All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 28, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:20
December 28, 2007, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
My last minute instruction, and I get them.
It's like a boxer in a corner here.
My last minute instruction from the staff is to cue cue them when they when I'm ready for the open line Friday sounder to be played.
Does that mean if I don't cue you, we don't do open line Friday?
Does that is that how it works?
Or it's up to me.
I'm in the chair.
I can do whatever I want.
I've never been given that kind of freedom.
Now I do understand that this is Rush Limbaugh's chair, and I am merely the guy who's occupying it, because Rush, like every other civilized human being, takes days of vacation, and everyone takes vacation this week, the week between Christmas and New Year's, so I am here.
I'm really going to confuse you too.
Rush is going to be back Wednesday, the day after New Year's Day, January 2nd.
The guy from Minneapolis who did the show on Wednesday of this week, Jason Lewis is going to be here on Monday.
This is going to confuse everyone who is not from the States of either Wisconsin or Minnesota, because they all have a hard time with Minneapolis and Milwaukee.
Everyone thinks Milwaukee's in Minnesota and Minneapolis is in Wisconsin, and in fact it's the other way around.
So now that Rush has on four consecutive shows, guest hosts from Minneapolis and Milwaukee, everyone will be very much confused.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Yes, it's open line Friday, and I'm now in charge of presiding over Open Line Friday.
On my own local program in Milwaukee, we never have an open line any day because I see myself as kind of a dictator, and I want to decide what people will talk about and what they will think about.
But this is the Rush Limbaugh program, and today is Open Line Friday.
Meaning the callers more or less get to choose the topic.
So I'm going to give the telephone number out now, something I neglected to do until about two hours and thirty-seven minutes into the program yesterday.
We did still get calls because people know the number, but those who didn't know the number didn't call.
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
I want to lead the program with, and I'm pretty sure this guy has never been the lead subject on Russia's program ever.
First time for everything.
There's a guy named David Axelrod.
You know the term political hack.
This he is a political hack in the both the best and worst senses of the term.
He's a hack.
What he is is a political operative.
He's one of these guys that bounces from campaign to campaign to campaign.
They're like gypsies.
They wander, they go from one campaign to the next campaign to the next campaign to the next campaign.
This is what the guy does for a living.
He's a political consultant and a highly paid one.
He started out as a reporter.
He was the political columnist for the Chicago Tribune, and he decided to go over to the other side and become a political consultant and an operative.
It'd be like if Howard Feynman decided that he was going to be somebody who ran campaigns rather than reported.
I'm typical old lefty reporter who decided that he was going to run campaigns, and he's been running a lot of campaigns since then.
Democrat always works for the Democrats and always runs the campaigns kind of the same way.
He happens to be running right now Barack Obama's campaign.
And he came out with a statement within hours yesterday of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Now I understand, I'm not naive here.
I understand we are less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses.
And this year, more than any year since the Iowa caucuses have existed, they're going to be very, very important.
We've been in the middle of a presidential campaign for a year because I was falling only five days before the New Hampshire primary.
There's such an importance associated with this.
It's make or break for a lot of these campaigns.
So I understand that when you're less than a week away from Iowa, every candidate is going to look for every edge possible.
Still, to politicize the death of Benazir Bhutto.
There's something wrong there about it.
And I know they're all going to try to use this to somehow advance their own campaigns.
Those who have foreign policy experience will kind of wink and suggest, oh, this proves that you need someone like me, given the uncertainties of the world out there, you need an old hand, somebody who understands where things are, somebody who can find Pakistan on a map.
There will be that.
There will be that.
Still, I want you to listen to what David Axelrod said and understand why it's David Axelrod that says it.
Remember, he's the guy who's managing Barack Obama's campaign.
Axelrod came out and said that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, quote, underscores the case for judgment.
When voters begin to select their presidential candidate.
Referring then to Hillary Clinton, Axelrod said, quote, she was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today.
So that's a judgment she'll have to defend.
In other words, Axel Rod is suggesting that the reason that the Pakistan thing happened is because we're in Iraq.
Iraq's the reason for Pakistan.
And because Hillary voted for the war in Iraq, she's to blame for what's happened in Pakistan.
Now I'm not going to defend Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton is the John Kerry of the current day Democratic Party.
She was for the war before she was against the war.
I'm not here to defend Hillary.
But I want to deal with this claim now being made by Axelrod that the problems that exist in Pakistan have something to do with Iraq.
Because you can't get it more wrong.
It's exactly the opposite.
First of all, it's part of, you know, we joke about it.
If you're a conservative, you joke about it.
If anything happens anywhere in the world, you just joke, well, I wonder if they'll blame this on Bush, because whatever it is, hurricanes, earthquakes, Hurricane Katrina, the housing mess, whatever it is, it's Bush's fault.
Well, it's because of Bush, it's because of Bush.
It's all liberals do anymore.
Anything bad that happens anywhere, they come up with a way to try to blame Bush.
Well, here we've got.
It's less than a 36 hours since Benazir Bhutto has been killed, and you've got to reach out by the Democrats to suggest that this is Bush's fault.
Well, if only Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, if only we didn't have the war in Iraq, we wouldn't have the trouble in Pakistan and Benazir Bhutto wouldn't be dead.
Yeah, okay, it's Bush's fault.
Bush is the reason they killed her.
That's the line that they're going to push.
Now, this is dangerous territory, even for a Democrat, less than a week away from the Iowa caucuses.
The blame America First crowd.
That's the reason, because it is dangerous.
That's the reason this statement was issued not by Barack Obama, who's running around all over the place in Iowa, New Hampshire, Barack Obama could have said this himself.
It's the reason that he sends out his campaign flunky to make the statement.
So if there's a backlash to the comments, Obama can disassociate himself from what his campaign advisor had to say.
If the comments work, well then they got out there.
They took the shot at Hillary, they got their shot in at Hillary, within hours of the death of Benazir Bhutto, without the words actually having to come out of the mouth of Barack Obama.
Get into the point they make, though, that somehow the situation in Pakistan has anything to do with Iraq.
You can't have a more basic misunderstanding of the situation.
The thing the terrorists most fear is democracy.
Democracy destroys terrorism.
In order for terrorism to thrive, you've got to create a bad guy, a Satan, a scapegoat, someone that's to blame for everything.
You have to have that in order for them for there to be terrorism.
For the longest time, Israel was the Satan that was created to justify terrorism.
Since then, it's been expanded to become any non-believer, any quote, infidel, and we here in the United States have been included in this.
But you've got to have a bad guy.
Within their own Arab nations, the bad guy is somebody who is weak on the whole thing.
Too soft.
They're aligned with the United States.
They're pro-Western.
They aren't true believers.
You've got to have that bad guy.
You've got to have that scapegoat.
That's how you sell to the masses that the acts of terror are morally justified.
There is this bad guy, the bad guy has to be destroyed, and therefore killing civilians is justifiable because it serves the greater purpose of wiping out this scapegoat, wiping out this bad guy.
That's the entire message of terrorism.
Every terrorist has had to create a straw man, an evil person, an evil entity that they're fighting against.
But if you have democracy, if the majority have actually chosen to go a certain route with their nation, who's the bad guy?
Who's the Satan?
It'd have to be the people themselves.
This is why they're so fearful of an Iraq governed by democracy.
Because it would mean that the Iraqi people themselves have chosen a certain route.
So if you attack the Iraqi government or the Iraqi institutions, you're really only attacking the people.
Well, then suddenly it's the terrorists that have become pariahs, which is what's been gradually happening over the last several months in Iraq.
Most factions in Iraq have turned against terrorism.
And the terrorists have become the ones who are destroying an institution created by whom?
By the Iraqi people, democracy.
Well, what was going to happen in Pakistan in just a few weeks?
They were going to have elections.
And Ben Azir Bhutto's party may well have won.
The terrorists were threatened by that.
Now they may not have elections.
Now Pakistan may fall into civil war.
It is when there is chaos, the terrorism has an opportunity to thrive.
Because now you aren't fighting a popularly elected government.
You're merely fighting for a cause.
You can create a bad guy.
It's just exactly the opposite.
I don't know if you can make democracy work in Arab nations.
The whole situation in Iraq is still very much in doubt.
I don't know if democracy can thrive there or not.
I don't know if Pakistan, in its own crude form of democracy where they have elections and then they have coups in which the elected leaders are overthrown and then they have elections again.
I don't know if that can survive.
When you've got nations that are so strongly tied to Islamic law, there's a problem in trying to have democracy work there.
I don't know if it can succeed.
But I do think the thing the President Bush has gotten right the way to fight terrorism is by bringing democracy to countries.
It's the only way you can beat them.
Terrorists prey upon people who think that they're somehow put upon, that they are somehow oppressed, that there's someone who is responsible for whatever is wrong with them.
When you've got democracy in place, how do you make that sale?
It's why democracy and terrorism rarely go together.
Nations that have democratically elected governments almost never have homegrown terrorism.
And when it does occur, it's not supported by more than a tiny little fringe.
So for David Aksarod, who runs the Barack Obama campaign to get up and say, because of the instability in Iraq, you've got a Pakistan, because we're focusing on Iraq, the situation occurred in Pakistan is exactly Wrong.
If anything, Iraq is creating a desire on the part of moderate Arabs and moderate Muslims for self-determination themselves.
And yeah, the terrorists don't like it, and they're going to fight back and they're going to try to beat it.
Because if you do have free elections in Pakistan, had Benazir Bhutto and her party won, and had they come in and cracked down against the terrorists, that would have been a defeat for them.
If Barack Obama truly believes what his mouthpiece has to say, what he's essentially saying is we aren't going to ever do anything that the terrorists don't like.
Their lashing out at Bhutto is an act of desperation.
Because they're losing in Iraq, and now they're fearful they're going to lose Pakistan, just as they earlier lost Afghanistan.
What's happening is they're getting their tails kicked.
And yes, they're fighting back.
It's not like they're not going to go down without a fight.
Anyway, it's open line Friday.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
1-800-282-2882 is the telephone number at EIB.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in today for Rush Limbaugh to Montana and Bill, Bill, it's your turn.
Hi.
Hey, Ma, good to talk to you.
And I know exactly where Milwaukee is because I grew up in Rockford, Illinois.
So I spent a lot of time up in Milwaukee in my early years.
My first comment is with everything happening overseas in Pakistan, did they obviously that affirms why we should be there in the first place in the Middle East, that is.
But my question to you is how do you think that that's going to affect our relationship with Pakistan and Musharraf since she was probably a greater ally with the U.S. than Shanah.
Well, this doesn't help, and that's why she was killed.
Musharraf is the classic moderate.
This is a guy that's in charge of a country that's just, it's almost ungovernable.
Pakistan has a strong minority that is very militant.
It also has a strong minority on the other side that is very modern.
And to use a term we don't like, rather liberal, at least in terms of its view of the kind of society that they want to live in, and he's been the guy in the middle trying to control both sides and also preserve his own power.
He's wanted to keep a lid on the terrorists, but he's also wanted to appease the terrorists so that they don't turn against him.
Benazir Bhutto, on the other hand, has been very anti-terrorist.
The other thing that we have to understand in Pakistan is that apparently everybody over there is corrupt.
Ralph Peters, who's a great column, is a piece today in the New York Post in which he says look, we shouldn't be lionizing Benazir Bhutto and making her something that she wasn't.
Her father was corrupt.
He was executed because of corruption.
She was corrupt.
Everybody over there is corrupt.
That may well be true.
But there are still ideologies there, and there are still people that we would rather see in power than others.
And Benazir Bhutto was someone that we wanted to see gather power because she was a strident anti-terrorist.
Musharraf is kind of like the kings in Saudi Arabia, in which he'll cooperate with the United States and he'll try to control terrorists, not because he's opposed to terrorism morally, but because if the terrorists get their way, he's out of the picture.
So he's a pragmatic guy.
What we're going to have to do is figure out who we can deal with over there and try to stop the nation from falling into all-out civil war, which might happen.
The supporters of Benazir Bhutto are furious.
That's not all bad, because they're going to realize that the terrorist movement is something that isn't good for them.
It threatens them as well.
The people who admired Bhutto and were part of her political party are now very, very angry, and they're going to lash back at the terrorists.
They're also going to blame the Musharraf government.
We also don't really know who's responsible for this execution.
The government is claiming that it's Al Qaeda.
They've claimed that they've intercept communications that the government here when I'm referring to the government, it's the Pakistani government.
Well, of course they're going to say that.
They're going to want to blame terrorists for this.
It's certainly possible that Musharraf, the president, was very, very fearful of Benazir Bhutto and her growing influence and the results of the new election.
Maybe there was a hand in that.
We don't know.
What I do know Is this.
I'm glad that President Bush is someone who has spent his entire presidency developing relationships here.
I'm glad that we have an able Secretary of State in Condoleezza Rice who's in a position to be able to handle this because this is very, very difficult.
As much as the Barack Obama crowd is going to want a demagogue on this.
Well, this is all because Bush started trouble over there and Bush stirred everything up and everything is fine before Bush messed around.
This is a very dangerous part of the world.
It's very relevant to us because these terrorists want a country.
They wanted Iraq, and it looks like they're not going to get it.
They had Afghanistan, but it wasn't really worth having.
They would really like Pakistan because Pakistan is nuclear.
And we can't let the terrorists get it.
And that means we're going to have to make some deals in Pakistan with some very unsavory characters.
I'm not allowed to do any endorsements here.
Rush does endorsements.
I can't come in and do endorsements, so this is not an endorsement.
But I do use Yahoo as my home page on my laptop.
Is it a laptop or a notebook?
No, if we decided what to call these things, either way, um, on my laptop here, and I'm looking over and you know, yeah, you personalize your page and everything.
And it's got the little thing here where it says weather 47 degrees.
Well, I'm in New York City at EIB Central, and it is 47 degrees and sunny.
But does my computer know it's in New York?
My computer, when I you know, when I set up my Yahoo homepage, it says, you know, I programmed him that I'm from Milwaukee and so on, and it's always had the Milwaukee weather on there when I turn it on when I'm at home.
They're having a blizzard in Milwaukee right now.
It's snowing like crazy, and there's no way it's forty-seven degrees.
Now I know when you take your cell phone on a trip and you turn it back on, it magically knows what the time is and the place that you are.
I understand that.
Are you telling me that my laptop knows where it is and Yahoo knows where I am and they're able to adjust the weather to where I am?
Or it could be getting the information from the network here.
You're correct, that the laptop knows where it is now, and because we've got this Wi-Fi or the network that we're getting that it's hooked up to that it could be doing that.
I just find it creepy that my computer seems to know or know where it is.
It's one thing for it to know where I am.
But I don't like that it knows where it is.
Yeah, it knows all of those things.
Albuquerque, New Mexico, Micah, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Uh hello, Mr. Billings, and uh, you're doing a great job.
Uh happy holidays, all that good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Um can I say hi to my mom in Ohio real quick?
You just you just did.
I I haven't I haven't seen her ten years, Olivia Williams.
Uh anyway, Richard Gary.
By the way, does r does Russia allow personal greetings or not?
I need to know the rules here.
Rush does not, so you've now gotten away.
Once again, take advantage of the stupid guest host who doesn't know the rules.
I apparently was supposed to say no to you.
All right, no more greetings, though.
You did get that one in.
But I did want to say the whole thing about Iraq is uh, you know, uh be being ex-marine is eventually we do want to say uh what we're trying to do is eventually have McDonald's, uh Walmart, Disneyland.
And if the people in Iraq didn't want us there, uh we wouldn't be there.
I I really do think that eventually, 50 years, you know, 40 years from now, there'll be uh blue jeans and Walmarts and uh McDonald's in Iraq.
And I think that the people have a right to choose whether or not they want this.
They do have a right to choose that.
I think it's a moral right that they have.
Our own declaration of independence talked about the denial of rights that we had, rights that were given to us from God that were denied by England.
You're right about that.
I think President Bush may be a little bit too passionate on the entire issue of democracy.
He thinks it's a moral calling as well.
He thinks that it's a great that it's the that self-determination is the great yearning of all peoples.
I'm not sure that that's true.
I think some people are probably a little bit more comfortable living under totalitarianism.
Liberals certainly like the notion of the state bossing them around.
But if people are given the opportunity to choose their own government, you're exactly right, Micah.
The next thing they get to choose is their own lifestyle.
Then they get to choose their own stores.
Then they get to choose their own culture, and that's something that people who want to dictate to them, fundamentalist terrorists, they can't abide that.
They're looking for a holy war in which it's us against them, us being their version of radical Islam.
They don't like the notion of any kind of free choice.
If the people of Iraq didn't want us, you're right, we'd be gone because there'd be a lot more support for terrorists and thus a lot more opposition for us.
They are threatened by the fact that what we brought Iraq is what most Iraqis wanted.
Now, for the Democrats who are going to try to somehow blame us for what's going on in Pakistan, we didn't bring Pakistan anything.
Pakistan has always had what it's got right now.
What you see in Pakistan is a big infiltration by Al Qaeda, which was run out of Afghanistan.
Bin Laden's probably hiding in the mountains in Pakistan somewhere.
They want a country.
And if I can stress anything here, it's that the terrorists want their own nation.
And they're getting run out of all of them, which is why Al Qaeda is weaker right now than it was on 9-11.
But if they can grab a country up, like Pakistan, nuclear Pakistan, they suddenly become not just terrorists, they become a major world force.
They're what the Soviet Union was during the Cold War.
And the frustrating reality, and I know this is frustrating, and I know people don't want to hear it, is that you're going to have to keep fighting them forever.
Because if they're defeated in Pakistan, they're going to look for another country.
Maybe they'll make Iran that country.
Maybe Iran will simply abandon any notion that it isn't a terrorist state and become that country.
Maybe it'll be Syria.
Maybe it will be somewhere else.
But they are always going to look for a nation because with a nation comes an army, with a nation comes weapons, and with a nation comes security and freedom from being able to be attacked by the United States.
So that's why they're now going after Pakistan.
They're going after Pakistan, not because we stirred things up in Iraq, but because they've been beaten in Iraq.
It may well be that the decision to go in and assassinate Benazir Buddha by Al Qaeda, if indeed they're responsible for it, is because they've given up on Iraq because they lost.
And what we need to do is make sure that they keep losing.
Thank you for the call.
Let's go to Geneva, Ohio and Chet.
Chet, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Thank you.
Hello.
Yes, you're on, Chet.
Yeah, listen, I was listening to the program.
I listened to Rush quite a bit.
But uh Mark, you said that uh you made a statement that the most effective way to fight the terrorists to you know defeat them is to provide a country with some sort of democracy.
I don't disagree with that.
However, the fact is that if you have a dictatorship in a country, a strong dictatorship, you do not ever have terrorism in that country.
Really.
That is a fact of life if you look at the history, you know uh really of the world.
You will find I don't agree with the people.
Well, I just let me let me let me challenge that.
All right.
What did you consider Libya prior to the mid-80s?
Uh with Qaddafi?
Yeah.
Qaddafi was a terrorist in himself, okay.
He supported it as a supporter of terrorists, of course that's what they came with.
But then you look at uh No, no, hang on a second.
Hang on a second.
Hang on a second.
No, no, you hang on a second.
I want to I want to I I want to deal with your thought because I think that there's a lot of truth to what you say.
When you take a look at certain nations that have had strong armed leaders, that means they're able to repress everyone, including terrorists.
Absolutely.
What I think where I think your flaw is, though, is to presume that some of these dictators wouldn't be terrorists themselves.
Now you I think you conceded my point with regard to Libya.
Well, that's only because Qaddafi himself was a terrorist.
If the terrorists get control of Pakistan, they'll make that a dictatorship too.
They'll simply be the terrorists in the form of their own state.
I contend Iran right now, which is a dictatorship, you'd agree, right?
Absolutely.
That's a terrorist state as well.
They've been sending their terrorists across the border into Iraq.
Dictators only stop terrorists if they oppose terrorism.
Some do, but others do not.
I agree a hundred percent with that analysis.
I just wanted to point out that there was there is another method to prevent terrorism in a country, and I don't say I agree with it.
I just said that uh, for instance, when Spain had a dictator, th They I mean it was shut down.
Yeah, the point that I make is you need the right kind of dictator, and the other problem with that is those dictators are always going to be vulnerable to popular uprisings.
What you really do then when you have a dictatorship is you allow the terrorists to cra to claim the moral high ground for themselves.
They can rail against the thing that is being dictated under them.
When you have a democracy, they don't have any high ground, which is why they then lose all of their popular support.
The point that he makes, I think is refuted by the various nations right now in which terrorists are thriving, but are governed by dictators, which would be just about every nation that doesn't have democracy.
Saudi Arabia is a kingdom, but it's really a dictatorship.
The leaders of Saudi Arabia, the ruling family.
They govern that country with an iron fist.
It is dictatorial, even though they claim a royal lineage for their uh succession to power.
Brooklyn and Rich, it's your turn on EIB.
Uh good afternoon, Mark.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thanks.
Uh, I want to talk about the so-called trip if Hillary wins that she wants to send her husband and Bush Sr. to travel the world.
I think the first stop should be Somalia.
I would like to join them.
I would like to hear uh uh Bill Clinton's statements about how our guys were killed, why he didn't back them up.
My friend's son was one of the ranger was that was killed on that mission.
Well, the democratic version of international policy is to go into all of the places where we don't have a vested interest, where there's no American interest that could be won, to stick around and send back a bunch of postcards in which they can brag about how humanitarian they all are and then leave the moment that the going gets tough.
The reason that I cited the David Axelrod comment at the beginning of the hour, uh campaign manager for Barack Obama, is that I think that it shows how Democrats think about foreign policy.
They think about foreign policy as a way of showing their own humanitarian humanitarianism, to show their own moral superiority.
What we really have right now is a threat to the future of the world.
You have a jihadist movement that is determined to kill every nonbeliever.
We also have a nuclear world which makes the stakes very, very high.
Those of us who are pragmatic about all of this know that we have to deal with it if civilization is going to survive.
You've got a Democratic Party on the other hand, who just thinks that if we were nice to everyone and left everyone alone it, God forbid if we didn't go in and mess things up in Iraq, why nothing would be unstable anywhere.
Before we went into Iraq, we had 9-11.
We had under Bill Clinton, Al Qaeda grow from a small organization to a major global force which threatens the world.
Leaving it all alone is what leads to terrorism.
Fighting terrorism is what defeats terrorism.
It's open line Friday, 1-800-282-2882 is the phone number.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh, not to spend the entire program talking about my Yahoo homepage, but on the news headlines here, they've got an item that says Iraq fades as a concern among two thousand eight voters.
Well, yeah, I guess it is fading because Iraq isn't the problem that it was a year ago, because President Bush did the right thing and we're fixing the situation in Iraq.
So okay, let's just move on now.
That's where they call their group Moveon.org.
I think Dallas was probably the first TV show to invent the cliffhanger.
You guys like Dallas?
I love Dallas.
Nobody ever wants to admit that they lie.
I I I'm a Renaissance man.
I'm willing to admit that I loved that show.
Rush loved Dallas too.
See?
That just if for no other reason that should mean that you guys should have to love Dallas.
I don't like that's why I see.
I didn't like any of the sequels.
I didn't like any of the other ones.
I haven't watched any of them since.
I've never seen Desperate Housewives.
I loved Dallas.
And Dallas would always end with a dramatic event.
So you'd watch the next week, and each season would end with this huge cliffhanger to bring you back after the summer rerun, so you'd be there there for the f following fall.
The most famous one, of course, was when J.R. was shot, the Who Shot JR thing, which became a huge phenomenon.
But Dallas would do though is they'd build up the entire season would be building Towards something and building and building and building, and every storyline would be toward this huge point.
It was usually a fight between J.R. and Cliff Barnes or a fight for control of Ewingwell, and they'd have this, and then you'd have the giant cliffhanger at the end of the year, and you'd have to wait all summer.
You wait all summer, you turn on the first episode, and they'd resolve the cliffhanger in five minutes and move on and create a whole new series of crises.
So you'd build up and build up and build up and oh, okay, that's it.
That's how liberals are.
That's how liberals are.
One of the reasons why I love life and hope that I live to be a very, very old man, is I get to keep watching time pass and allow liberals to be proven wrong again, just as they're going to be proven wrong in Iraq, so I can turn around and say exactly what Rush said in his book, see, I told you so.
The problem with it is liberals just shrug.
Oh, okay, all right, fine.
Let's move on.
Let's move on from Iraq.
Let's move on from this.
They're going to move on from global warming.
It's going to happen.
There's going to come a point in time in which they decide the carbon is actually good for us, that instead of being carbon neutral, we should all be carbon positive.
You all know that.
You laugh.
You know that's what it's going to come to.
There is going to be a point at which they determine that the planet is actually cooling down and we need somehow to generate more carbon emissions in order to warm it all up, and the rest of us are going to turn to them and say, Well, but you were wrong, yeah, okay, so what?
We'll just move on to the very next thing.
They're wrong about everything, but then they shrug their shoulders and say, Well, yeah, there's no point in debating Iraq right now.
Now we have to deal with Pakistan.
Now we have to deal with this.
Now we have to deal with that.
The flaw in that is that we don't take a look at what worked and what didn't work.
Iraq may or may not long term be stable.
I don't know.
Unlike the lefties who have argued that this was an unwinnable situation, I'm realistic.
I don't know if it's winnable.
What I do know is right now it's going pretty well.
And I know that things changed when we changed tactics in Iraq.
What changed was we took the fight to the terrorists.
We also trusted that the mass population in Iraq would not support the terrorists if the terrorists were weakened.
There was more support for the terrorists when it looked like they were going to win.
When we ran them out of Baghdad, and we ran them out of the Sunni triangle, and when we made the deals with the Sunni chieftains to support our efforts and turn against Al Qaeda, we put them on the run.
They're not gone, and Iraq isn't right now totally peaceful, but it's a lot better than it was, and the terror movement has been weakened.
Rather than simply moving on, the name of their group, think about what a dumb name that is.
Move on.
It is the mantra for the left.
Move on because we're wrong about everything.
Let's move on to the next thing that we're going to be wrong about.
Instead, what we ought to do is learn from the situation in Iraq.
By confronting terrorism, we weakened terrorism.
Not by appeasing it, not by going away, not by saying that it doesn't matter.
We confronted it, and it was weaker.
Now the challenge is that means we have to keep confronting it.
And it means that there may be more Iraqs in the future.
And it means that some of us are realistic enough to know that when you have an evil force in the world, it is a big pain in the butt to have to deal with it.
On the other hand, we should not listen to those who have been wrong again and again and again and again on all of this stuff, because they're going to be wrong on Pakistan just as they were wrong on Iraq.
My name is Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
You know, I always hear Rush when he's near the end of an hour saying, no time to put on a caller.
It wouldn't be fair to the caller to put them on when they would be rushed to making their point.
And I'm at that exact same point, but I'm not as magnanimous as Rush.
The reason I don't want to put the caller on right now is that I know that I'd have to cut the caller off and I would sound like an idiot for putting a caller on without enough time to take the call.
So rather than worry about being unfair to the caller, uh, we're not going to have time for an additional call here as an act of pure selfishness on the part of the guest host who doesn't want to foul anything up.
But I hear Rush not wanting to jam a caller in to a little bit of remaining time.
So instead, let me leave you with this thought as we end this hour of the program.
We had a caller on yesterday's show saying, I'm looking for Reagan, I'm looking for a Reagan, I'm looking for a Reagan.
▲
Export Selection