't working, we're losing more troops because their whole theory of getting out is that troops are not safe.
It's a civil war.
There's no use them dying, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
The troop death counts have been the uh coin of the realm for the drive-by media and the Democrats.
So stop and think about this.
U.S. toll in Iraq lowest in eight months.
More bad news for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now, you might think this is a good Story, but you would be wrong because you are talking about the associated press.
Let me give you some some selected excerpts.
The U.S. military said Tuesday that a Marine was killed in fighting west of the Capitol, pushing the American death toll for July to at least 75, the lowest in eight months.
An Apache helicopter also went down on Tuesday after coming under fire in a predominantly Shiite area in eastern Baghdad, but both crew members were safely evacuated.
President Bush's nominee to head the joint chaffs of Steve, chiefs of staff, meanwhile, acknowledged that slow progress in Iraq is hurting America's credibility and emboldening Iran's regional ambitions.
In a story about the death toll being the lowest in eight months, during a period of time where anybody who's noticing and paying attention knows that the surge is working.
This is about what the associated press is worth these days, folks.
Just threw it in my cardboard box trash container.
Alex in Marshall, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hey, good afternoon, Mega Afficiado Ditto.
Thank you, sir.
Great to have you with us.
All right.
Hey, Rush, giving you a call this afternoon simply to get your opinion on something I thought I saw.
And that is Did I see the possibilities of liberals abandoning or deserting the losing position?
You know, I mean, we can't help it.
The stories are out.
The unfortunate good news stories that things are working in Iraq.
Things are moving along.
How long?
How long can they all hang on?
No, I I uh I w what where did you see?
What did you see that makes you think they might be abandoning their we must lose idea?
Well, what I saw was uh really uh a report uh of some of some of the liberal think tank experts from Brookings uh and other places explaining on nightly news how their success.
Yes, there's uh they can't help but say some things are starting to work.
And yet uh then they'll go on to brush it aside.
Uh the mainstream will brush that aside and say, well, okay, but the truth is well, let me uh uh uh uh uh let me let me review what I said about this yesterday.
Uh we had three days of news.
We had a Saturday story in the Washington Post Petraeus saying that the integration of Iraqis and the security forces going great guns bottom up.
On Sunday, we had we had five journalists on a Chris Matthews Sunday show uh say commonsensical things about we can't pull out now, it would cause a bloodbath.
Uh the Iraq is uh not different than the war on terror, just a different front that's all was mind-blowing stuff.
Then on Monday we had the uh New York Times up-bed that you're talking about.
Um, I I'll repeat what I what I just said.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are not going to change their saw their their song or their talking points, nothing that Petraeus says will cause Pelosi and Reed to change their minds.
They can't.
They must continue to counter the good news with whatever traffic they can create and convince as many Americans as possible that it isn't true that it's already lost, that we need to get out.
They will not.
Pelosi and Reed will not change their minds.
They can't.
They are dug in.
They've gone over the cliff on defeat back after this.
What kind of politicians are these that consider it unfavorable or unhelpful news that American troop deaths in Iraq are at an eight-month low?
What kind of politicians are these that would, in the midst of success, try to remove our troops from the battlefield and secure defeat.
What kind of politicians force their armies into these situations?
What kind of politicians regard it as personally upsetting and a problem that battlefield deaths are at an eight-month low in Iraq?
What kind of politicians are these?
And by the way, for those of you new to the program, and I know that we we have tune in fact here going through the roof.
We got people tuning in that uh are listening for the first time.
And some of you may think, wow, Russia, you really believe a Democrat to this bad folks.
Uh yes, uh I'm I'm uh beating the drum here to try to uh convince as many of you as possible this is exactly what's at stake.
If there's precedent for this.
Um Back in the uh early days of the 90s, when we had the stock market bubble and it was it was plummeting, Dick Gephardt, who was then the leader of the Democrats in the House, was giddy, was excited.
Every hundred points the Dow plummets, we pick up a house seat.
They love misery.
They love chaos.
They love things not going well.
That's how they've set themselves up to win.
They're not the party of progress.
They are the party of misery and chaos.
Hour two, right around the corner.
▲
Export Selection