All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 2, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:30
November 2, 2007, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis and doing it effortlessly.
I am Rush Limbaugh behind the Golden EIB microphone here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies and its Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's Open Line Friday.
And Open Line Friday is where you basically run the show.
When we go to the phones, whatever it is you wish to discuss, feel free, ladies and gentlemen.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
Massachusetts officials.
Next month, we'll begin distributing kits to heroin addicts that include medication to treat overdoses.
Advocates say that the kits will help treat overdoses quickly, safely, and without fear of addiction and will be beneficial in a state where more people die from heroin than firearms.
Now, that's not hard in Massachusetts, is it?
Are there any guns in Massachusetts other than law enforcement and the criminals?
Each kit contains two doses of a medication called Narcan, which one addict can squirt up the nose of another addict who has overdosed.
The drug, known as generically as naloxone, causes no long-term side effects, specialists said.
Single dose costs about 20 bucks.
The program, inspired by similar distributions in Boston, Chicago, and New York City, lacks the support of the White House Drug Control Policy Council and some substance abuse advocates, including former heroin users.
It's a remarkably safe drug, said Dr. Peter Moyer, the medical director for the Boston Fire, Police, and Emergency Medical Services.
I've used gallons of it in my life to treat patients.
Heroin and other opiates killed 544 people in Massachusetts in 2005, more than double the number killed by firearms.
Well, okay.
Tell you what this naloxone does, and the way it works, it attaches to the opiate receptors in the brain and overpowers the opiate itself or the heroin.
What it does is put the addict in a state of withdrawal, and that's how it counters the overdose.
And that is no fun.
And that's why they say it will not lead to further addiction.
Now, once you're addicted to this stuff, you're addicted to it.
This stuff is not going to get you off of it.
It's going to save your life if you overdose, if somebody's around when you do it.
Did you hear it at the White House?
Oh, before we do that, you've got to hear this latest John Edwards ad, folks.
You have to hear this.
Now, this is ad.
There's some visual to it that would help you here.
We got it off YouTube.
It's an ad against Hillary.
The audio here will be sufficient for you to get the idea.
I'm going to try to paint you a picture.
The ad opens with some music and opens a black screen with some phrases about Mrs. Clinton wanting it both ways.
And they do side-by-side video clips of Mrs. Clinton answering the same question with different answers from Tuesday night's debate.
It runs about a minute 23.
Now, some people might say, well, this Edwards is really hitting hard here.
I do think, I do think that some people in the Democrat Party think the bloom's off the rose.
I think this performance of hers Tuesday night was not good.
This was not just a gaffe.
It wasn't just a slip.
This was the mask coming off.
This was the real Hillary Clinton.
And she was forced into that with not much trouble, by the way, with a question that she never expected to have to answer and so really wasn't prepared for it.
And so Edwards has decided he's going to take after her on this now.
Whether it works or not for Edwards is not the reason I'm playing it for you.
I want you to listen to it, and I'll give you my thoughts on it afterwards.
That is the ad.
Now, I don't know how many people are going to see it.
It's a minute 23.
It's a YouTube ad.
I don't know if he's going to buy time for it on television, but I tell you this, this is the exact kind of, if she gets a nomination, this is the kind of thing the Republicans are going to have to do.
The Republican nominee, the Republican Party, RNC, this is the kind of thing they're going to have to do.
Now, don't forget that doing what this ad does is what Mrs. Clinton is now and her team are saying, ah, they're hitting me.
They're being critical.
They're treating me like a girl.
And that's not pleasing a lot of people either.
So just a little heads up.
Edwards getting serious about this.
Could be just getting it out of the way now.
It's really not prominent.
We had to dig deep for it to find on his website and find the YouTube video of it.
But this is the kind of thing that she set herself up for now, big time.
This little escapade that happened Tuesday night is going to haunt her for quite a while.
The White House yesterday flatly repudiated statements made by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a May 2004 memo that oil wealth has made many Muslims against physical labor.
The spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters it's not in line with the president's views.
This was after the Washington Post reported the contents of what it described as a sample of the many memoranda Rumsfeld wrote to its staff.
In his comments, Rumsfeld explains a little bit more than he knew even at the time.
He said that oil wealth has made Muslims against physical labor, i.e. work.
He says that oil wealth detaches Muslims from the reality of the work, effort, and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world.
And then he really got down to it.
He said, too often, Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis while their own young people remain unemployed.
An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism.
This is what his point was.
So he was saying basically that Muslim countries want their young people to remain poor because it's easier to indoctrinate them and to recruit them.
In a way, this explains liberalism and the Democrats and the way they keep dumbing things down in the public school system.
The dropout rate is extorbitantly high.
The graduation rate with people who can't read their diplomas is unreal.
I've often thought that, in fact, we had that report.
Oh, this guy, this educator I shared with you, I can't remember his name.
He's a well-known scholar in education.
He had the same point.
He said in way too many public schools in this country that the lesson is how to be unemployed.
The lesson is what is taught is how to be unemployed.
And he was talking about urban schools, I believe, as his primary focus.
We're teaching unemployment, meaning we're not teaching people to know how to go out and get work.
Well, Rumsfeld was basically saying the same thing here about Muslims.
Of course, the comments have been interpreted as religious in nature and insulting.
But what he was talking about was how it is that so many young Muslim men can become recruited.
And there's a story out of Malaysia, the most amazing story.
This guy, Muslim men are having trouble sleeping because Muslim women are wearing racier clothes than ever.
And it's causing men all kinds of problems sleeping.
And I read that.
What kind of wimps are these guys?
Here it is.
Here it is.
From Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's Muslim men are suffering sleepless nights and cannot pray properly because their thoughts are distracted by a growing number of women who wear sexy clothes in public, according to a prominent cleric, Nick Abdulaziz Nick Matt, the spiritual leader of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, said he wanted to speak about the emotional abuse that men face because it is seldom discussed.
The party reported on its website Wednesday.
So we always hear about the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye, but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen, said the cleric.
Our prayers become unfocused, and our sleep is often disturbed.
Nick Abdulaziz has made controversial comments about women in the past, including that women should stop wearing lipstick and perfume to lower the risk of being raped.
Women's groups have slammed his statements saying Islam teaches both men and women to be responsible for money.
What women's groups have slammed his statements?
I never heard of the guy until I ran across this story.
But if this is the case, can you imagine how weak these guys must be, folks?
If they can't pray properly and they can't sleep because the visions of women wearing racy clothes prevent them from doing so?
I'll tell you, showing a little elbow, showing a little forehead.
I mean, how much are they?
Wow, this is just a bunch of weak, protected crybabies.
I'll tell you what, these women are in trouble because in these societies, they have no rights whatsoever.
And if they're running around and they're getting in the way of prayers and sleep on the part of the men folk, they're going to be problems.
And back we are, Rush Limboy here, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Open line Friday.
Back to the phones.
We go to Marshall, Missouri.
This is Jeff, and I'm glad you waited, sir.
Thanks for your patience.
Well, thank you for taking my call, Rush.
You know, it occurs to me that since Hillary is really ahead in the polls, or she was, she's beating her rivals badly.
Why don't they quit?
That's what they want us to do in Iraq.
You know, if you're losing, quit.
Save their money.
It sounds to me, Rush, like they want to be president more than they want us to win the war on terror.
Oh, there's no question about that.
I mean, they've been invested in defeat.
Not only the war on terror, but in Iraq as well.
Folks, I don't want to be a redundant, broken record here, but this is a dangerous collection of Democrats that are seeking the White House.
It's not just Mrs. Clinton that would be bad news.
They all would be.
Edwards may be even worse.
And who else?
Oh, Obama.
Folks, Obama doesn't have a clue yet.
He's young at this.
He doesn't know what he's doing.
These guys are all, every one of them, speaks in pandering platitudes and slogans and so forth.
And their view of the country is though it's soup line America.
I mean, the doom and gloom that people feel in this country is directly proportionate to the number of Democrats and media people who constantly talk about it when it doesn't exist.
So the fact that these guys would wreck anything.
Look at what they're doing with illegal immigration.
They would wreck the country's borders.
They would just ignore the law.
They will do whatever they can to get more voters into the country.
Register them to vote as drivers in New York State.
There's nothing about the country that's sacred to not even the Constitution.
They'll rewrite that every opportunity they get with their activist judges and the bench.
This is Greg in bountiful Utah.
Nice to have you, sir.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to the most influential conservative in America.
Well, appreciate that, sir.
I really do.
Thank you much.
Thank you.
Hey, I wanted to, we've got a voucher, a school voucher vote coming up here on Tuesday and kind of wanted to get your take on vouchers.
Obviously, I have mine.
I'd sure like to hear your this is a school voucher thing?
Yeah, it'd be a statewide school voucher thing where parents get, you know, if you choose to take a school voucher, you get about $3,000 if you're real low income.
If you're to make more, they cut it down to $500 if you make quite a bit of money.
But then you can put your kid in a private school, and the schools still retain the full $7,500, approximate $7,500 allotment, even though the child's not there.
But, of course, the NEA has dumped a lot of money into this and is fighting tooth and nail.
And for me, it comes down to, you know, we all know kids are falling through the cracks in public schools.
And my thing is the parents know their child best.
And, you know, someone in a school district doesn't know that child, so why not let that parent make the correct choice for their children?
And, of course, you know, you've got the interest groups fighting at tooth and nail to block it and, you know, putting out misinformation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
This is, you know, this issue was first brought to light successfully in Wisconsin.
And you know who the primary beneficiaries of this school voucher program would be?
And when you go to Washington, D.C. or New York, sometimes a philanthropist will do this, will offer X number of people tuition at a private school.
You know who the first parents are to show up?
Parents in the inner city public schools.
Right.
Minority, because you're right.
They know that their kids are going to rot-gut schools and there's nothing being done about it, and they're the first ones that want them out.
Now, let me get the numbers straight on your thing.
They're going to give a maximum $3,000 voucher.
That's right.
What's the $7,500 figure you mentioned?
The $7,500 is about per pupil, how much the schools get per pupil.
You're talking about the public schools.
Right, the public schools.
Sorry, yeah, the public schools.
I think the average private school in Utah runs about $4,500 for their tuition.
Okay, so the voucher will partially defray the cost of tuition at the private school.
Yeah, or most of the cost or all of the costs in some cases.
Well, it can't because if it's $4,500 and they're giving you a voucher of $3,000, and that's only if you have low income, the higher your income, the smaller the voucher, right?
Right, yeah.
But like I said, the $4,500 figure is an average.
There's some private schools that are a little bit below $3,000.
Oh, okay.
Okay.
Well, I'm all for this.
What are the polls out there say on this?
Well, right now, the latest one I heard is it was mostly against.
I haven't followed the polls too well on it.
I don't put a lot of stock in them.
They've been wrong here frequently, so I just kind of, but I think that, you know, it's going to be, it's either going to be close or it depends on how it's being sold.
You know, it's a great concept theoretically.
It's a great concept in practical application.
But in something like this, you know, the public school system, in a lot of people's minds, is sacred.
It's something sacrosanct.
It's something that you don't mess with because it's part of America.
It just, and I guarantee you, the NEA and the teachers' unions are probably running all kinds of scare ads about what this will mean.
And they're just, and these schools don't want to lose the $7,500 per student.
Well, the thing is, they're not.
What the legislature did is they set up a separate fund.
I mean, the school teachers are saying they're diverting money, which is totally untrue.
The state had a surplus.
They set up a separate fund, so it'd be a do-not-harm thing.
And so the schools still get the $7,500, even though the student isn't there anymore.
They still get the full allotment for that child not being at that school.
All right.
Now, why is this come up out there?
Is there serious concerns in Utah about the public schools statewide?
Well, some of the schools are having, I mean, we've got one school district, the Ogden School District, I guess, had something like 49% dropout rate.
I believe that was out of high school.
Ogden?
You're going to be kidding me.
Ogden?
That's where the Osmonds grew up.
Yeah.
It is.
But, you know, we've all, besides, this isn't No Child Left Behind, but there's this thing called a U-Biscuit out here.
It's basically kind of the state exam to show how well kids are doing.
They had 25% of the world.
Here's what's going on.
Here's what's going on.
We were just talking about this before I took your phone call.
Guy called and said the liberals will lose the war on terror to get the White House.
Amen.
They will sit by and let the education of America's children be the worst it can be rather than promoting it as the best it can be in order to keep their union in power and in order to keep Washington's control over the curricula.
Make no mistake about it.
Well, you lose those students from the public schools and you lose a chance to propagandize and you lose a chance for more control over more students.
The idea that they care about education more, it's like anything else that they claim they care about.
Whenever they say they care about the kids, they care about education.
They care about them and their election power.
And that's what every issue to them is about next 13 months.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you on the EIB Network Open Line Friday.
I'm sure many of you are aware of the family problems Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reed is having with his two sons.
One has used drugs for eight years, automobile accidents, just a number of problems.
Both kids are hooked and it's not good.
And on Thursday, yesterday, a judge in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Stephen O'Neill, called the Reeds a Family in Crisis and questioned from the bench whether Britt and Garrett Reed should return to their parents' home after they serve their jail terms.
These are highly addictive medications that are just around the house with two addicts in it.
He said the Reed House sounds more or less like a drug emporium.
Now, I guess it is what it is, but that's that.
It made me feel a little uncomfortable.
A judge saying this about what he thought of a private family's household.
What goes on?
Anyway, Reed had a press conference today.
He said he hopes his sons can live a normal life down the road, but he didn't talk about the judge.
He said, I know this is a big story for everybody, and I respect that.
On the other hand, I can't go into questioning on it at this time.
However, as parents, we have huge concerns for our two boys.
This has been a battle we've dealt with here for a few years, and I'm sure we'll continue to address the situation.
Our prayers are obviously with the boys for their future to make sure things work out where they can live a normal life down the road.
On Thursday, 22-year-old Britt Reed detailed his eight-year struggle with painkillers and other drugs as he was sentenced to eight to 23 months in jail for pointing a gun at another driver on January 30th.
He also pled guilty to charges including carrying a firearm without a license.
His son, or his brother, 24-year-old brother Garrett, sentenced to two to 23 months in jail for a high-speed crash in which another driver was injured.
Police found heroin, steroids, and more than 200 pills in his car.
And he admitted using heroin on the day of the crash.
So judge says that Andy Reid's home is a drug emporium.
Doesn't know that the kids should ever go back there.
All right.
The new tone.
You remember when it came time to appoint an attorney general to replace Alberto Gonzalez?
The White House really wanted Ted Olson.
Somehow that leaked out.
The Democrats jumped in there and they said, you make it Ted Olson.
He's never going to get a hearing.
We're not going to have some partisan hack.
You know, the way the Democrats react to people.
So the White House, okay.
And so they nominated a guy by the name of McCasey.
Michael McCasey, a federal judge.
On balance, pretty good, especially on dealing with terror suspects.
Friend of Chuck Schumer.
Hello, new tone.
Okay, you won't give us Ted Olson.
You're going to find that here.
Let me give you a guy that you like.
Let me give you one of your boys, Mr. Schumer.
Well, it didn't work.
Pat Leahy has announced that he is going to oppose the nominee.
Dick Durbin has announced that he's going to oppose the nominee to Attorney General.
And now Schumer is in a real mess because he's the swing vote on this.
He's the swing vote.
If he votes to confirm his buddy, then the buddy gets confirmed.
Well, all the Democrats are out there ripping McCasey, a new one.
And Schumer has joined in on it too.
Now, the funny thing about Schumer is back in 2004, he made a statement about torture where, yeah, sometimes it's going to be necessary.
But now, all of a sudden, when it comes time to confirm an attorney general, it's all about waterboarding.
I found out, I read that apparently we have used waterboarding three times in the war on terror.
One of those times with Sheikh, whatever is the mastermind of 9-11.
Yeah, Khalid Khalid Campbell, whatever his name was.
Khalid Ahmazad.
I don't know what it was, but it worked.
And this guy unloaded everything.
Now, one of these criticisms of torture, the anti-torture crowd, they say it never works.
Torture never works.
People will lie.
They will lie just to get you to stop the torture, as though our interrogators are a bunch of idiots and will accept or believe any lie it's told.
We know who these people are.
We know what they're planning.
We know, have a general idea.
We're not that easily fooled.
Most people do not lie.
Maybe nine out of ten don't.
It has been established.
So there's so many misconceptions that people deal with here.
Well, torture doesn't work.
People lie to get out of it.
It's not the American way, blah, This judge, Mucasey, has been very strong on this.
But this is the Democrats being the Democrats.
Just deny Bush what he wants.
Don't give him his attorney general.
We have some sound bites.
Here is Dick Durbin, a portion of his remarks Wednesday afternoon on Capitol Hill.
I can't support his nomination based on the letter that he sent yesterday.
I can't understand how a man of his intelligence, with his background, can't see clearly that torture, that waterboarding is torture and clearly illegal by any standard in the United States.
Yeah, the guy was asked to clarify his thoughts on waterboarding as torture, and they got the letter back and so Durbin just off the deep end.
Here's Senator Kennedy yesterday on the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I intend to oppose the nomination of Michael McCasey to be the next Attorney General of the United States.
This is a nomination I had hoped to support.
We cannot afford to take our chances on the judgment of someone who either does not know torture when he sees it or is willing to pretend so to suit the president.
And I cannot, in good conscience, support his nomination.
It's certainly interesting to hear Senator Kennedy come out against water torture.
It's just, I don't know, folks, the Democrats as being who they are.
But the point of this is Bush gave him a friend of Chuck Schumer.
And I don't know what the status of this is, but I know Schumer's in an uncomfortable position now because he's the swing vote.
You know, he was supportive of the guy when he was first nominated.
And his torture stuff, the Democrats did their usual thing.
Usually you can find Schumer wherever there's a camera, but you can't find him.
He is nowhere around.
He doesn't want to address this.
He doesn't want to be part of it in any way.
Mark, Columbus, Ohio.
Nice to have you, sir, on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
I am an on and off listener mostly because I travel a great deal for my consulting job around the state.
And I love the fact that you are a solid source of actual, factual information.
And my question is, you may have talked about this at a time when I wasn't listening, but I hear a great deal about, in particular, Hillary Clinton, Democrats, issues that you probably wouldn't hear about, which I totally agree with.
Thank you.
But what I'd like to hear a little bit more of is what do we got going for us on the conservative side?
Where should our support be for the presidential election?
Why should we, what things might we want to be encouraging in the conservative side for the forerunners of that office?
Well, you know, actually, I've spent a lot of time on this.
I just don't talk about candidates yet because I don't get involved in primaries unless somebody just really bowls me over and knocks me dead.
And right now, without any of the first votes cast and polling data looking at what it looks like Rudy is going to be the nominee.
But what I've said about this, and I've said it quite a few times, I'm concerned that there is not a full-fledged conservative in our field.
Now, that's fine.
I'm going to vote for whoever the nominee is over the Democrat.
But what I'm concerned about is that conservatism may be redefined here so that this candidate, whoever it ends up being, is the new conservative.
And that's something that will disappoint me.
In fact, there are a lot of conservative commentators all of a sudden popping up in the print media who are saying that it's silly to hold out hope for another Reagan, that there was only one Reagan, and some of them are even saying that Reagan wasn't even that conservative and so forth.
Which I don't understand why it is that our side seems so eager to run away from the conservatism that was popularized by Goldwater and Reagan when it was so successful, when it was so overwhelmingly successful, not only in winning elections, but in changing the direction of the country, improving the lives of so many people.
Why run from this?
I mean, I have my theories, and I think a lot of it has to do with the New York, Boston, Washington corridor, where a lot of conservative pundits happen to work and operate.
And so that's where the liberals are headquartered.
And you want to get along with them.
You want them to think that you're not an ideologue, because liberals really make fun of ideologues, even though they're the biggest ideologues around.
But that's why on this program, talking about particular candidates, I do talk about conservatism.
We have a lot of candidates who are conservative on some things, but I don't think they're full-fledged conservatives.
Reagan was leading a conservative movement with every public appearance, every State of the Union speech, every speech that he gave, there was conservative theory consisting of optimism, good cheer.
He was teaching what conservatism was all about.
He embodied it.
And this is what we try to do on this program at the same time.
This program is not about the Republican Party.
It's about conservatism and having it grow, having people understand it, because it clearly, to me, clearly is the simple, best, and most productive way for people to manage their affairs and to manage their lives and to live their lives.
And it's rooted in capitalism.
It's rooted in freedom.
It's rooted in respect for other people, not holding them in contempt, not looking down upon them, not being arrogant and condescending.
Conservatism has faith in the individual to do anything and everything that individual wants based on that individual's degree of desire and ambition.
And conservatism wants to promote that.
Conservatism wants to get the government and the regulations that come from government out of as many people's way as possible so that they can realize their dreams.
We want them to dream.
We want the dreams to become reality.
We want them to think that there's a reason why they can be and want to learn to rely on themselves, have high expectations for themselves and members of their families.
And I think a message like that in a campaign would be a pure winner.
It's full of optimism.
We've got a contrast here that's so easy to make.
We've got the Democrat Party that is trying to paint a picture and have been doing so for six years of this country as though it's 1929 all over again.
It's soup-line America.
Nobody's happy.
Everybody's miserable.
The war is not going well.
All of this stuff.
Do you realize most people do not want to be surrounded by misery?
They don't want to hear it all the time.
They certainly are not inspired by it.
This is a golden opportunity for somebody to come along and fill the void of being upbeat, positive, unafraid to expound on conservative ideals that have been shown to work.
But that's it's and it's happening.
I mean, Rudy does a good job, and Mitt Romney too, and Fred Thompson.
How could be they all do a good job part of the way, but then they got to qualify it on some social issue or this or that for the hope of maybe picking off a few liberal voters in a northeast state here or a western state there.
And that's not how you do it.
You don't get liberal voters by being a little liberal when the Democrat's going to be a full-fledged liberal.
You go get independent voters and some liberals by being confident and conservative and upbeat and optimistic and telling people why this is the greatest country in the world and how it's going to be even greater depending on them because it's the people who make the country work.
And having them inspired and motivated and proud and happy to be Americans is what conservatism is all about.
Liberalism has got so much disgust and disregard for this country makes me sick.
So to me, it's a little frustrating because there's such an opportunity here to smoke these people.
I mean, literally smoke them in a landslide.
And instead, we're trying to pick off little few liberals here in the Northeast and in the Western states with a little subtle change in our social policy and so forth.
A guaranteed loser.
It's never worked on a little log.
I got to be back.
By the way, President Bush said if the Senate rejects his Attorney General nominee, Michael McCasey, then there won't be an Attorney General for the rest of the term.
Bush has done himself.
Just do it himself.
By the way, Bush really, really took it to the Dems.
Yes.
He went to the Heritage Foundation.
And here's a portion of his remarks there.
We cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.
Unfortunately, on too many issues, some in Congress are behaving as if America is not at war.
Wow, what soundbite was that?
What number did you just play?
That was three.
Give me number 12, because this is where he really takes it to these kooks, the fringe left.
Some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of moveon.org bloggers and code pink protesters.
It's about time this came from the top down.
All right.
Rattle, rattle, rattle.
And then Pelosi yesterday had a news conference, a portion of her remarks.
A war without end that is a total failure.
So he has to talk about something, and he stoops to a level that, in my view, is beneath the dignity of the office that he holds.
I'm convinced this woman just isn't all there.
You know, an order of fries short of a happy meal.
Seriously, folks, not all there.
I know that she's got to oppose the president.
I know this.
But for crying out loud, to talk about beneath the dignity of the office.
What the Democrats in both the Speakership in the House, the Senate Majority Leader have done, Harry Reid, talk about beneath the dignity of the office.
The Petraeus hearings, the PetraeusMoveon.org ad.
Where is the dignity in the office of portraying your own country as the enemy and your own president as the enemy which must be defeated or who must be defeated and overcome?
And I think her striking back, striking out, is a direct proportionate result to Bush hitting a home run in just a precious few words.
Be right back, my friends.
Stay with us.
How about this story where the State Department diplomats are refusing postings to Iraq?
Oh, we're not going over there.
Well, wait a minute.
Wait a minute.
I thought that it was all about diplomacy.
I thought we needed diplomacy in Iraq in order to fix it.
I think it's a brilliant plan that Condoleezza Rice has here.
Take as many of these liberal and leftist career bureaucrats in the State Department, send them over there.
They joined up.
We're not going to Iraq at two days.
Diplomacy, diplomacy, go over there.
Don't you libs in the State Department understand something?
It's a golden opportunity for you to go over to a war zone and show us how diplomacy can solve this.
It's in the bottom of your hands.
It's right there.
You've got the whole world, the whole teach us about diplomacy.
In the middle of a war zone, they don't have the guts.
Have a great weekend, folks.
▲
Export Selection