All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 22, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
August 22, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, folks, are we loaded today?
Greetings and welcome.
Great to have you with us.
The Rush Limbaugh program already.
This is Wednesday, right?
I've kind of lost track.
Yeah, it's Wednesday.
Fastest week in media already in the middle of the week.
It's great to be with you.
I know that you are thrilled and excited to be here.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Boy, the president was on fire today at the VFW convention in Kansas City.
By the way, for the Hollywood liberals out there, VFW veterans of foreign war, soldiers, rapists, murderers, barbarians, in your eyes.
And he has ticked off the Democrats.
He essentially said, we're working on the sound bites of the speech.
Even now, ladies and gentlemen, even after the program has begun, we continue working for you.
And of course, ourselves.
But he said essentially, all right, you want to compare Iraq to Vietnam?
Well, then let's compare Iraq to Vietnam.
And he went on a tear about the millions of people who lost their lives, innocent people, when we left Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos.
He quoted New York Times columnists who were saying the problem with America in the world is America's presence, particularly in Vietnam.
This is a Vietnam-era column.
He gave a history lesson.
It was almost like this show.
He went around the world.
He described how the defeatists said that the Japanese, Imperial Japanese government would never, ever be a democracy.
We were silly to think that that could ever happen.
He cited all the pessimists.
He quoted them.
And then he cited history and reality as it is today to show that they were all wrong.
Soviet Union, South Korea, North Korea, you name it.
It was just on fire.
And of course, it's got him all upset out there on the left.
The text of the speech was released in advance.
He even went after Carl Levin.
Not by name.
He said, look at the Iraqis are a functioning democracy.
It's up to them to decide who their leaders are, not a bunch of politicians in Washington.
This is Levin came back and said, oh, he's on the phone.
I don't know where he was, but after he toured Vietnam, he said, Maliki's got to go.
The prime minister of Iraq, Nouri El Maliki, got to go.
And Bush said, screw you, bud.
And by the way, Maliki has said the same thing, which is also terrific.
He lashed out at U.S. criticism, saying no one has the right to impose timetables on his elected government, and his country can find friends elsewhere.
Mr. Prime Minister, you don't have any friends in the Democrat Party in this country.
You have friends in certain Americans.
You have friends in the White House.
In the text of the president's speech, and again, we have the audio bites coming up of much of this.
He links withdrawal from Vietnam to the rise of the murderous Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia and asserts that the American pullout caused pain and suffering for millions.
He said, whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like boat people, re-education camps, and killing fields.
Well, those assertions are being harshly criticized by Democrats, including Dingy Harry and at least one historian, Robert Dalek, who is a biographer of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
Both Dingy Harry and Bob Dalek said that Bush was ignoring fundamental differences between these two conflicts, citing Cambodia in particular.
Dalek said in an interview that the mayhem under the Khmer Rouge was a consequence of our having gone into Cambodia and destabilized the country, which is exactly what Bush said today.
He said that they're going to say, and they are saying it.
When I had my meeting with him, he was on fire about this.
I had a sense something was up.
I just got a sense that the gloves were about to come off here, but I didn't want to speculate on that because it was just a perception.
But he took me around the world and gave me a history lesson as to, well, current events lesson as to what's happening in various capitals and countries.
And he told me he was meeting with some NATO people, some leaders at NATO or European Union people.
And he had a couple of them come up to him and say, essentially, here what Dalek is saying.
The problem with the world is U.S. goes too many places and our interventionism destabilizes all of these places that otherwise would be full of peace and tranquility.
And Bush told me, I looked at him right in the eye and I said, the American people and the United States government are the solution.
We are not the problem.
And that's what he was saying today.
That was the theme of this speech.
He also said that the Iraqi legislatures passed 60 different pieces of legislation and the creation of a budgeting process that would distribute oil revenue despite the lack of an oil revenue sharing law, which is one of the key benchmarks that Congress had set for the Iraqi parliament to meet.
Congress had set the benchmark.
They set these benchmarks in a way that would be almost impossible, which gave them the cover to start running around now talking about the political process.
But did you see the headline in the Washington Post today?
Democrats refocus message on Iraq after military gains.
Criticism shifts to factional unrest.
A coordinated effort here between the drive-bys and the Democrats.
Listen to this opening line.
And you know this because I have told you this weeks ago before the Congress went on recess.
Democrat leaders in Congress had planned to use the August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war.
Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive gains on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved, reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.
They just, folks, they have to stay invested in defeat right now for the sake of holding Congress.
This kook base that they think determined the outcome of the 06 election is not the case, but that's what they think.
Their kook fringe lunatic base is going to force them to continue this position.
They're going to try to recalibrate with the help of the drive-bys.
They're going to try to have it both ways so that they can be supportive and acknowledging of the success.
Everybody admits it is occurring on the military side, but it doesn't matter in the end.
We should still get out.
Now, Democrats will face an advertising blitz from Bush supporters determined to remain on offense.
There's a new group out there called Freedom's Watch, unveiling a month-long $15 million TV, radio, and grassroots campaign today, designed to shore up support for the president's policies before Petraeus lays out a White House assessment of the war's progress.
The leading Democrat candidates for the White House have fallen into line with a campaign to praise military progress while excoriating Iraqi leaders for their unwillingness to reach political accommodations that Democrats in Congress demand that they make.
We need benchmarks for the U.S. Congress, folks.
They're not doing anything, which is good.
It's great when they don't get anything done.
But they are just little ankle biters out there harassing the president, trying to do all these investigations.
One more reference to the president's speech, because they did release the text early.
This is in the Los Angeles Times.
Senator Biden, who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized the president's speech, saying the president continues to play the American people for fools.
The only relevant analogy of Vietnam to Iraq is this, he said.
In Iraq, just as we did in Vietnam, we're clinging to a central government that does not and will not enjoy the support of the people.
The people elected them.
Unless the president acts on that lesson and works toward a federal solution in Iraq, there is no prospect that when we leave, we will leave anything stable behind.
And they quote this historian again, Robert Dalek.
It just boggles my mind the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president.
We were in Vietnam 10 years.
We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater.
What's Bush suggesting?
We didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough?
That's nonsense.
It's a distortion.
You know, what the Democrats don't like, what the left doesn't like, they want the Iraq-Vietnam comparison all to themselves.
And they want to be able to be in control of the narrative of that comparison.
And they want to be able to say, see, we lost to Vietnam because we had no business being there.
We destabilized the region.
And we have no business being in Iraq.
The president lied to us and people have died because the president lied, blah, blah, blah.
So when the president gives a speech and says, okay, you want some comparisons?
Here.
Here's the one that counts.
They just erupt and go, well, conniption fits.
We got that.
We've got lots of stuff going on.
The drive-bys.
The drive-bys, ladies and gentlemen, are backpedaling faster than Deion Sanders, trying to make sure that everybody knows that Michelle Obama was not talking about the Clintons when she talked about, gave that line, if you can't run your own house, you can't be in the White House.
And even Obama's out there says, oh, come on, that's not what she was talking about.
She was talking about our household and people with kids and so forth.
And I mean, it's just amazing to watch all the backtracking going on.
Even now, Obama had to clarify what his wife meant.
Anna C, I told you so coming up.
Somebody, it was a CBS morning show, Hannah Storm, I think, said that, well, you know, the reason the wives are going out there is because you can't attack the girl.
I wonder where she might have heard that.
It's been on this broadcast for a number of days.
By the way, we need to amend that.
It's you can't attack liberal women.
You can destroy Condoleezza Rice, for example, all you want.
You can try.
You can do racial and racist cartoons about her.
And you can go out and you can destroy Margaret Thatcher.
You can try to destroy Gene Kirkpachter, whoever.
It's liberal women that you cannot, if you're a male politician, attack.
All right, set the table.
Got to take a quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
Okay, a little animal news here before we get onto the Obama and drive-by media soundbites.
Here's a headline.
This is in the Rocky Mountain News.
Man charged in dog shooting.
His name is not Vic.
A conifer Colorado man been charged with aggravated animal cruelty after he allegedly shot the family dog named Lucky for stealing food from his plate.
Lucky expected to make a full recovery.
A deputy was called to the scene.
He said, what the hell?
What do you shoot your dog for?
He says, because he ate my food.
Gig Harbor, Washington, a 59-year-old woman's been hospitalized after being mauled by two pit bulls who came into her house Tuesday morning.
Pierce County Sheriff spokesman Ed Troyer said the two dogs came through a door that was left slightly open, attacked the woman while she was in bed about 9 o'clock in the morning, and dogs did not belong to her.
Well, it's just another case of peace-loving pit bulls who never met a stranger.
They didn't maul.
By the way, the Pit Bulls also killed a Jack Russell Terrier belonging to a neighbor during the attack.
So they are roaming.
I guess, you know, they might have heard about the Mike Vick plea deal out there, folks, and now they're lashing out.
They wanted a trial.
They wanted multiple years in prison, not just one.
All right, audio soundbite time.
Here is Michelle Obama during an introduction of her husband, the Magic Negro Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama at a Chicago appearance last week.
One of the things, the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like.
And my view is that if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House.
All right, well, this has caused a major kerfuffle out there in the Democrat Party and on the left.
Who was she talking about?
Why?
It couldn't possibly have been the Clinton.
would think that?
Who would possibly think that she'd, I mean, just because Hillary is Brock's opponent and leading in the race, why would she even, no, it couldn't, it can't be Hillary.
They even caught up with Barack yesterday in Kansas City.
He spoke to the VFW.
By the way, I saw some of these speeches these guys gave.
Barack at the VFW said, well, we got the audio.
We can't win.
We've already lost in Iraq.
Hillary went in there.
We played soundbites of her speech, and she just sounded bored to tears being in that room, like it was an obligatory thing for her, and it was.
It's the last place she wants to be is in front of a bunch of vets.
And Bush today, President Bush today, compared to these Democrats that wanted to meander through that hallway or through the speech hall, it just strike stark contrast.
None of these people on the left look presidential at all or even sounded.
Anyway, Barack, after his speech to VFW, was asked by reporters who his wife was talking about.
He's off mic here.
It's a little hard to hear.
Come on.
You guys are trying to manufacture something.
Come on, come on, come on.
You guys are trying to manufacture something.
The Democrats and the drive-bys twisted themselves into pretzels all day trying to backpedal on Michelle Obama's comments about the Clintons.
Here is a montage.
Barack Obama was asked today on a conference call about whether his wife was talking about the Clintons, and he said no.
Who was she referring to?
We're trying to read between the lines here.
I don't think she was taking a swipe at the Clintons.
This is Michelle Obama talking about their family and their decisions.
She talked about how the Obama family is dealing with their children.
There's no chance she was indirectly, subliminally referring to Hillary Clinton.
At the moment that she made the line, she smiled.
She and her husband have both come out and said, no, that's not true.
It was taken out of context.
Much to do with that and nothing.
Everybody thinks it's a cat fight.
I don't see it that way.
Do you think that that was a swipe at Hillary?
Yeah.
So just see, it could not possibly be.
How could anybody even think this?
It had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.
People are trying to manufacture a cat fight.
Now, the drive-bys are trying to prevent any criticism of Mrs. Clinton at all.
Why are they so afraid to come out and say it?
She was talking about the Clintons.
Didn't they hear Michelle Obama's other comments?
Listen to this whole thing.
Fear, fear of everything.
Fear that we might lose.
Fear that he might get hurt.
Fear that this would be ugly.
Fear that it would hurt our family.
Fear.
But you know, the reason why I said yes was because I am tired of being afraid.
I am so tired of fear, and I don't want my girls to live in a country in a world based on fear.
Well, I'll tell you this.
If she doesn't want her girls to be raised in a country that and live in a country that's based on fear, she better talk to every one of these Democrat candidates about what they say about the future of this country.
Because if there's anybody out there who is creating a climate of fear, crisis, angst, and tumult, it's the Democrat Party and the American left.
And they do it by design.
They do it on purpose.
So if her daughters are living in fear, there's a place that she can shield them from, and that's her own husband's campaign and the campaign of Mrs. Clinton.
And so if here's the C, I told you so.
This is yesterday morning.
I'm sorry, this morning on the CBS early show, Hannah Storm's talking about the candidates' wives with Bob Schieffer.
And Hannah says, remember now, we've explored this all week on this program.
This is what I mean by you listen here.
You are on the cutting edge of societal evolution, which means you will know what's important before what's important becomes important.
You'll be ahead of everybody in terms of the timeline of events, just as this soundbite illustrates.
Hannah Storm says, look, there's a school of thought out there that says the woman running for the presidential Democratic nominee may be up to the wives to criticize her because the men can't.
There's something to what you say, Hannah.
You have a woman running.
It is sometimes difficult for men to criticize women without looking like they're browbeating them or are being, you know, putting them down in some kind of way.
And so I think you will hear the wives speak out during this campaign.
I mean, we just have some very activist wives this time out, especially on the Democratic side.
I don't think you'll see it as much on the Republican side.
Why is that, Bob?
Is it because they're in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant?
Why are the Republican wives not going to speak?
Maybe it's because when they even just show up like Fred Thompson's wife, they are smeared.
Even she doesn't even open her mouth.
They are smeared because she's a trophy wife in her case.
Here's Elizabeth Edwards, by the way.
She was on the early show today.
Question.
Michelle Obama been in the news for a comment she made last week.
People feel it's a woman that's running might come down to the wives to come down on Hillary Clinton because a man can't criticize a woman that way.
What are your thoughts about that?
If you're talking about policies and things like that, that there's no problem in anyone criticizing or making the distinctions between their policies and Senator Clinton's policies.
In fact, I think it's an imperative that you do that.
Of course, Michelle's on her own.
Whoa.
It sounds to me like Elizabeth thinks she was talking about Hillary too, even though the drive-bys are trying to spin that the other way.
My reaction to this bite, well, then, if it's imperative for the candidates to disagree with each other on policy, why are you doing all the talking for your husband?
That's right, making the complex understandable.
It's one of the big secrets to the success of this program, being able to take all this complicated, gobbledygook that's uttered and reported and written out there and synthesize it down into something that makes sense because most of the people doing the talking and the writing don't want you to actually know what they're saying.
We de-spin the spin.
Here's Bruce in Tallahassee, Florida.
Bruce, welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Nice to be here.
What a pleasure and an honor it is to be here.
Been a longtime listener back when you shared airtime or airspace, I guess, with Chuck Harter many years ago.
But my question or my thing today is that yesterday when you were talking about the letter carriers and the postal system, you kind of made a statement as to the taxpayers getting screwed again with a complimentary.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I got some angry emails about this.
Yeah, well, just to set the record straight, I believe, and maybe some of my fellow carriers will correct me on this, but the Postal Reform Act of 73 or 74 made the post office a semi-private organization still connected with the government.
However, no taxpayers' money are involved in anything that the post office, the postal system does.
That 41 cent stamp you buy to put on a letter is what funds everything the post office does, and you can still send a letter from Key West to Anchorage, Alaska for 41 cents.
Yeah, it might get there.
And it might get there.
Probably 49 out of 50 times it will, and probably better average than that.
All right.
So, you know, I want to thank you for this economics lesson.
You have straightened me out.
You really have.
I learned something I didn't know.
I didn't know that stamps, the sale of stamps and the cost of other postage deliveries and so forth was what funded your salaries of the Letter Carriers Association.
And I, you know, I, who buys the stamps, by the way, Bruce?
Well, pretty much everybody.
Carriers, citizens, you, you know, the taxpayers, right?
Taxpayers.
And so when the stamp goes up to 55 cents, it's going to be because you guys got a raise.
I'm not complaining.
I want everybody to make as much as they can.
But it is, it is.
I was wrong in saying you got a new contractor, union gets, the taxpayer gets screwed again.
But that's in a direct sense.
I was about 20% incorrect there.
That's not a percentage judgment on you.
No, well, it won't affect it because, again, only the opinions are audited.
People do not understand this.
Only the opinions end up being audited.
Thanks for the phone call out there, Bruce.
All right, we have some President Bush soundbites ready to go here, and I really want you to hear these.
I've asked Cookie to put together a couple of more from where he was quoting all the doomsayers, particularly in the media during the Vietnam era.
He cited a New York Times article or column.
He didn't name the reporter.
And I'm having her dig that up.
It was a powerful moment.
I want you also to hear some of the things he said about Japan and how, you know, after World War II, people say, you're crazy.
You're never going to make them a democracy.
It's not going to happen.
It doesn't have it in them.
All these, his point was that the doom and gloom crowd is consistent, and they've been consistent throughout history, and they've been consistently wrong.
And yet they are still considered the experts.
He kept throwing that word around with little quote marks in his voice, experts.
You can tell he clearly disdains the experts that are cited by the other side.
Here is one of his explanations of what happened after we left Vietnam and why we should not repeat it.
Many argue that if we pulled out, there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.
The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be.
In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution.
In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps where tens of thousands perished.
Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left.
There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America.
We cut the applause here in the interest of time, brevity being the soul of wit.
Here's bite number two.
There's another prize to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle.
Those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001.
Osama bin Laden declared that the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam, and they must do the same today.
Bin Laden has declared that the war in Iraq is for you or us to win.
If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever.
Iraq is one of the several fronts in this war on terror, but it's a central front.
It's a central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again.
And it's the central front for the United States.
And to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating.
See, Democrats are just, they're out there.
They're fuming over this.
They think they own the comparison to Iraq and Vietnam.
And by the way, I'd hasten to add that they failed to make it.
You know, they're out there having to, you know, they've been outmaneuvered again.
This Washington Post story, Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq after military gains, they just opened the door and right into their nose again before they had a chance to go in the doorway.
And so now they've got to recalibrate.
And they want this kind of flexibility, and the drive-bys give it to them.
The drive-bys will never make them stick to a surgeon doing well.
Hey, Denji Harry Nancy Pelosi, you got to come up with something.
Recalibrate here so you can have both ways.
We'll help you out.
We'll keep you base for you.
And you can get on board with this thing because reality is reality.
You can't sit there and deny that.
But they've tried.
Everything the Democrats and the drive-bys have done over the past three and a half, four years has been to create negative public opinion about the war.
And it's turning around.
And it's got to be disappointing to them that this has happened and it failed.
Their efforts failed.
Now that they are clearly seen on the side of defeat, we're not going to let them, on this program, we're not going to let them get back on this side.
They may try to recalibrate, but it ain't going to work here.
Our disgruntificator will not let their calibration equipment succeed.
It ain't going to happen here.
These people own their position on this program, and we are going to continually play you audio of what they said in the past four months, six months, especially.
Especially since go back to April, March, when the whole surge idea was first floated.
They have been opposing it.
They have said it can't win.
They said it's already defeated, blah, blah, blah.
Just yesterday, the surge finally hit full force in terms of a man power.
So they're out there trying to recalibrate.
And one of the things they tried to do was to say that this administration is the equivalent of Nixon and Watergate with all his corruption and all this executive privilege and all this things going on that nobody knows about, like the immigration bill the Democrats are in charge of.
Nobody knew about that.
And when we found out about it, it was toast.
And they tried to say that the Iraq war is just Vietnam, a quagmire.
We're going nowhere.
And why?
Because they want us to lose and they were happy we lost in Vietnam.
What they've forgotten is after they succeeded in pulling off the loss in Vietnam by defunding it, they nominated a guy like George McGovern who lost in a landslide to the, at the time, hated and despised Richard Nixon.
And yet they still go back to that era and look at it as an era of glory for them.
And they seem hell-bent on emulating it.
So President comes along, destroys their comparison to Iraq and Vietnam, and puts it in his own words.
And now they're running around fulminating and getting all these historians to speak to, saying it's Bush out of his mind.
I don't know what he's talking about.
Blah, Here's a little bite, interesting idea here of how many terrorists we are killing.
Day after day, hour after hour, they keep the pressure on the enemy that would do our citizens harm.
They've overthrown two of the most brutal tyrannies of the world and liberated more than 50 million citizens.
In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country.
Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al-Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year.
How about that?
How about that?
You know, ever since Vietnam, we don't get enemy casualty figures.
Remember, Westmoreland got sued over that because he's making them up.
The Cronkites of the world and out there was, ah, these battle figures of these enemy casualties.
We don't necessarily believe this.
So for policy reasons, those figures, exact figures, are not announced.
Now, since he said this, he told me this when we had a little meeting before dinner, and he gave me the monthly stats for July.
And they were astounding.
I'm not going to repeat those.
I mean, it's his province to do that, but he's 1,500 average a month captured and killed.
He didn't give me the capture and kill total.
He gave me the kill total.
But that's still his province to talk about.
Anyway, quick timeout.
We've got a few more of these.
Followed up by a brilliant bite from John Kerry, to put all this, who served in Vietnam, by the way, put all this in perspective.
Okay, three more bites here to go.
Two of the president and one of John Kerry.
This is the president reassuring the VFW members he's not going to abandon Iraq or the surge.
Today, our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against al-Qaeda, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm.
As they take the initiative from the enemy, they have a question.
Will their elected leaders in Washington pull the rug out from under them just as they're gaining momentum and changing the dynamic on the ground in Iraq?
Here's my answer.
We'll support our troops.
We'll support our commanders.
And we will give them everything they need to succeed.
Right on, Now, you know, Carl Levin came out yesterday and said, Malachi, Prime Minister Malachi, Nouriel Maliki, got to step down.
Guy's incompetent.
They're not meeting a political benchmark.
Yeah, the surge is working.
I saw it with my own eyes.
But this guy's got to go.
And Bush decided to reply to that in these remarks today.
Many are frustrated by the pace of progress in Baghdad, and I can understand this.
As I noted yesterday, the Iraqi government is distributing oil revenues across its provinces despite not having an oil revenue law in its books.
That the parliament has passed about 60 pieces of legislation.
Prime Minister Maliki's a good guy, good man, with a difficult job, and I support him.
And it's not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C. to say whether he will remain in his position.
That is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship.
And they came to their feet in Kansas City with that remark.
So with all this in perspective, the president laying out The genocidal scope of death in Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia after we left Vietnam, unfinished business.
Back on July 19th of this year, C-SPAN's Washington Journal hosted Senator John Kerry, who served in Vietnam.
And he got a caller from Lubbock, Texas on a Democrat line.
And the caller said, I remember the horrible killings after Vietnam and the boat people coming over here.
And I really hate to go off and leave our allies over in Iraq.
And I'm concerned about that.
Let me just say to the first part of your question with respect to boat people and killing.
Everybody predicted a massive bloodbath in Vietnam.
There was not a massive bloodbath in Vietnam.
There were re-education camps and they weren't pretty.
And, you know, nobody likes that kind of outcome.
But on the other hand, I've met a lot of people today who were in those education camps who are thriving in the Vietnam of today.
Well, let's come out for re-education camps.
I mean, if you're thriving in Vietnam after a re-education camp, let's try them here.
And maybe what the Democrats can secure their future with is re-education camps.
If your kids, after 12 years of school and in college, still don't get how wonderful liberals are, just send them to re-education camp.
Those were communist-run, I know they're communist-run re-education camps.
He never met a communist.
He didn't want to defend.
These people don't criticize communists.
It's what he, you know, talking about these re-education camps, they weren't pretty, he said.
You know, nobody likes that kind of outcome.
But on the other hand, I met a lot of people today.
Really went well through those things and thriving well in Vietnam today.
So, you know, everything is either or, but there's an and or something.
Yeah, nobody wants that, but just can't come out and say what they did was wrong.
You know what this guy was saying when he came back from Vietnam.
We don't have to go through that again.
Wasn't a massive bloodbath in Vietnam.
I don't know.
Revisionist history.
I think these people try to revise history in the process of revising it.
They end up believing the lies that they are using to revise the truth of history.
This is Andrew in San Diego.
Andrew, glad you waited, sir.
You're on the EIB network.
Mr. Limbaugh, it's a pleasure to talk to you.
I've been listening to you for about 14 years, which puts me in seventh grade, I think.
A rush baby.
A rush baby, proud one.
I just want to thank you for inspiring me to go teach high school for a few years.
And then you've also inspired me to join the military.
Wow.
So sort of my point is, I guess, if there's any, my mother and I woke up this morning and we're reading the newspaper and we saw the Washington Post article there on the Dredge Report.
And I said, you know, Mom, if there's any question left about the Democrats' patriotism and they're willing to play politics with my friends and, you know, your son eventually when I go over to fight, there is no question left.
They're willing to do anything and everything to remain in power.
And I said, you know, and so if you call them unpatriotic, mom, it's okay.
And she said, well, but they get really offended at that.
And I said, well, you know, the truth is offensive most of the time to most of the people.
But, you know, it's just, it's absolutely ridiculous to me to watch these, because I live right outside of D.C. now.
I'm just visiting my family in San Diego.
But to watch these people play games with my friends' lives and the lives and blood of the American people, I just, I don't, I don't understand it anymore.
Yeah, you do.
You understand it.
You may not want to believe that it's true because it is so deeply disturbing and offensive.
You understand it.
You nailed it.
They're playing politics with the lives of American troops.
They want to be able to recalibrate their message.
They want to be able to shift their message and have the media promote whatever the new calibration of the message suggests so that they are able to stay on the offensive about this and whatever message they want.
They're not being held accountable.
The drive-bys give them a pass on this.
People like you notice it.
This would not have happened 18, 20 years ago.
People like you notice it.
So do the guys that you're going to serve with.
They know all this is happening.
And while this may not have demoralized the troops, it certainly has encouraged the enemy.
Yes.
And that is also unconscionable.
It's also true that this bickering in Washington has led to some problems.
The Democrat even admitted this in the political solution moving forward.
I'll have to talk about this in more detail.
Look, God bless you, Andrew, on your travels.
I've got to run because of time, but thanks for the call very much.
That's right.
There was no massive bloodbath.
Vietnam is no massive bloodbath in Cambodia.
No massive bloodbath in China.
No massive bloodbath Soviet Union.
Cuba, Rwanda, you name it.
The tolerance for bloodbaths in the Democrat Party is stunning.
Of course, they love the people, folks.
They love the people more than we do because they tell us.
▲
Export Selection