All Episodes
Previous Next
July 21, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
July 21, 2008, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program are just dazzling, penetrating, earth-shattering.
And that's not ego speaking.
Simple recognition of fact.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh in the air chair of the prestigious Attila the Hun chair here at the Distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Telephone number if you want to join us today, and we'll get to your call soon this hour is 800-282-2882.
The email address, LRushbo at EIBNet.com.
Yeah, I got some emails.
Hey, Rush, how come you, how come you didn't mention here Obama said he had to go meet all these world leaders that he's going to be dealing with over the next eight to ten years?
I think, you know, we can go nuts examining these politicians word by word by word.
I don't think Obama really thinks he's going to be president for 10 years unless he plans on getting rid of the 22nd Amendment.
I guess if you're the Messiah, anything is possible.
The more instructive thing about this is the presumptuous, presumptuous nature to comment that he's got this election in the bag and that he's got his re-election in 2012 in the bag.
And he's going over there to hold substantive discussions with national leaders who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
This is the arrogance of arrogance from the Messiah, Lord Barack Obama.
Senator McCain and a number of others suggested a gas tax holiday this summer, a federal gas tax holiday.
However, it ain't going to happen.
And instead, something else is in the works.
Lawmakers are quietly talking about raising fuel taxes by 10 cents, by a dime, from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel.
So the new tax will be 28.4 cents on a gallon of gas and 34.3 cents on a gallon of diesel.
Now, this is profound to me.
I mean, this, again, once again, Senator McCain has a campaign issue drop right in his lap.
While Obama is across the ocean on what is nothing more than a summer camp trip or the equivalent of going off and visiting some colleges with the parents hovering around helicopter parents and the drive-by media are the parents.
Oh, look at Barry.
Look at who Barry met today.
He's going to set him straight.
Barry's going to set Maliki straight.
Barry's going to set Karzai straight.
Barry is, when Barry gets through, they're going to ask him to teach at their country.
It's just sickening.
All the while, what remains the big issue?
The big issue in people's minds is $4 and rising a gallon gasoline.
And now when people figure out that members of Congress are planning on tacking on an additional dime federal tax to a gallon of gasoline, Senator McCain, fly out to an oil rig ASAP, point out how environmentally safe they are, go fly to NWA, go to a nuclear power plant, brag on the technology, go to the newest clean-burning coal plant in the country, brag about that.
I think that Senator McCain, with the backing of Republicans, ought to start talking down the price of oil.
Draft legislation, give some speeches, make sure they have photo ops every day that Obama is on his European vacation.
It demonstrates where our priorities should be.
They should be here and they should be about energy, taking care of business here at home, because the commander-in-chief and General Petraeus and hundreds of thousands of American heroes in the military are already taking business overseas, taking care of it.
We don't need Obama over there.
Obama's not making anybody any safer.
If anything, Obama is going to make us more precarious or our position more precarious if he wins.
Golden opportunity here.
Golden, golden, golden.
Senator McCain needs to lead a surge in energy jobs for the express purpose of getting energy costs back to where they can be.
I mean, talk about security.
This is economic security.
Our way of life is under attack by Muslim extremists and environmental extremists.
And we need a surge here on both fronts.
One's already begun and it's working in Iraq.
Bush started another and it proved that oil prices are not immune from market forces.
Surge in Iraq was based on simple logic.
A surge in oil supplies here at home is simple logic.
There's a way to do it.
I just, you know, golden opportunity here, Senator McCain.
It's something that really you need to look at.
By the way, speaking of taxes, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006.
And we mentioned this last week, but it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more in taxes than they already do.
Let me go through the numbers for you.
Wall Street Journal has an op-ed today on their website.
The top 1% of taxpayers, that's defined by people who earn $388,000, almost $389,000.
$388,806 is the number.
If you earn that or above, you're in the top 1%.
In 2006, you paid 40% of all income taxes, the highest share in 40 years.
The top 10% in income, that's income above $108,904.
The top 10% paid 71% of all income taxes.
Barack Obama says he's going to cut taxes for those at the bottom.
But that's going to be a challenge because Americans with an income below the median paid a record low of 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1% of all taxes.
And we're told the rich paid more taxes because they made a greater share of the money.
That's true.
Top 1% earned 22% of all reported income, but they also paid a share of taxes not far from double their share of income.
In other words, the tax code's already steeply progressive.
Yes, even 36%.
35, 36%.
And what this proves is the old adage: when you lower taxes, you get increased revenue.
Listen to these numbers.
In 1990, the richest 1% were 14% of the nation's income.
They paid 25% of all taxes.
In 2000, they paid 37%.
In 2005, they paid 39% and 2006, 40%.
So since 1990, the rich, top 1%, richest 1% have paid from 25% in 1990 to 40% in 2006 of all income taxes.
The richest 5% in 1990 paid 44%.
In 2000, paid 56%.
2005 paid 60%.
The top 10% now pay 71%.
But the big number is the top 50% are paying 97.1% of all taxes.
It proves the way to soak the rich is with lower tax rates.
And the IRS data from last week provide more powerful validation of that proposition.
But nevertheless, the Democrats and Obama continue to say that these tax cuts have been a giveaway to the rich, and it's a figment of their imagination.
Taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled to $274 billion in 2006 from $136 billion in 2003.
What happened in 2003?
We rolled back the Clinton tax increases.
No president has ever plied more money from the rich than George W. Bush did with his 2003 tax cuts.
These tax payments from the rich explain the very rapid reduction in the budget deficit to 1.9% of GDP in 2006 when it was 3.5% in 2003.
Brief time out.
We'll come back.
Al Gore was on meeting the press yesterday.
Al Gore had his stunning global warming speech last week.
Al Gore said in 10 years, we need to be totally off of fossil fuels.
10 years.
Now, aside from the lunacy of this, let me ask you one quick question.
Ladies and gentlemen, if somebody actually said in 10 years we can't use oil, somebody explain to me how we are going to fly.
Because in all these alternatives I keep hearing about, not one of them will get an airplane off the ground.
Wind, solar.
How are we going to fly?
We're just going to stop fly, Mr. Limbaugh.
That's destroying the plan.
You're right, we're going to stop flying.
Back in just a second, folks.
Stay with us.
By the way, folks, one thing about taxes, neither Obama nor the Democrats are going to cut anybody's taxes.
They're not going to cut.
If you're in a lower 50%, everybody's taxes are going up, and I don't care what kind you're talking about.
Payroll, Social Security, income, where everything's going up.
He's not going to cut anybody's taxes.
He may give you people in lower realms a couple more government programs, but he's not going to cut your taxes.
He's going to do everything he can to blow up the size of this government.
We need a question.
Pipe dream here.
Nobody's going to ever ask Obama.
The question is, sir, what's your program for increasing economic growth?
And if he endeavored to answer it, it'd cut alternative fuels, doing our foreign policy smarter and more intelligently and so forth.
I really, for all this talk about Obama being the Messiah, I think the guy is an empty suit.
He's a great orator.
He communicates with his audience.
July 16th, five days ago, he was in West Lafayette, Indiana, making a speech.
And he said in this speech, he said, throughout our history, America has confronted constantly evolving danger from the oppression of an empire to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor to the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.
The bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor.
I think these were written remarks.
The bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor.
Okay.
Okay.
Been a while.
I know.
I've had diarrhea of the mouth here.
To the phones, we'll start in St. Augustine, Florida.
This is Andy.
Andy, welcome to the EIB network, sir.
I'm glad you called.
Rush, it's an honor and a privilege.
Thank you, sir.
I'd like to point out what a masterful political opportunist Obama is.
I mean, here he was.
He pandered to his base and said we'd get out of Iraq in 16 months.
Then he won his nomination.
Then he went to the center because he knows where the country is.
And then now he's gone back.
And the only reason he can go back and do that is because the surge has worked, and we're going to be able to pull our troops out anyway.
So he can go and say that we're going to get out of Iraq and go back and pander to his base again and keep them firmed up and tell people, oh, well, I got us out of Iraq.
Well, he didn't get us out of Iraq.
You know, George Bush and John McCain got us out of Iraq.
You know, in 16 months, we might be able to leave there.
You can't say for sure, but it's quite a possibility.
Look, this is all correct, but this is not a brilliance of political opportunism.
What Obama has going for him is one fact.
He knows that the drive-by media is not going to report anything that he says in a negative way.
They're not going to call him a flip-flopper.
They're not going to say, wait a minute, you're changing your position here.
They're not going to do any of that.
They're going to prop him up and make him a statesman, all these things.
This is why Obama has four different positions on Iraq that he can say he's articulated over the course of the last number of months, depending on what happens.
And the media is going to give him the flexibility of having those four positions, whatever they are.
I guarantee you, he is just pimping Bush's ride.
That's what essentially you're saying.
He's pimping Bush's ride.
Bush is the one who has not wavered.
Bush is the one who has not flip-flopped.
Bush is the one who hung in, as did McCain.
Obama's been all over the place with no accountability, no responsibility.
And his primary position on Iraq has been to lose.
His primary position, his primary effort has been to guarantee defeat.
And so whatever happens in Iraq, you're right, he'll be able to claim credit for it if he's elected.
And his supporters will swoon in the process.
If he's elected.
Let's see.
Arlington, Virginia.
This is Rick.
Rick, welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you here.
Good afternoon, sir.
Rush, I haven't heard you mention phase two of Operations Chaos since the Obama campaign cut you off at the knees.
Ever since they capitalized on your announcement of phase two, stating your blind sheep followers were welcome to help set the Democratic agenda.
You've been silent.
And I work for a delivery organization as a cover carrier running dozens of routes.
And whenever I walk into a business location and hear someone listening to you or any of the conservative talk radio shows, I always ask them if they listen to any other conservative talk shows.
Over 95% of them listen to at least one other show, and well over half of them listen to conservative talk radio from the time they get up in the morning until they turn on the O'Reilly factor in Hannanian combs at night.
They tell me they almost never watch television.
And after years of honing in on this, I've concluded that 25% of the voters, the people who voted for Reagan, their kids and their grandkids, listen solely to you and Hannity and Savage and Ingram and Levin.
But all while 75% of the voters are being told to vote for Democrats on every television show that they watch, they are being told to vote for Democrats in every newspaper they read.
Your caller who called a couple of weeks ago, Rush, to say you are doing nothing but preaching to the choir was exactly right.
I think the nitwits who listen to talk radio are more brainwashed than what you claim that those who are getting their news from the networks and the Washington Post are.
Like that caller said, you aren't doing a damn thing to affect 75% of the voters out there.
Just look at the last election.
Democrats won more than 600 legislative seats for the Republicans in the very last election.
And look what you just said the other day.
They're about to win another 75 in the House.
They're going to have a supermajority.
And your caller who said you preached to the choir was right.
You saying you are preaching the three-quarters of the voters is completely wrong.
Yes.
I want you to keep thinking this way.
I want you to keep taking these anecdotal surveys as you deliver your things in America's businesses.
I want you to keep fooling yourself into what you believe is true because you've obviously had to go out because you have such a fear of me and this program that you had to go out and conduct an anecdotal research survey while you, Rick, not a member of the choir, are listening every day to be able to quote to me what callers are saying to me.
And Rick, let me tell you something, old buddy, old pal.
There are millions of other Democrats and liberals like you who are listening every day out of fear, the same kind of fear you have.
I heard it in your voice, Rick.
I heard it in your filibustering.
If I'm not a factor, you wouldn't have to bother listening.
You wouldn't have to bother calling and telling me I'm not a factor.
But you know that we are all factors here, Rick, old buddy, old pal.
And you just sit back, you just wait and see what all's going to happen down the road.
Nobody on talk radio has ever claimed, Rick, that they get anybody they want elected or any issue they want passed.
It's not what it's all about.
You have indicated a great misunderstanding and lack of depth in analyzing what we do here, and you have displayed it with a tremendous amount of fear.
I got to take a quick timeout.
We'll be back.
By the way, as to Operation Chaos, it's happening, Rick.
You just can't see it.
On the cutting edge of societal evolution, El Rushball and the excellence in broadcasting network.
Let me ask you guys a question.
Are the drive-bys actually afraid to trust the election to the voters?
Because they're sure acting that way.
They're turning Little Barry's summer camp trip into a virtual coronation, precisely as I predicted.
And, you know, even some in the drive-bys are groaning about this.
McCain didn't get this kind of coverage.
In fact, I'll tell you who it is: that's our old buddy Howard Kurtz.
Grab audio soundbite number six.
This is from reliable sources yesterday.
And Obama coverage for Kurtz may be the final straw.
This is what he said.
When you have one candidate whose trip is covered by the three anchors and the other candidate whose foreign travels are barely covered, when you have one candidate who gets twice as much airtime on the network evening newscast since early June, when you have one candidate, Barack Obama getting more than twice as many covers Time and Newsweek than John McCain.
Just look at some.
We pulled out some newsweek covers here.
Look, Obama, At that point, there is clearly an imbalance.
The sheer volume becomes an imbalance.
And I think that we have inadvertently or otherwise put our thumb on the scale, and there could be a big backlash against news organizations if this trend continues.
Howard, what do you think's going on now?
Howard, I love you, man.
You know that.
And I'm glad that you finally noticed this.
But have you seen layoffs in the newspaper business?
Have you seen Katie Couric's ratings?
Have you seen who her sponsors are?
Probably not because nobody else is watching either.
Have you seen the ratings for drive-by newscasts?
Have you seen the ratings for cable network news that leans left?
Have you seen what's happening to Newsweek and Time and their circulation?
You see what's Howard, people have already noticed the imbalance.
And yes, it's huge, Howard.
People started noticing, if I must say, 20 years ago.
The drive-bys are in big trouble, Howard.
They don't have their monopoly any longer.
They haven't had it for a long time, and people are fed up.
In fact, I'll tell you, Howard, I'm going to give you a little clue, a little hint.
This trip that Obama's on, nobody cares.
They care what it says at the gas pump when they pull in to fill up, Howard.
They don't care that Barry's going to be over there talking to Karzai.
They don't care that Barry is going to be over there talking to Almolliki, if they even know who the hell he is.
They don't care that Barry's going to be over there talking to troops because the one thing they know is that Bush has that handled.
And McCain.
So that people are already bent out of shape about this.
You talk about a backlash.
These people are becoming a joke.
Now, I'm not yelling at Howard here.
He did a great thing here by pointing out this imbalance.
I feel like saying, welcome to the club.
They're turning this trip into a virtual coronation.
As I say, even some of the drive-bys are now starting to groan about this.
I mean, Hillary never got this kind of coverage.
Not even the real president, George W. got this kind of coverage.
Three network media anchors, hundreds of reporters, media celebrities, still photographers, videographers, sound technicians, lighting experts, makeup people.
The last count I heard was over 200 fellow travelers.
No pun intended.
Why the feeding frenzy?
Why do you think, Snerdley?
Why the feeding frenzy?
Why are all three anchors trailing around like little puppy dogs with their tongues out, hoping and hoping for their interview?
Why, Snerdley, why?
Tell me.
Why are they doing this?
They want Obama to be president.
They know that Obama has speech-making gravitas.
They know he has zero foreign policy gravitas.
They think that their images, that their coverage, that their interviews will create instant gravitas, that they can instantaneously convert Obama, who knows nothing about any of this, to a statesman.
Here's what they want you to believe, ladies and gentlemen.
It took Obama three years at Harvard to learn all about the law, but it'll take Obama only a few days, six days in the Middle East and Europe to learn all about foreign policy and national defense.
But there's another possibility here for the media overkill.
The drive-bys remember how Hillary clobbered Obama.
Hillary mauled Obama in the last wave of the primaries.
Don't think the Democrats have forgotten this.
Don't think there's not some concern over just who doesn't like Obama and who is never going to vote for Obama.
And when Obama's off script and tells us who he really is, such as at San Francisco and his bitter clinger comments, they know they've got a problem.
By the way, Operation Chaos was a central factor in maintaining Hillary's viability.
Ohio, Hillary beat Obama by 10.
Pennsylvania, Hillary by 10.
South Dakota, ditto.
Kentucky, Hillary buffs plus 35.
Puerto Rico, Hillary plus 36.
Even though it didn't count, it counted to Hillary's supporters.
The media worries he won't finish off McCain any more than he could finish off Hillary.
And by the way, he never finished Hillary off.
It was the superdelegates that bailed him out.
The Democrats know this.
Obama doesn't close well.
Obama doesn't finish.
But maybe, my friends, maybe I, El Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing, all-feeling, all-important, all everything more rushy, maybe I'm being unkind as the first black candidate, Obama is news, to the drive-bys.
I mean, big deal, historic to the drive-by.
Big deal to Condi Rice.
Realize how many people in his own party are sabotaging Lucent McCain.
After he sabotaged them, I guess it's tit-for-tit.
He's a rock star, Obama is.
Bigger news and is a possible Messiah while he's still even bigger news, bigger than Princess Dye.
Brig bigger than Mother Teresa, bigger than Gorbachev.
Obama bigger than Nelson Mandela.
Obama is bigger than the finals of American Idol.
Obama is bigger than Princess Dye, Mother Teresa, Gorbachev, Nelson Mandela, the finals of American Idol combined to the drive-by media.
That is why they're there.
They also think it's going to translate to ratings.
Why in the world, after you've seen Obama on Slay the Nation on Sunday, and good morning, American and Nightline, why would you wait till Thursday to see with Katie and Wednesday to see with Brian Williams?
But that's what they're doing.
I don't know if they drew lots or if the Obama people decided who's more important.
Because whatever, Katie's going last.
But Lara Logan, the Prager's international correspondent, went first on Slay the Nation.
Who's next here?
This is John in Indianapolis.
Welcome, sir, to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's good to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I think John McCain has to make a passionate case, if he can, that the original Iraqi invasion was the right thing to do.
And that is the only way he can win this debate about Iraq, because it seems no matter what position Obama takes, the press is going to deem him the winner of that debate, even though he was against the surge, which allows him to go there safely.
Unfortunately, I think the Republicans have allowed the debate on the rightness or wrongness of the original invasion to be decided on the basis of the absence of WMD, and that's a terrible, terrible mistake.
Yeah, you trace that back to the administration.
Yes.
The administration, the president's leader of the Republican Party, and everybody else is going to follow his lead on that.
And he has chosen not to remind people of all the reasons we win.
He made great setup speeches before we went in, explaining all the reasons, in addition to WMD, why we went.
He's forgotten that communication is a big part of the presidency, and that's what was so great about Ronald Reagan.
And regardless of what you think about Clinton, he was able to mesmerize people from a communication.
And it was all communication.
It was all buzz.
It was all spin.
You know, the substance of the Clinton administration could not be measured.
But I think what McCune has to do is go back to all of the reasons, all of the reasons we went into Iraq and then say that we didn't find huge caches with WMD, but Saddam did not destroy the WMD.
I'm going to tell you something.
I have looked at polling data.
I don't find Iraq in the top five of anybody's interests right now.
I think that's what McCain needs to, if he ⁇ I'll tell you what he can do.
While he's visiting the oil rig with a camera crew and explaining how important the oil rig is and how he wants more oil rigs, and while he's at the nuclear power plant, he can at the same time explain why the original invasion of Iraq was a good thing.
But to let Obama and the drive-bys define the news cycle here is a mistake.
There's one thing that matters above all else.
Remember that little letter from Tammy May to her newspaper in Pennsylvania.
Her number one priority was houses.
Number four was food, but gasoline was in there.
Gasoline prices, I'm telling you, matter far more to people right now than Iraq.
Iraq, it's old news.
We're winning.
It's not a big deal.
The drive-bys haven't been reporting all of the car bombings and the suicide bombings because there haven't been any.
There hadn't been any news about Iraq, actually, on TV, not much, because it's been good news.
So, you know, this Obama, Obama got sucked into this trip, by the way, with McCain challenging him to go.
So McCain needs to head to the nearest oil rig.
I shucked him in.
I got him out of the country.
I'm glad he's over there.
He'll see the truth, but he won't tell you about it like I will.
In the meantime, we need more of these rich.
Gee, I could get this written.
I can handle this in five minutes.
Audio soundbite time.
We got a lot of them here.
And the next hour I want to get to Al Gore and some of the ridiculous comments that he has been making since last week.
And also, Tom Broko had him on Meet Broko yesterday on NBC.
And Broko put some words in my mouth in a question to Al Gore that I would have never asked.
We'll get to that.
In the meantime, on Good Morning, America today.
McCain starting to get a little hot under the collar here at Obama.
The question from Diane Sawyer, you've criticized Obama in the past for not going to Iraq and getting a fresh statement and assessment.
He's in Iraq as we speak this morning.
Does this take care of it?
I know that he'll be able to have the opportunity to see the success of the surge.
It has succeeded.
This is the same strategy that he voted against, railed against, campaigned for his nomination and obtained his nomination in opposition.
He was wrong about the surge.
It is succeeding, and we are winning.
And I hope he will agree that he had a fundamental misjudgment of the need for this change in strategy, which has succeeded, which is allowing us to win this war.
He should admit that he was wrong.
Right, like that's going to happen.
Senator, he's got four positions on this that he can say he can go back and cite any of these four positions.
He was right all along.
Do we really expect Obama to call a press conference and respond, I want to say it, misjudgment, use misjudgment.
I was wrong about Iraq.
It's like asking somebody to, you know, renounce you.
I mean, it is.
Here's Obama, by the way.
Sunday morning, Face the Nation, the Pragers correspondent, Laura Logan.
This is early on in Obama's pimp ride of Bush's policy.
And Laura Logan says, this trip partly aimed at overcoming a perception that there's a double stand among Americans, that you could lead a country in war as commander-in-chief from day one.
Basically, you don't know diddly-squat.
Is that why this troop?
Well, she didn't say that, but that's what the question is.
Are you really doing this because you're trying to make people think you know what's going on when you don't?
The troops that I've been meeting with over the last several days, they don't seem to have those doubts.
So the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others, who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years.
Yeah, there it is, the eight to ten year comment.
It's the arrogance of arrogance here.
It's not the 10 years.
I know that 10 years is part of it, like the 57 states.
What gets me is who was the last candidate that said she wasn't going to lose?
It was Mrs. Clinton.
And she was asked by Katie Couric on the same network.
I'm sure you made plans for losing.
No, I haven't.
Well, I mean, you've got to be prepared.
I'm not going to lose.
Obama's gotten his, he's already elected.
The drive-bys are treating him as though he's presidential already on this trip.
Next question from the Preggers correspondent of CBS, Lara Logan.
Well, does the U.S. have to start planning to put more troops in Afghanistan now?
I believe U.S. troop levels need to increase.
Oh, sorry.
We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan.
And I believe this has to be.
Stop, Protector.
I can't handle this.
He's not done one thing to help the situation.
He chairs a subcommittee in the Senate on Afghanistan and Eastern European Affairs.
He hadn't done diddly squat, hadn't held a hearing.
Everybody says we need to increase troop presence in Afghanistan, but not American troop presence.
We need more NATO troops there.
The NATO people are backsliding and not coming forward.
He's the last in line to say we need more troops in Afghanistan.
But he's made his pronouncement from on high.
The Lord merciful Barack Obama says we need more troops, and so thou shalt put more troops in Afghanistan.
And of course, the drive-bys who don't want more troops anywhere, all of a sudden we'll find, yes, we have assessed what the Lord Obama has said, and we concur.
More troops necessary in Afghanistan.
Another question from Face the Nation, the Preggers CBS correspondent Laura Logan.
You do have a situation seven years on into this war where bin Laden and all his lieutenants, all the leaders of the Taliban, they're still there and they're inside Pakistan.
If we hadn't taken our eye off the ball, we might have caught them before they got into Pakistan and were able to reconstitute the troops.
Stop the tape.
That is just irresponsible.
You talk to the troops that were take our eye off the ball.
We didn't pull troops out of Afghanistan to go into Iraq.
This guy is a jerk, an arrogant jerk, a jerk messiah.
So we made a strategic error, and it's one that we're going to pay for.
And unfortunately, the people of Afghanistan have paid for as well.
But we now have an opportunity to correct that problem.
If you look at what's happening right now in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki has indicated he wants a timetable for withdrawal.
Oh, you're harping on this.
So now that we can withdraw troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan when your voters think they are coming home took our eye off the ball.
Maybe we would have caught bin Laden.
Hey, Obama, he's in Pakistan.
How come you haven't caught him yet, pal?
You're right over there.
How come we don't have world peace?
How come you're not in Iran, Obama?
Settling the nuclear problem there.
I thought you were the messiah.
All this talk about pulling out of Iraq is a smokescreen anyway.
It isn't going to happen.
Not like anybody thinks today it's going to happen.
Mark my words on this.
▲
Export Selection