All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:37
September 13, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, it is.
My DittoCam monitor is more crooked each and every day.
You know what I mean?
Well, okay, because I'm not going to straighten it.
This is an engineer's job.
It's an engineer's job to notice this.
Anyway, greetings, my friends, and welcome.
We have broadcast excellence for you, El Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-concerned.
All everything maha-rushy here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Dawn, you think those two guys are listening?
I was home last night, ladies and gentlemen, as I mostly am when I'm here in Florida, minding my own business, bothering no one.
And I get this little chip.
You don't want me to tell the story?
You can't make me stop telling the story now.
These guys like you, that's not going to change.
Oh, my gosh, she's turning red in there.
You know, Dawn's a court reporter.
Dawn does the transcriptions.
I won't.
You just chill in there.
Look, I am the highly trained broadcast specialist.
I know how to do these things.
I mean, you could be worried if I were a rank amateur, but I'm not.
It's very wifey of you, you know, to sit in there and think that I'm going to box this up.
So anyway, I'm sitting here.
She gets sends me this quick instant message flash.
She's running these two guys.
Dawn is a court reporter.
You interrupted me.
You do the, you don't, oh, that's what, oh, cats out of the bag.
She ran into these two guys.
They found out she works here.
They blew up.
They started railing on me like you can't believe.
And she said she had more fun in the world defending me than she's had in a long, long time.
And as it turned out that these guys never listened to the program, she said they're going to be listening today.
So I've been thinking all day, what can I start with to make to confirm their dislike and hatred for me?
Do what?
Well, be self-absorbed and arrogant.
Well, I'm that every day.
That's just part of who I am.
Anyway, I just wanted to tell the story because she got a big kick out of defending me.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm holding here my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, a copy of a page from the September 2007 issue of the postal record.
Now, the postal record is the monthly newsletter of the National Association of Letter Carriers.
Now, you might recall we had a call back in August from a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers.
By the way, I'm wondering, speaking of the National Association of Letter Carriers, you know, this William Paul, PAW, one of the bundlers of Hillary Clinton's 850 grand, a letter carrier, makes $45,000 a year, and then his family, the Paul family, lots of pets, no money.
Nevertheless, found a way to contribute $255,000 to the Clintons and other Democrats over two years.
He's a letter carrier.
So I'm wondering if he's a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers.
They got a good contract, according to caller, but not that good a contract.
Well, anyway, we had a call from the letter carriers.
just gotten the previous month's newsletter and there were campaign interviews with various presidential candidates in there or not interviews they've been allowed to make statements in the letter carrier newsletter and are you still upset in there is she biting her lower lip you worry So um uh, a phone call said you know there were no Republicans, the Republican candidates were not in this newsletter.
I said that surprises you.
This is a union.
Well, that that drew a letter from the thug president of the National Association OF Letter Carriers, Bill Young who uh, excoriated me for taking the word of one of his union members uh, and not investigating the facts for myself.
Turns out, he said that they had offered the Republican candidates a couple paragraphs each, but none of them had accepted.
So I I thought I was pretty good.
I thought I read his letter and I acknowledged what he had said.
The page of the 07 september 07 newsletter is that i'm holding here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers, totally devoted to me, Rush's judgment not impaired by facts, and he goes on to excoriate me here for what happened on the program, even though I read his letter on the air and even though I apologize, I got calls from other letter carriers saying, you back down to this bully.
He's not the truth, what he's done doesn't matter, it's what he's asserting and i'm, as a as a responsible host, I duly reported it.
I also have a press release from the National Association OF Letter Carriers.
The headline, this guy excoriates me, folks.
He excoriates me for being wrong and not understanding it and not understanding that this union is wide open to all points of view.
I get a copy of the press release here that the headline Letter Carriers Union endorses Hillary Clinton.
I wonder if Mo Thacker knows this guy, Bill Young.
Mo Thacker is the United Screeners OF America uh, Union THUG, and he represents all the call screeners out there.
So anyway, we have audio soundbites of this.
This was yesterday in Washington Dc and here, and none other is mrs Clinton.
Mr president, we don't need another mission accomplished moment.
What we need is honesty and candor.
That was after she had been endorsed, before the primaries have even begun, by the National Association OF Letter Carriers.
So, uh and i'm not surprised, with letter carriers at least one letter carrier in his family donating all this uh, all this money that now has to go back.
This letter carrier's got a windfall coming, speaking of which, you know, mrs Clinton has uh uh she, she had a press conference, a conference call with reporters and we had the story yesterday.
She's actually going to try to uh it send a note out with the money book going back, saying you feel free to send it back.
In turns out this is illegal.
Federal Election Commission rules make it illegal.
I got a note from a guy who worked on John Anderson's campaign in 1980, who ran that third-party independent candidacy when Regan and Carter were battling it out and uh, they had a snafu.
They had to give back eighty thousand dollars in donations and they asked the f, 'can we include an envelope and a note?
We send the check back, saying you can send it back to us if you do it in a legal and right way?
And the fac said no, you can't do that.
This is exactly so.
Mrs Clinton is, in violation of the law, even suggesting she's going to do this if she follows through with it.
Uh uh, that was Clinton.
Say, what sticking laws?
Whose laws are you talking about?
How do you think those two guys reacting to this uh open, uh dawn.
All right.
I made a prediction yesterday on the they were lawyers, by the way, folks.
I made a prediction.
They were trial lawyers, by the way, in their late 40s, thinking they're the smartest guys in the room.
I'd never listened to the program.
All of these opinions, typical of the enlightenment that you find out there on the left, a bunch of arrogant, condescending, know-it-all little creeps ripping me to shreds, never having listened to the program, never having met me.
How's this, Dawn?
Let me take a timeout.
We got lots to do.
Folks, you won't believe what's coming up on the well, you will because you expect broadcast excellence.
You get that and more each and every busy broadcast day here on the EIB network.
Be right back.
Yeah, greetings.
Welcome back.
El Rushbro here on the cutting edge of societal evolution prepared to have more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I made a prediction yesterday when we learned that the New York Times and that little pinch sold the full page ad to moveon.org in Monday morning's paper for $65,000 when the going rate on their rate card for that page, $167,000.
So they got a $102,000 discount.
I predicted this is going to lead to problems with other advertisers in the New York Times.
Yeah, you got back page, full-page sponsors, cosmetics, whatever the hell it is.
And these people can say, hey, if I put a political message in my ad, will you give me a $100,000 price reduction?
Well, there's an organization out there called Freedom Watch.
Their spokesman, Matt David, said they've put full-page ads in the New York Times.
They were charged significantly more than moveon.org.
And they say they plan to run a response to the moveon.org ad in the Times, and they say they're going to demand the same ad rate that moveon.org got.
Now, the times have been, they can do whatever they want.
They can accept advertising, don't have to accept it.
I have no problem with that.
You know, we do it all the time.
We reject advertising on this program.
Everybody can do that.
It's your business.
You can do that.
When you start messing around with a rate card like this, though, you're going to have some problem.
Well, that's a good point.
Their rate card may be $167,000.
Maybe they're not getting it.
But I don't think they're discounting $100,000, HR.
Clearly, with some sympathy.
No pun intended here, but they're obviously on the same page with moveon.org.
Yesterday, during our excursion into broadcast excellence, we had a big story from the Wall Street Journal detailing where Norman Shu Shu Chaoling got his money.
$40 million.
Where did he get it?
And how did it end up ending up to the Clinton?
Well, we know how it ended up with the Clintons and the Democrat Party, but where he got it was from a guy named Rosenman, who's now a financier on Madison Avenue in New York.
And it turns out that Rosenman was one of the guys who founded and orchestrated and put on Woodstock in 1969 at Max Yasgar's farm.
I got an email yesterday afternoon after the program.
He said, do you realize that Mrs. Clinton has proposed that Congress pay or spend $1 million to build a Woodstock museum?
You know, Mrs. Clinton's running around like she didn't know who Shu is and she didn't know where Shu got his money.
She has no idea about this.
She's totally surprised.
So I read this email with a lot of interest.
Well, my gosh, well, here's a connection.
If she's authorizing, if she wants a million dollars spent for a Woodstock museum, so I looked it up.
We did Nexus research, ladies and gentlemen.
Two stories to report to you.
First, from the Des Moines Register, July 4th of this year.
A tax cut group on Tuesday took aim at a bill sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa questioning use of federal money for a Woodstock Music Festival Museum, an online herbarium in New York, and a canoe-making program in Hawaii.
Those projects are among the more than 1,000 so-called earmarks in a spending bill overseen by Harkin, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee.
Another earmark highlighted by Americans for Prosperity was $1 million for the museum at Bethel Woods in New York, which according to its website seeks in 2008 to interpret the 1969 Woodstock Music and Arts Fair.
The money was requested by two New York senators, Democrat Chuck Schumer, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Then the Jawa report on July 17th of this year.
Hillary Schumer wants $1 million for Hippie Museum.
How many troops will have to go without supplies, armor, or food because Hillary and Schumer want to fund a church to the hippies?
The grassroots free market group Americans for Prosperity today released a list of Senate earmarks to be included in the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education Appropriations Bill.
1,016 earmarks total nearly $392 million and include millions for questionable projects such as $1 million in tax dollars for a museum dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival.
Now, you may be thinking, so what?
Rush, ladies and gentlemen, I've warned you, I can't tell you how many times, nothing that happens with the Clintons is a coincidence.
So we now, we can spend all afternoon connecting the dots, or we can suspend disbelief.
And we don't have to spend all afternoon connecting the dots.
Here you have this guy, Rosenman, who started Woodstock, somehow gets in business with Shu, gives Shu $40 million for what turns out to be a fraudulent investment scheme.
He's now trying to get the money back.
Shu ends up doing whatever with the money, but some of it ends up back to Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats at large.
Mrs. Clinton said, I had no idea who Norman Shu is.
Our vetting process totally broke.
I had no clue.
We're shocked and we're stunned and blah, blah, blah, blah.
But there is that $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum.
And by the way, folks, remember all of the whining and the moaning and the complaining when that bridge in Minneapolis took the dumper?
We don't spend enough on infrastructure in our country.
We are falling apart.
We got to get people out of Iraq.
$1 million for an Woodstock museum, ladies and gentlemen.
I was 18 years old when this happened.
I remember it well.
Nothing that happens with the Clintons is a coincidence.
What a great juxtaposition of headlines on the Drudge Report page today.
First headline, Al-Qaeda in Iraq takes heavy losses.
The headline right under it, frustrated Democrats mull strategy.
What?
If that doesn't say it all, Al-Qaeda in Iraq takes heavy losses.
Meanwhile, kicking butt, frustrated Democrats, mull strategy.
Al-Qaeda militants in Iraq have been taking heavy losses in two joint U.S.-Iraqi raids north of Baghdad, the military reported today.
One operation involving more than 1,000 troops and Iraq special forces in a mountain area in a river valley.
Three of three al-Qaeda fighters were killed, 80 others arrested.
The report said that four of the arrested men are considered senior leaders in the terror group.
The U.S. air support was used to conclude the raid, after which a major weapons cache was found.
The statement read elsewhere in Sava Al-Din province, U.S. forces arrested 12 al-Qaeda suspects.
These numbers are really low.
I happen to know what the numbers are because the powerful, influential member of the media, I have access.
U.S. military, by policy, will not announce enemy death tolls.
It got them into trouble back in the Vietnam days.
But these figures are way, way low considering the success that we're actually having.
Try this set of headlines.
I like to do this some days.
I just go through and get the headlines and compare them.
New York Times, Carl Hulse, Disappointed Democrats map withdrawal strategy.
Disappointed Democrats.
They are disappointed.
Folks, they got skunked by General Petraeus.
And they've just done it to themselves again.
New York Times, Cheryl Gay Stolberg, and Stephen Lee Myers Bush to sell limited Iraq pullout as middle way.
Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson, General Petraeus wins a TV war in a rout.
Wall Street Journal, Iraq testimony appears to have won no converts.
From the Washington Post, Democrats push toward middle on Iraq policy.
Wait a minute, didn't we just New York Times says Bush is headed to the middle?
The Democrats say they heard it headed to the middle.
Did that result in a giant kumbaya maybe down the road, both headed to the same place?
No, because whatever Bush, wherever Bush goes, it won't be enough as far as the Democrats are concerned.
Washington Post, get this headline, Mr. Snirdly.
Petraeus returns to war that is now his own.
Petraeus returns to war that is now his own.
Here's the Washington Times.
By the way, this is a great story.
Petraeus unites the GOP on the pullout.
You know, real leaders can have this effect.
People, I don't care whether they're elected officials or average, common, ordinary, everyday Americans like you and me, real leaders have that effect.
What's happened here is the Democrats' strategy was to split a bunch of Republicans, liberal, moderate Republicans away from Bush on the war.
It's not going to happen.
Details coming up right after this.
Don't go away.
All right, now, a little bit more on this Washington Times story.
Petraeus unites GOP on pullout.
And we talk about leadership a lot on this program because I have it and I exude it on a daily basis.
And people respond to it.
And it's been sorely missing in a lot of high levels of the Republican Party.
But this story is interesting.
Senate Republicans, bolstered by Army General David Petraeus' war report this week, are closing ranks.
They say Democrats will continue to fall far shy of the votes needed to force a pullout from Iraq.
Republicans facing intense anti-war pressure in their home states.
Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Luger of Indiana, Dominici of New Mexico, all say that Petraeus' congressional testimony helped persuade them not to switch their votes.
Luger was on the news hour with Jim Olara on PBS, and I'm supportive of a reasonable plan, which they offered.
What does this signal?
This signals a continued well, it's a replay.
This is a loop of Democrat losses.
You know what the headline for this story ought to be?
Instead of Petraeus unites GOP on pullout, the headline ought to be, not one Democrat permitted to change his vote.
Not one Democrat permitted to change his mind.
They are in lockstep.
Here's that New York Times story: Disappointed Democrats map withdrawal strategy.
Any move, let me summarize this for you.
Any move away from a firm withdrawal could cause Democrat defections.
It looks like Dingy Harry is screwed again, folk.
I want to pause here for a second.
I want to talk to you a little bit about human nature.
I want to talk to you about arrogance and cockiness, a feeling of superiority, feeling of being the smartest guy, smartest person in the room.
Those are characteristics that apply like glue to today's Democrat Party and especially its leaders.
And throughout the summer, throughout the spring, from the moment the surge was announced, the Democrats did everything they could to undermine it.
They had help from their willing accomplices in the media.
They waved the white flag of surrender.
They had all these resolutions.
They were convinced or tried to convince themselves and the American people that the election results last November gave them a mandate to get us out of Iraq.
And every time we saw any of them, I don't care if it's Durbin, Chuck Schemer, Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry, whichever of them we saw on TV, either singularly or together, they appeared confident, cocky, arrogant, condescending, intolerant, and all that.
And they just knew that they were eventually going to make their policy plans work.
They have been skunked and not just defeated.
They have been skunked and humiliated from the moment they started the anti-surge rhetoric back in March all up to this week.
It's sort of like what Oliver North did to these guys during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Remember, what was it?
Arthur Lyman sitting up there and John John, I forget his weird hairdo up there.
And George Mitchell, this giant select committee.
And here's Oliver North in full dress uniform.
And they just did, they're going to get him.
They know it.
This is the day they're going to get him and they're going to get Reagan.
Hallelujah.
And North ran rings around them, rallied the American people to his side of the issue.
Even went so far as, you know, one of these questioners said, Colonel Nort, Colonel Nort, we have a document here.
And North said, wait, wait, I shredded all these.
Did I miss one?
And these guys are looking around at each other like, well, he didn't just say the American people loved it because people do not like arrogance.
They do not like condescension.
They do not like people who make it obvious that they hold other people in contempt.
These are human characteristics that are like fingernails on a chalkboard.
They just really irritate people.
Arrogance and condensation.
The smart little know-it-all elite types.
And throughout the summer, this typifies who the Democrats have been.
And they always are.
Many leftists are this way.
Don't know diddly squat about what they're talking, like these two guys Dawn ran into last night.
But they nevertheless think that they are God's gift to humanity.
And they know everything when they don't know anything.
In the process of having this attitude, they look at their opponents, in their case, George W. Bush, and we know how they look at him.
Not just contempt.
They have sheer rage, Bush derangement syndrome, it's called.
They are delusional and deranged.
They are foaming the mouth with anger and all this contempt.
And he outsmarts them and gets his way on the things he really cares about every time.
This, they were going to cream Petraeus.
They were going to hold him up.
They were going to treat him like a judicial nominee.
They were going to destroy his career.
They were going to destroy his reputation.
And don't tell me they didn't try and didn't have that in mind, calling him a liar before he ever says a word, calling him a puppet and so forth.
After two days of testimony, it is clear, once again, just who the mental midgets are, just who the incompetents are.
I mean, these Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, I want you to try to understand how they feel today.
And you can see it in the headlines of these stories.
They were confident.
They've been confident since 2001 they're going to beat this guy.
And they're going to stop this guy.
And they're going to make sure he doesn't get what he wants because he's a dumb frat boy.
He's a barbecue jockey from Texas with a can of chewing tobacco in the back pocket.
He can't speak in public.
He's a blithering idiot.
He's got the IQ of a pencil eraser.
This is what they run around thinking.
And no humility among them at all.
It just outfoxes them and outsmarts them at every turn.
Disappointed Democrats map withdrawal strategy.
What the hell kind of headline is this?
Well, it's a New York Times headline, but I mean, the focus is still, okay, what are the Democrats going to do now?
What are Democrats going to do now?
This is Petraeus' war.
It's his.
He owns it now.
Since he came in and skunked our precious Democrats, fine.
He's getting our load next, say the drive-by media.
They've tried to take Bush out.
They haven't been able to do it.
Tried to take Petraeus out.
We're unable to do it.
And I predicted to you, folks, I know a lot about human nature.
You think that they're going to learn a lesson and dry up and go, no, this is going to make them even angrier that this bum.
And they're going to come back and be even more extreme.
They're going to come back and be even more intolerant.
They're not going to get anything done because they're not going to have the votes.
But they've got to go out there and keep all these lunatics that vote for them appeased.
NG Harry said Democrats plan to vote on more aggressive legislative challenges to the war, which could help appease critics who are demanding Democrats take tougher action.
Harry Reid has been reduced.
You want to talk about incompetence?
You've got two leaders of Democrats.
You've got the House leader Pelosi, the Democrat leader Reed.
If we're going to talk impeachment or getting rid of current leadership, if I were you, Democrats, if I were you, Kook French, I would say you got to get rid of Reed.
You got to get rid of Pelosi.
They are failing you.
And they are embarrassing you.
And they're embarrassing themselves.
And they're harming the country.
I still am stunned as I sit to actually contemplate this.
You know me, folks.
I'm naturally bulliant and optimistic.
And I try to look at things and laugh and enjoy myself.
Every time I stop and think about what happened Monday and Tuesday this week, and then combine that with months of this behavior on the part of the Democrats, look at how divided we have become over the concept of American exceptionalism.
We've actually got a percentage of this country that doesn't believe in American exceptionalism.
American exceptionalism to them represents the major problem in the world.
And they're doing everything they can to cut their own country down to size in the midst of a war against a bunch of extremists who are telling us every day what they intend to do to us if they get the chance.
And they'll get the chance and more of a chance if we don't keep up missions and efforts to stop them.
And yet we can't count on a political party, a major political party in this country to help secure victory to protect and defend the Constitution and this country.
Like I said yesterday, we're going to have to win this war without Democrats.
We have to, in fact, win the war in two fronts.
We have to beat the Democrats and beat the media and beat their lunatic fringe and the external enemy.
And we have to do it at the same time.
Now, we're capable of it because we're Americans, and this is the United States of America.
But I guarantee you, the Democrats, when they slinked away after those two days of hearings into the privacy of wherever it is they hole up, I guarantee you, they were stunned.
They couldn't believe it.
This was it.
This was the Oliver North moment.
What is it about these people they do not learn?
This happens to them and has happened to them since 2001 on virtually everything that's important to George W. Bush.
It has happened to them.
The Wellstone Memorial, this is what arrogance and condescension, cockiness leads you to do.
And I'll tell you something else.
One of the things that contributes to this combination of really unflattering human characteristics that they are displaying as a party is that the drive-by media constantly does puff pieces on these people, makes it sound like they represent a majority of thinking in this country, makes it look like they are the ones defining the future of the country when they're not.
They may have won the House and Senate, but I guarantee them to you, folks, the way the Democrats think today is definitely a minority.
It is definitely their mode of thinking, their view of the world, their view of this country's place in the world is a minority opinion in this country.
They may not even realize it.
You know, when you have a bunch of lapdogs around you, this is one of the problems that highly successful people have.
They surround themselves with a bunch of yes people who'll say whatever the highly successful person wants to hear so they can stay in good graces, get paid, and be whatever.
That's the drive-by media.
In a sense, just bucking these guys up.
These headlines are ridiculous here today.
What do the Democrats have to do now?
What will the Democrats do now?
Hell, they're going to retreat.
Well, they're going to withdraw.
Well, they're going to move to the middle.
Well, they're depressed.
Well, they're this or that.
And so they sit there and live with this preoccupation that they're getting tricked, that this barbecue jockey from Texas somehow is using slick packaging and marketing to defeat them because he's too stupid to do it on his own.
So they retreat.
Okay, how can we do that?
Because they really think they and the American people are being screwed.
The lesson here is humility.
When things are going wrong, the first person or organization that you look to to find out what might be wrong is yourself and your organization.
They are incapable of it, which bodes well for us in the future, by the way.
They are incapable of it precisely because of their arrogance and their cockiness and their superiority and their elitism and basically the way they lie to themselves.
Quick timeout here.
We've got lots more coming up after this.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I do something that many hosts out there do not do, and that is when I make allegations about people, such as I just did about the Democrats, I don't just say it.
I give you evidence.
I want to share with you something that Nancy Pelosi said this week.
What Congress is trying to do is a responsible deployment, redeployment, and a change of mission in Iraq so that we can focus on three things.
Redeployment out.
You got to, folks, stick with me on this.
She said, they're focusing on three things in Congress.
Redeployment out, readiness of our troops, strengthening our military to protect our interests wherever they may be threatened, and focusing on the real war on terror, which is Afghanistan, as well now as in Iraq.
Now, in the first place, that's four things.
But do you understand what she just did?
She just said we want to take the troops out of Iraq, redeploy them out, so that we can have them ready to protect our interests in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Why is it?
Where is the assumption?
Where does it come from that we're dealing with wizards here?
When we talk about Democrats, they're always portrayed as the smartest people, the most learned, the most scholarly.
I'm telling you here, we're dealing with mental midgets, people with the IQ basically above that of two eraser heads.
I'm being generous there.
She said this.
We have said the troops can stay.
Arrogance, condescension.
We have said she has no constitutional power to say we anything.
She ain't the commander-in-chief, and neither is Dingy Harry.
But she said, we have said the troops can stay.
A small number could stay, whatever number necessary to fight the al-Qaeda.
But we must get our combat troops out of that civil war in Iraq.
We are trying to find our common ground.
That's where I told him the House Democrats were.
You cannot say something like this without having two characteristics about you.
A, genuine stupidity.
And two, arrogance and superiority.
We have said the troops can stay.
Small number could stay, whatever number necessary to fight the al-Qaeda.
Whatever number necessary to fight the al-Qaeda.
But we must get our combat troops out of that civil war in Iraq.
If a Republican had said something like this, it would have been Dan Quayle all over again.
Now that's just Nancy Pelosi, here's Dingy Harry.
This war is president's war.
And the Republicans have bought this war, hook, line, and sinker.
We've done our very best to do the right thing for our country.
We've kept the president's foot to the fire.
And as a result, we believe the American people see what we've done here and what we have here.
We have a bush war supported by Republicans in Congress.
Now, that's he being political.
I mean, he's trying to position this Bush's war because they have to circle the wagons now.
But again, you clearly are able to see the arrogance, the elitism in this.
We've done our best to do the right thing for our country.
We've kept the president's foot to the fire.
We believe the American people see what we have here.
Dingy Harry, I'm going to tell you, if those election results in November were as you have been telling us they are, your first resolution would have passed.
If the election in November was about getting out of Iraq, and it wasn't Senator Reed, it was about two things, Macaca and Mark Foley, and Republicans who failed to govern as they had campaigned.
You guys didn't win anything.
The incumbents lost.
So Dingy Harry has just now confirmed what I said yesterday.
It's the president's war, it's the Republicans' war.
We, ladies and gentlemen, are going to have to win this war without Democrats.
Frankly, as stupid as they are, that's probably an advantage.
All right, folks, sit tight.
We're just getting warmed up here.
Two busy broadcast hours to go here on the Rush Limbaugh show.
By the way, by the way, Norman Shu sent a suicide note.
My friends, I knew this last week.
I knew it, but I couldn't confirm it.
So I kept alluding to, will they find the body?
But I knew.
And it's been confirmed now.
Two different stories.
▲
Export Selection