All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 4, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:25
December 4, 2007, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Here is the latest from the New York Times, ladies.
Just let me give you one sentence here from the New York Times.
Several recent studies stand as a warning against taking the platitudes of achievement too seriously.
Other words, don't try to be your best.
It's only going to upset you because you can't be your best.
You'll end up becoming a perfectionist and nobody can be that, and you will be disappointed, so stop trying to achieve.
From the New York Times.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome, Rush Slimboy here, ready to go as promised yesterday.
Three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead.
Telephone number 800 282-2882, and the email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
The big news today, this this new um intelligence estimate, the National Intelligence Estimate is concluding that Iran's nuclear program, its weapons development program has been halted since the fall of 2003 because of international pressure.
A stark come on.
You know, this NIE business, these these guys are 16 different agencies.
They're all over the lot with each report that they issue.
Uh, and it says says here this is a stark contrast to the conclusions U.S. spy agencies drew uh just two years ago.
The findings part of a national intelligence estimate on Iran that also cautions that Tehran continues to enrich or uranium and uh could still develop a bomb between 2010 and 2015 if it decided to do so.
So what's what's changed?
I mean, if you're enriching uranium, you are enriching uranium.
Anyway, the drive-by's are all over this, the libs are all over this, the Democrats are all over this as yet another Bush failure, a Bush failure of intelligence.
And of course, we here at the EIB network have an entirely different view of this.
But let's go to the audio sound bites first.
The president had a press conference today, first one in about seven weeks, and Terry Hunt, the AP got it started with the questions about the NIE report.
Uh the new findings take the military option you've talked about for Iran off the table, Mr. President.
Here's what we know.
We know that they're still trying to learn how to enrich uranium.
I think it is very important for the international community to recognize the fact that if Iran were to develop the knowledge that they could transfer to a clandestine program, it would create a danger for the world.
And so I view this report as a as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program.
And now David Gregory's question.
I'd like to follow on that, Mr. President.
When you talked about Iraq, uh, you and others in the administration talked about a mushroom cloud, and there were no WMD in Iraq.
When it came to Iran, you said on October 17th you warned about the prospect of World War III when months before you made that statement, this intelligence about them suspending their weapons program back in 03 had already come to light in this administration.
So can't you be accused of hyping this threat?
And don't you worry that that undermines U.S. credibility?
It wasn't until last week that I was briefed on the NIE that is now public.
And the second part of your question uh has to do with this look.
Iran was dangerous.
Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.
What's to say they couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons program?
And the best way to ensure that the world is peaceful in the future is for the international community to continue to work together to say to the Iranians, you know, we're going to isolate you.
However, there is a better way forward for the Iranians.
So Brett Baer of uh of Fox News Channel says, Are you saying that this NIE will not lead to a change in U.S. policy toward Iran or a shift in focus?
I'm saying that uh I believe before the NIE that Iran was dangerous, and I believe after the NIE That Iran is dangerous.
And I believe now is the time for the world to do the hard work necessary to convince the Iranians there is a better way forward.
Our policy remains the same.
I see a danger.
And many in the world see the same danger.
This report is not a, okay, everybody needs to relax and quit.
Report.
This is a report that says what has happened in the past could be repeated, and that the policies used to cause the regime to halt are effective policies, and let's keep them up.
Let's continue to work together.
Exactly right.
The drive-bys here are simply seeing blood in the water because their narrative, their template on Bush, is he's a liar.
He makes things up.
And nothing he says is ever true.
And he's a warmonger.
And all he wants to do is take the nation to war, get out of Iraq when we win and go into Iran and keep this whole thing going, and they just now they think Iran's no threat.
The NIE, Mr. President, the NIE says they stopped their program in 2003.
They are still enriching uranium.
Such a narrow focus these people have.
And, of course, their view of this issue is not Iran.
You have to understand this.
The drive-bys are not at all influenced.
They're not even interested in what Iran is or isn't doing.
Their total view of this through the prism of domestic politics and does it hurt Bush?
Can we make it hurt Bush?
And that's their agenda here with this.
Rather than accepting what might be a possible threat, what is a throw.
There's no quote.
Listen to what Ahmadine's ad says.
This is this is patently absurd.
Let's uh listen to some press reaction to this.
On CBS, following the President's news conference, anchor Russ Mitchell goes to the dean of CBS columnists and pundits, Bob Schiefer.
He said, Bob Schiefer is our chief Washington correspondent.
He's the anchor of Slay the Nation.
Bob, the president said he was having a good time up there, but to this observer and to others in the room, he didn't look like he was having a good time.
I watched him.
I thought he was enjoying himself.
I was I'm doing show prep here and uh listening to the uh TV when not watching it, and I hear a bunch of laughter emanating from the press room.
Uh I look over in the president's chuckling and laughing to these people.
Uh one one one drive-by, even Mark Silva even said, I can't help but read your body language this morning, Mr. President.
You seem a little dispirited.
I didn't see a dispirited president.
I saw somebody professional and somber and sober when it was called for, and yucking it up and laughing at other times.
Anyway, Bob, the president said he was having good time up there, but to this observer and to others in the room, he didn't look like he was having good time.
Despite his resolve, what are you hearing, Bob?
Is this an embarrassment for the administration?
I think it's more than an embarrassment, Russ.
I think it's very disturbing because listen to what the president just said on the record.
He said more than three years ago, Iran had shut down its nuclear weapons program.
We did not apparently realize that something was changing until this summer, and we were not certain of it, and the president was not told of it until last week.
This raises questions about the credibility of all these reports.
And that is an excellent point, uh, folks.
There is a problem with our intelligence capabilities.
No question about it.
And you know, we can thank decades of attacks and funding problems against the CIA, the DIA, and other intelligence agencies spearheaded by liberals in Congress, and started during the Nixon era.
This is the consequence of those efforts.
All of these years later, the CIA has been and is to certain leftists enemy number one.
The church committee back in the Nixon era did everything it could to emasculate the CIA to expose it and to make sure that nothing it did remain secret.
It was disastrous the funding problems that they have uh incurred, and now you've got within the CIA itself, as the play incident illustrates, you got a bunch of holdover activist liberals, uh disguised as spies and bureaucrats in the CIA who uh have as as you have in the State Department, uh, whose avowed purpose is to uh uh cause damage to this administration.
Uh so you know the idea that uh we haven't uh the attacks on our intelligence agencies have had no impact, they clearly have.
The president, I hate to inform the drive-bys of this, but the president does not create the intelligence.
He is provided the intelligence.
And he makes overarching policy decisions based on the intelligence.
Having said that, the fact is that the media have it all wrong today.
Bush shouldn't be apologetic or even on defense about his aggressive positions against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
The fact is that Iran is still taking provocative steps to build a nuclear program.
All those centrifuges aren't intended to provide air conditioning to the people of Iran.
The efforts at securing uranium are not aimed at providing gasoline for cars.
And if the NIE was faulty before, why is it assumed that it's right today?
I ask this of the libs.
You realize how selectively you believe this stuff?
You believe this stuff as selectively as you believe your own polling data.
When the NIE comes out, and you can look at it through a political prism of, hmm, does this damage Bush?
Does this fit our template that Bush is a liar?
He's a warmonger.
He makes it all up.
Yes, fine.
Then we'll believe it.
But there have been a number of uh NIE releases in previous years that have turned out to be bummers, turned out to be wrong, and of course nobody ever goes back and talks about those.
You just live in the moment, and the moment now is destroy Bush, even though he's effectively just short of being into his final year as uh as president.
The obvious way to look at this, and this is not spin.
Who else gave up a nuclear program in 2003?
Mr. Snerdley, you uh your your memory take over here?
What other Middle Eastern nation decided to say no mass no mass Momar Gaddafi in Libya, absolutely.
You think it's an accident?
If this is true, and hell, I don't know what's true.
But if it's true, do you think it's accidental or coincidental that the Iranians seeing what we're doing in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction there?
You think they might have curtailed their program and just start huffing and puffing using a lot of words to sound big, just like Saddam always did in the Middle East.
He wanted to be the king of the Middle East, the king of the Arabs, he wanted to he wanted to make sure that the United States and the rest of the world knew that he was the guy running that region.
You think maybe it's possible after seeing what we did in 2003 invading Iraq that the Mullis said, eh, let's pull back on this for a while.
You think it's possible, folks, that they might look at their view of us.
You know, these people are kooks, but they think we are too.
Here they're minding their own business against Saddam Hussein, and he's not a friend of theirs either.
They've been at war with Iraq a number of times.
Finally, we go in there, we we just oust Saddam in a matter of hours, and that's what they see in 2003, and then they see the mission accomplished banner on the aircraft carrier.
They see that we were in there and able to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his and his two worthless kids in a matter of hours.
And then we stayed.
If they think we're insane, if they think Bush is a cowboy, he's gonna go all over the world destroying his enemies.
You think that might have a have been a factor in them deciding, you know, let's let's pull back on this.
We'll keep talking about it.
We'll keep shouting, because we don't want the rest of the Arab world to think that we we uh Iranians are cowards and so forth.
But let's let's actually pull back on this so that we don't give them any actual reason to hit us.
And then Ahmadinejad keeps promising and threatening to wipe out Israel and so forth.
Uh this is you can't ignore any of these things.
And yet the drive by's have such a narrow focus.
Let's look at this.
Can we destroy Bush today with this?
Can we really hurt?
But can we hurt the Republicans?
Can we drive Republicans away from Bush?
Can we affect the Iraq funding bills?
Can we maybe make embolden the Democrats here to say, see, the president's lying, he didn't even know what's going on.
We don't need more money for Iraq.
All of these things are wrapped up in this today, not the substance of the report.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue El Quico.
You know, the uh uh funny thing is that Mrs. Clinton and her team are now, hey, we were just joking about Obama and wanting to be president in that uh third grade essay and that kindergarten essay.
More on all that later in the program.
The major point here on this NIE, the National intelligence estimate is this.
The war in Iraq, the war against Iraq, has in fact had consequences in the Middle East beyond Iraq's borders.
If Iran has stopped trying to build a bomb in 2003, if they did that, which is what the assertion is now based on in the latest NIE intel, then they stopped because of Bush's foreign and military policies.
That is, they stopped because they feared they were next on the liberation list.
They did not stop due to any diplomatic efforts, due to any redeployments out of Iraq.
They did not stop if they did.
The liberals can claim no credit for this.
Is it not a good thing if it's true that they stopped?
Somehow this is a defeat for Bush.
It stands logic on its head, despite the propaganda here at home, that we're losing, that we couldn't defeat Saddam Hussein's army, that we couldn't defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Iran seemed to see it differently.
They saw military power second to none that could topple their regime in months, if not weeks, and they saw a president who caused them to shake with fear.
This is another victory.
And I'm not carrying anybody's water.
This is another victory if the intel is right for Bush foreign policy.
But the Libs are going to argue that this proves that Bush wrong.
He looked, he cooked the books, uh, we need to get out of Iraq.
In other words, they're going to take from this all of the wrong lessons, and they don't care either because they're not about learning anything.
They're about tearing down and looking for political opportunities to exploit, at least that they think they can.
But the administration needs to keep the pressure on Iran for several reasons, and Bush will.
I have no question about it.
The intel might still be wrong.
There's evidence of that, as you all know, in recent years.
And if it's right, we don't want Iran in a position where it has all the tools and the know-how to build a bomb, just waiting for the right time to complete it, such as when we have a Democrat in the White House.
So I keep the sanctions up, increase them, try to topple a regime from within, be prepared to do even more militarily if necessary.
Look, lest we forget, folks, the nut that runs that regime is giving safe harbor to Al-Qaeda terrorists, funding and arming Hezbollah, is giving support to Syria to do the same, and most of all, still sending IEDs and terrorists into Iraq to kill our soldiers and Iraqi citizens, albeit at a reduced level now.
We're still at war with Iran, even if the war hasn't risen to the level of a direct military confrontation, and nothing about this intelligence estimate changes a thing.
My good friend Norman Padoritz, writing in commentary, uh actually the contentions website will link to it today at Rush Limbaugh.com, dark suspicions about the uh the NIE.
And let me just give you the pull quote paragraph here.
But I entertain an even darker suspicion, writes Mr. Pedoritz, it is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again.
This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the president may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations, as the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort only after it become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding.
How better then to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program, especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or in the NIE's own euphemistic formulation, quote, with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways.
Parts of this, Padoretz is right on the money here, and when when you read parts of this NIE report, you almost sound like you're reading a PR release for Iran.
We want to make sure they become a regional power, they maintain their dignity, and they can feel really good guys without nukes.
Who cares?
Amen, bro.
Amen.
Your guiding light, a national treasure, a living Legend Rush Limboy here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
You know, I might, I might actually grant, ladies and gentlemen, that diplomacy played a small part in forcing the Iranians to cease the production of their nuclear weapons program, If indeed they have, I remain unconvinced simply because of the erratic nature of previous NIEs.
And I also remain dubious because of what Mr. Podoritz thinks, that there are people in the NIE and in the intelligence community who are hell-bent on undermining George W. Bush.
And they've been doing it for his whole administration.
But accepting the theory, and this stuff is true this time.
Maybe a case could be made that diplomacy stopped Iran's nuke program as in what was the diplomatic message?
Bush placed him in the axis of evil.
He puts them in the axis of evil, followed by the use of force in Iraq and the region, floating the fifth fleet right outside Iran's door.
This is sort of like in the 1980s.
It's got some parallels to the 80s.
Reagan's message of diplomacy to the Soviets was the evil empire.
The bombing starts in five minutes.
Or it's the evil empire tear down this wall, followed by missiles in Europe, and SDI with the additional message of we will bury you.
You came here to the UN and told us you would bury us, we're going to bury you.
And that brought Gorbachev to the table.
So you got to acknowledge that in some fashion diplomacy, calling on the axis of evil, might have been a factor here.
Now I know the Democrats don't call a diplomacy.
I don't care what the Democrats call it.
They may call it bullying, cowboy diplomacy, whatever.
It was diplomacy.
It was words.
It was his State Department hated it.
So what?
State Department hates everything that works, otherwise there's no need for them.
Don't tell me about the State Department.
I couldn't care less about it.
I couldn't care less.
This NIE pass, get this.
I want to read this to you again here from uh from Norman Pedoritz.
He quotes a little sentence here from the NIE report.
With opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, its prestige and goals for regional influence in other ways.
In other words, we must use negotiations and sanctions with the opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, its prestige, and its goals for regional influence in other ways.
This is tantamount to saying, okay, nutjab Ahmedinizad and the mullahs.
You know, we want you guys to have self-esteem.
Then what?
This is an intelligence estimate?
Sounds like an encounter group.
Okay, Mahmoud, we want you to have your self-esteem, you and the mullahs.
We want you to feel good about yourselves.
We want you to have prestige.
We understand that you people as Persians have a very, very concerned status about how you are perceived in your part of the world.
And we know that you want to appear to be on top of that world in the running.
And we're all for making that happen, Mahmood.
We want you to have your prestige.
We want you to have your power and so we just don't want you to do it with nukes.
We will help you come up with what you want with what kind of passage is that from a intelligence estimate.
Now, where are the candidates on this?
Mrs. Clinton really, really reaching here to bash President Bush and uh uh this this take off on this report uh from the New York Times today.
The campaigns of the leading Democrat candidates seized Monday on the intelligence report showing that Iran had halted its uh nuclear weapons development, saying the findings justified their more cautious approach to Tehran.
Senator Clinton's National Security Director to Lee Feinstein said that the report's findings, quote, expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends.
Now, just what have we done in Iran?
We haven't done Didn't Lee Squat?
What distort the intelligence for what purpose?
Have we attacked Iran while I wasn't looking?
He added that the report vindicates Mrs. Clinton's approach, which he described as vigorous American-led diplomacy, close international cooperation and effective economic pressure with the prospect of carefully calibrated incentives if Iran addresses our concern.
What a bunch of mumbo jumbo gobbledygook.
Has the New York Times forgotten that she she she voted in the Senate to call the Iranians uh their revolutionary guards and cite them.
In September, she voted in favor of a Senate measure declaring the Iranian revolutionary guards polariferators of mass destruction.
A vote that was condemned by her rivals in the Democrat field.
After the vote, her aides issued a statement saying the revolutionary guards are deeply involved in Iraq's nuclear program.
I mean, this is like Mrs. Clinton on the floor of the Senate back in whatever it was, 2003.
Well, I have independently looked at this, and I've seen the intelligence, and I know that Saddam's got weapons of mass destruction, and my husband knew it too, all the way back in 1998.
So what a reach.
Now she's saying that the fact that she signed this or voted in the Senate to declare the Iranian revolutionary guards proliferators of mass destruction, he's now saying her diplomacy brought about this NIE report, which says the Iranians stopped producing their weapons program in 2003.
Mrs. Clinton's rivals used the release of the report on Iran on Monday to condemn the Bush administration as well as to once again attack Mrs. Clinton's vote, declaring the guards a terrorist organization.
That vote they suggested was evidence of her hawkishness on Iran.
Boy, I think these people get away with having both sides of the issue, whatever it is.
All right, to the phones.
People want to weigh in on this, so we'll start in uh Maplegrove, Minnesota.
This is Chris, and thank you for calling.
Welcome to the program.
Good morning, Rush.
Hi.
You know, the in the interesting thing that that comes to mind is is that I thought about this yesterday.
Let's take the the report at face value.
And in what you had pointed out is if they stopped in 2003, same time Libya said, as you said, no mass.
So there was diplomacy, and the diplomacy was in our military, was a great part of it in what they saw happening in their area.
Now, let's look at back to when Ahmadinejab saber rattling started all over again, and that was right about the same time when our Democrats started their diplomacy saying we give up, we failed, we lost, we surrendered, which gave which emboldened him to start the saber rattling in.
So, yeah, they've been doing diplomacy too.
Unfortunately, their diplomacy has created this again, I believe.
Absolutely.
That's a good point.
Plus Ahmadinejad openly campaigning for Democrats to win the election in 2006.
Because he liked their kind of diplomacy.
Right, exactly right.
Uh I you know, it it's it's a totally understandable to me that the libs and the drive-bys would want to take this report and spin it into an abject failure.
And it's totally understandable to me that Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidates would want to do the same thing.
What is amazing to me is that it's senseless.
I understand their desire to do it, but they you cannot make the case here unless you live in a time capsule of three years ago, four years ago, where the template is that Bush lied, Bush has never told the truth.
Things have changed since then.
Progress is being made in the war on terror in in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
And I just I I have uh folks, I'm gonna tell you again, I think with their their eagerness here to attack Bush and look at this not as a foreign policy and national security issue, but rather a political issue, and how they can use it to damage Bush, it's they're opening the door right into their faces and bloodying their noses all over again, and they don't even know that it's happening yet.
They will, in uh in due course.
Mike, Oceanside California, you're next.
It's great to have you here.
Hello.
Yes, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Yeah, I you're making the points that uh should be made here, and the three points are that first of all, uh they probably ceased doing what they were doing based on the Gulf War.
Secondly, uh it's an intelligence estimate.
It isn't factual, no more factual than it was in the past.
And third, uh, we're guessing as to what they're actually doing because we don't have the assets to tell what they're doing.
And you're making all these points, whereas Bush is sitting up there almost apologetic rather than taking credit.
I mean, if this was the Clintons, I guarantee you they'd be standing up with their feathers all waving, saying we did this, we accomplished this, etc.
I just don't get it.
Well, can't help you.
I I didn't think you would be able to.
I I uh I I can't I don't know what I I I can't explain it.
I don't work there.
Uh all I can do is tell you here on my own radio program in my own press conference here, uh, what what I think of it.
Yeah, I I didn't mean to put you in that position.
No, no, no, I know that.
I uh I love the position.
I don't mind saying I don't know.
Doesn't happen very much.
Well, uh yeah, anyway, try to find somebody who can tell those people how to crow about what they've accomplished.
I mean, the Bush administration never uh takes credit for the things it tries to accomplish.
Meanwhile, the Clintons and spark contrast and they continue to get away with it.
Here's I can't perfect.
I can give you one answer.
Uh it's not by any means going to satisfy you.
But this is something I know, and that is the president personally just doesn't want to get involved in this kind of thing and and in touting and and it to him it beneath the office, he really believes.
Don't doubt me on this, folks.
He really believes that history long out.
History that's going to be written by people not yet born is going to get all of this right.
And that's he's he's not concerned with public relations, as we all know.
He's not concerned with those kind of things.
He just he's he's confident that he's doing the right things and that history is going to get it right, and that's enough to satisfy him.
I know it doesn't satisfy you.
Uh and you might think that I really don't know what I'm talking about, but don't doubt me.
You know, I sit here and I marvel at the way the drive-bys and the liberals try to manage opinion and thought in this country.
For example, global warming.
I am one of many now starting to ask, well, what if you people in science are all wrong about this?
What about the horrible economic consequences of implementing your policy to deal with this when you are wrong?
Oh, no, no, no.
Well, we're wrong.
We can't we can't afford to be right.
We can't afford to take the chance.
We we're gonna go with this.
Now that you got this this NIE report, which when you read it is like a CYA.
I mean, they they basically say, well, they're still enriching uranium, but it's unlikely they're trying to reconstitute their weapons program.
So they're covering their rear ends, CYA.
There's nothing really definitive in this, but you got a couple interesting lines in it.
Well, wait a minute, what if the report's wrong?
No, no, no, this is exactly right.
Uh, we've got to get out of Iraq and we've got to there is there is the the way we're told to think about global warming and the way we're being told to think about this are two totally different things, and we don't know if either.
In fact, we know I will guarantee you we have more evidence that man-made global warming is a hoax than we do on what Iran's doing with its nukes.
Don't doubt me.
We have a question for these Democrat candidates.
If I ever had a chance to ask him a question, uh and these and anybody State Department, too, and these people at the uh National Intelligence Estimate.
Um question one why is Iranian prestige more important than American prestige?
And number two, how would you as president help advance Iranian prestige, Mrs. Clinton?
Well, uh vigorous diplomacy, whatever gobbleduke answer that she would give.
Richard in Memphis, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Hey, Megaditas Rush.
Thank you.
First time ever getting that kind of feel honor, it's honor and a privilege to talk to you.
Well, I appreciate it.
Thank you very much, sir.
Yes, sir.
Um, I completely agree with you if this um intelligence is correct, which that's a big if, then I do think um from the fact that they are afraid after seeing how quickly we took out Iraq.
However, um, I do think more onto that, I think that may be a reason why some of this information leaked out now that we're really starting to take a turn on the war on terror.
And I was wondering if you could agree with that.
Well, see, that I mentioned this earlier.
I I think there's something there there's so few coincidences.
Now, this report came out a while ago.
Uh, and it was only made public, and the president only knew about it last week or something.
It's been it's been it was we just found out about it, but it's been in existence for what, a month?
Something like that, three weeks.
The point is this we are.
We have turned a corner big time in Iraq.
And guess what's on the table in the Senate?
Funding for the troops to continue the surge, and guess who's stopping it?
Dingy Harry.
Dingy Harry, in fact, is saying the surge isn't working.
He said we don't have a chance of winning.
He said it again yesterday.
He said we're in the middle of an intractable civil war.
I guess the meeting with the anti-war crowd this week didn't go too well for Dingy Harry.
Um I'm sure he had the riot act read to him by moveon.org and the rest of these lunatics over these uh caves by Mertha and other Democrats on the surge working.
So you've got the funding for the continuance of the surge.
The Democrats in the Senate are trying to hold it up and establish uh circumstances where an immediate troop withdrawal has to begin, the law if they're gonna if Bush is gonna get the money, if the troops are gonna get the money.
And on the in the in the midst of all that, here comes this report saying there's no threat over there in Iran.
They stopped their nuclear program in 03.
Which allows a Democrats say, see, there's no Bush have been warmongering, he'd been talking mushroom clowns, there's no danger.
We can get out of Iraq.
I look at when you start talking this high level of intrigue and behind the scenes stuff, not none of this stuff is coincidence.
I'm not saying that this is a conspiracy and it actually happened.
I'm saying you can't reject the possibility when when when thinking about this, it if if if you accept that there are elements uh in our government, shadow government comprised of just a bunch of career libs and Clinton holdovers who would do anything they could to sabotage the Bush administration.
If you accept that, well, then you have to be open to any number of possibilities.
And uh that uh that that is one of them.
Get this.
An AP story from Vienna, a U.S. intelligence review that concludes that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 is consistent with the UN atomic watchdog agency's own findings and should help to defuse the current crisis, the organ.
What is this?
This this So we're supposed to say, okay, the uh the uh UN's watchdog group agrees with this intelligence uh well that's real credible.
Didn't this Alberada guy, Mohammed Alberada, named after a teddy bear, by the way, didn't Mohammed Alberadai start talking recently about the threat of the Iranian nuclear program?
And hasn't he been warning about it and the fact that the Iranians won't let any inspectors in there?
What is this BS?
Here's the liberal position on this.
When the Intel says what they want it to say, it's reliable.
When the Intel doesn't say what they want it to say, it's not reliable.
So the same agencies that supposedly got Iran wrong respecting its nuclear program are now to be believed because they say Iran has stopped trying to make a bond.
Get it?
It's all about what the Libs want to hear.
▲
Export Selection