All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 12, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:31
September 12, 2008, Friday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, folks, welcome back, Rush Limboy and the Excellence and Broadcasting Network on Friday.
Live from the Southern Command in Sunny South Florida.
It's Open Line Friday!
Thank you.
Here's the telephone number 800 282-2882.
If you want to be on the program today, email address lrushbow at EIB net com.
Now remember, on Friday, when we go to the phones, the show is yours.
The content, I take one of the greatest career risks known to exist in big media.
And that is turning over the content of the program to you.
Lovable, adorable, but nevertheless rank amateurs.
Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things I care about.
On Friday, I get rid of that requirement.
If you want to talk about something I don't care about, I'll do my best to fake it.
The telephone number is again 800-282-2882.
Consumer confidence soared unexpectedly to an eight-month high in September as lower fuel prices soothed inflation fears and made Americans more hopeful about the economy.
Wait a minute, it was gas prices going down and not Obama that made people more hopeful?
Hmm.
This, according to a survey, the Reuters University of Michigan Survey of Consumers that was uh released today said its preliminary index of confidence jumped to 73.1 in September.
That's the highest since uh January of 2008.
And again, I want to repeat this because this is crucial.
It was this past summer, it was in July, when I went on a tear here lecturing Republicans that nothing was lost, that it was not over, that we need not give up, not just on the presidential election, but the House and Senate races as well.
And we had too many issues being dropped right on our lap, and chief among them was Obama.
The bloom had come off the Obama rose.
There was there's nothing there that they can talk about.
And lo and behold, a potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest U.S. A-to-day gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just three percentage points, 48 to 45 percent in voters' generic ballot preferences for Congress.
This is down from consistent double-digit Democrat leads seen on this measure over the past year.
Now let me tell you about the generic ballot.
The generic ballot traditionally has always shown a large Democrat advantage.
They just go out and they say, Are you more inclined to vote Democrat or Republican this year for the House and Senate?
And they don't give you a name.
The people that they're polling will give them a name.
And traditionally, uh this has always led to a pretty large Democrat advantage.
The generic ballot was always taken for granted because once you attach names to the poll, then the whole thing changed.
What's interesting about this, excuse me, is I don't recall, certainly not this year, but I mean in a long, long, long, long, long, long long time.
I don't recall the Republicans ever being within three points in a generic battle.
That's margin of error stuff, folks.
I the Republicans are always lagging way behind.
Now, one thing has changed here, and it isn't Obama.
One thing's changed is Sarah Palin.
She's ignited this country.
She has she has lit it up.
And I'm told I haven't had a chance to read this yet.
Noel Shepard at Newsbusters just sent this to me, and I got it just when I sat back down here in the chair.
Apparently Mark Penn has written a piece.
Look at this right here.
He's written a piece, um, cbsnews.com.
No, he's not written a piece.
Mark Penn has just told CBS News.com the media are being so much harder on Sarah Palin that they're losing all credibility as a result.
That's not news to me.
What's news is that Mark Penn would say it.
But of course, he's the Hillary campaign, and they think that they got screwed by the media, fawning all over Obama.
But they are losing credibility.
Snerdley and I had a conversation yesterday afternoon.
It's going to become somewhat of a tradition for the big election issue of the Limbaugh Letter newsletter coming up in October.
And one of the um one of the one of the things that he asked me about was do I ever see the end of dominance of the drive-by media?
And I said, I once asked Mr. Buckley if he ever envisioned the day where conservatism was the vastly dominant political ideology in the country, not just the way people live, but the way they vote.
And it the question took him aback.
He never considered that would be the case.
He he thought liberalism, because he had this phrase, and it was uh I actually don't know who the this somebody else actually came up with this, but he repeated it to me.
He said, any person, any organization, any group that is not conservative will by definition be liberal.
And what that means is that conservatism is an active intellectual pursuit.
It requires a constant uh vigilance.
You have to think about it, you have to understand an intellectual, it has nothing to do with feelings.
Liberalism is the most gutless choice you can make.
You just you see suffering, you oh ho, ho ho ho, ho, it feels so horrible, but you're a liberal.
When you want other people to fix what you think is wrong, you're a liberal.
When you don't like inequality, when you don't like, and I'm not talking about discrimination inequality, just two people are different.
You think they ought to be the same in terms of outcomes and results, then you're a liberal.
So conservatism has to be worked at.
He never thought that the conservatism would be more than, you know, standing athwart history and saying, stop.
But I think, and I told Snerdley yesterday, I think the media has descended now to a point that we've never seen, and that we perhaps didn't expect.
It goes beyond just the fact that they're losing audience, that they're losing ad revenue, that their newspapers and magazines are losing circulation.
It goes beyond the fact that they are losing jobs.
There are layoffs throughout the drive-by media in all corners of it, from the newspapers to the magazines, television networks, and so forth.
But Mark Penn is right.
They have they have decided here, and is it's it's no different than the Democrats, by the way.
The Democrats keep losing elections.
They won in 06, but they lost 2000, they lost 2002, they lost 2004.
And look at the history of the Democrat Party through that period of time.
They got even more radical.
They got more extreme.
For the first time in my lifetime, we actually had a major political party rooting against the United States of America in a war.
We had the Democrat Party rooting against and impugning the honor of America's military.
From Mertha to Dick Durbin to Harry Reid, rapists, they are murderers.
They have more sympathy for our enemies, people who had exploded the Twin Towers on 9-11.
Their colleagues who wanted to do more of the same, had more sympathy for them than for the U.S. military.
They did everything they could to gin up as much anti-American fervor among the American people as possible.
So as they lose elections and as they lose policy fights, they get even more extreme.
They get even more radical.
Rather than realizing their mistake and how to dial it back, and liberalism, they they used to used to mask it and cover it up better than they do now.
They've been worried about masking it and covering it up now.
And the media has become the same.
With the fall of the media monopoly brought about by this program and now Fox News and all the other new media, the blogs and everything else.
The drive-by media has now decided where they're not going to fake it either.
They're going to admit that they've always chosen sides, and they're going to be very open about the side they've chosen.
Like John Roberts on CBS, our SART CNN this morning talking about some poll or some Democrat bit of news said, we're doing better, we're coming up.
I forget exactly what it was, but I can find in a minute.
It doesn't matter.
You might say it was a faux pas slip of the tongue.
Perhaps it was.
Those kinds of things didn't happen in the old days when they were disciplined and in charge.
So Mark Penn is right.
These people are in the process of losing all of their credibility.
And they have been doing, and the more credibility they lose, the angrier they get and put more of their credibility on the line to lose.
I've never seen an American business where the customer who complains is always wrong.
You complain to your local editor or to a national editor of the newspaper or the New York Times and Network or whatever.
And what you will most likely hear is, screw you.
You don't know how we do what we do here.
You're not sophisticated and smart enough and educated enough to understand what we do.
And if you don't like what we're doing here, take this.
And they double what you don't like and give you even more of it.
All the while denying that they're doing it in the process.
So there are a whole bunch of big institutions here that are losing credibility and they're putting more of their credibility on the line each day as they lose it.
One's the Democrat Party, the other is the drive-by media.
And they don't get it.
To try to understand it in rational terms is a futile, futile effort.
It's like, you know, the templates and the narratives that they constantly work under.
One of those templates and narratives is that destitute, poverty-stricken communist nations are somehow islands promise.
Islands of great justice.
And one of the things about Castro for they envy Castro for his total power.
That's the dirty little secret.
So we had this news story this week.
These two hurricanes go through Cuba.
Wiped parts of the island out.
Cuba is so poor that the buildings in Havana, these great Art Deco buildings, they don't have money to restore them, refurbish them, even maintain them.
So they're vulnerable.
People got kicked out of their houses, their huts, their homes.
I mean, it's just destroyed.
And what do we get from the drive-bys?
We don't get a story on how impoverished the people were to start with.
Because the truth is that life in Cuba is exactly like what life in New Orleans was like after Hurricane Katrina.
That's everyday life in Cuba.
So we get this story not on the trials and tribulations and not the oppression and the dictator thuggery that the people of Cuba live under because of the del Castro.
No, we get a story on how much there is to learn from Cuba about hurricanes.
And what we have to learn is evacuations.
They do it so well.
They evacuated all these people into something like 2300 government centers.
Government centers where?
What are they made of?
How do we know those things hold up?
Most of them are probably jails.
And then we get a story about how I'll tell you something else, the writer, Anita Snow is her name.
It's so wonderful in Cuba, there's no looting.
Nobody has anything to loot.
Actually, make these points.
Now, here's a woman, Anita Snow, who is so out to lunch, so out of touch with reality, so imbued with a narrative and template that's probably taught from journalism school on.
And it's absurd.
And anybody with any reasonable education about Cuba would read that story and understand it's stupid.
There is not one American who thinks we have anything to well, take it back.
There obviously are.
Some kook fringe Democrats probably think we have a lot To learn from Cuba.
But nobody rational.
Nobody sane thinks we have anything to learn from Cuba.
And nothing the Cubans can show us.
Guess what?
We have this trade embargo.
Cuba's been destroyed with these two hurricanes.
The Cubans want to buy food and stuff from us.
And we've said, well, we'll donate a hundred thousand dollars worth of stuff, which is a big, big slap in the when you tell an island nation the size of Cuba that we will we want to send you a hundred thousand dollars worth of food, goods, and services.
That's like that's like the government offering you a dime to deal with gas price increases.
And of course, the Cubans say, we don't want to hand off the United States.
We want to buy things.
And we say, sorry, we can't.
We've got a trade embargo with you.
And the Cubans say, well, why don't you let some of your financial services people come down here and help us reap?
No, we got a trade embargo with you.
Nobody's seen Raul Castro, nobody has seen Fidel.
Yeah, we get all these stories about how wonderful Cuba is.
If the I I actually thought maybe that these two hurricanes at him were bad enough that it might provide the first dent in uh in in relaxing the embargo because the Cubans I mean they're gonna have to get help from Spain, no problem with that help from Canada.
But everybody blames the embargo for destroying Cuba.
The U.S. embargo it doesn't.
The Cubans trade with everybody else in the world, and they're still a dilapidated third world country now.
Just because they don't trade with us.
That's what they tell their people.
So anyway, this is just one small example of the total abandonment of reality and thus credibility that the modern drive-by media is going through.
This stuff they're trying to do to Sarah Palin, it's all personal.
Well, you have to understand from from Ann Corn blew it at the Washington Post today who distorted her answers last night to Charlie Gibson on God and Iraq, to Pamela Anderson, to all these other people, it's personal.
They hate her personally.
They despise her personally because she it's not just about this election.
She threatens to destroy the entire lie.
That the Democrat Party and liberalism has been built on just as Clarence Thomas destroyed the myth that black people in America can get nowhere in this country.
The only place they can get it in very far is by going through Jesse Jackson, civil rights coalitions and so forth.
We are living on the threshold here of uh of a potentially seminal change in uh several institutions of the country.
Not automatic, but I've I've I've never thought that I would see in my days a Democrat Party, any party rooting against its own country for years, wanting it to lose a war.
I would have never thought I've seen the media do some of the things they're doing as bad as it's been.
We continually are surprised.
I got to run here, folks.
I'm way short on time.
We'll be back in just a second.
Let's grab a phone call here.
Put your headphones on in there, gang.
They're gonna go to Chicago.
And this is Carl.
Nice to have you, sir, on the EIV network.
Hello.
Russian honor to talk with you today.
Thank you very much, sir.
I know my brother-in-law Chuck in El Paso is listening, so I'll get right to the point.
Uh, you stole a bit of my thunder in your monologue at the top of the hour regarding the Gallup generic ballot.
But uh, to add to what you said, what has been a year-long double-digit Democrat lead is now a statistical dead heat in the Congress.
Yes.
And that difference, as you know, is Sarah Palin, and the media have zero choice but to destroy her, even at the risk of losing what little credibility they have left.
And to paraphrase John McCain, the media would rather lose their credibility than lose an election.
Uh, very true, very true.
That's something the Democrat Party has always believed.
They'll tear it all up if they have to to win, and then they'll go back, they'll fix it in their own way afterwards.
But yeah, clear the playing field.
Search and destroy.
But if if they keep trying this with Sarah P. See, I don't think they can do it with her.
I don't think they can destroy her.
I think only she could do it.
She if she slips up, does something.
I do not believe they can do this.
I have to agree with you, and I'd like to make one more point, if I may.
By all means, 30 seconds, but you've shown the talent to squeeze it in.
Thank you very much, sir.
Have you noticed in the news this week that there Is a global consensus that there is no clear-cut answer as to who is responsible for the 9-11 attack.
There is global consensus on who should be president of the United States.
Barack Obama.
Thanks very much for your time, sir.
You bet.
Well, that should, and by 80% uh in in France think that Obama should be the president, and probably in Germany, too.
See, that all helps too.
You don't tell the American people what the world wants them to do, and they it doesn't work that way.
They can try all this stuff.
Folks, it's gonna backfire.
Don't doubt me.
Let's see here.
The Associated Press is reporting this.
The investigator looking into whether Alaska Governor Sarah Palett abused her power in trying to fire her former brother-in-law is asking state lawmakers for the power to subpoena thirteen witnesses and the phone records of a key Palin aide.
In addition, the Trooper Gade investigator has asked lawmakers to subpoena her husband, Todd Palin.
The probe is taking on new significance, says the AP.
Since John McCain picked Palin as his running mate, retired prosecutor Stephen Branchflower made the request of the State House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which are expected to expected to approve his request, this political hackery going on here.
What was it?
This guy that uh this this trooper that was fired was how I'm drawing a metal block.
He did something to it.
It tasered a 10-year-old.
That's right.
Tasered a 10-year-old.
And a couple of other things.
Now, look, I want you people to remember something.
Barack Obama's campaign also pushed behind the scenes to have Republican Jack Ryan's divorce records released.
He succeeded, which led the way to Obama winning his Senate seat.
Ryan was leading.
Ryan's divorce records were made public, and he had to quit the race.
This is typical Chicago thug politics.
You don't just defeat your opponent, you clear the playing field.
So now we have a partisan prosecutor as well as a Democrat State Senator pushing a phoning investigation.
I can't prove it, but it would not surprise me to know that these guys are working with the Obama campaign or surrogates of the Obama campaign behind the scenes.
We know that there are 30 lawyers and investigators that have been dropped up there, and they're running around with piles of money trying to drag out stories from people.
And this is um.
No, if there were anything to this story, it would long ago have come out.
It would have long ago been there.
But for some reason, now this is just my instincts, and this isn't this is folks, is not wishful thinking.
I want you to understand I am more mature than that.
My instincts are that this stuff is all going to backfire on them.
Not to say it's not serious.
These people are brutes, and and our previous caller, they will they will do whatever they have to do to destroy her.
Whatever they have to do, including make it up.
I just have a tough time accepting that it's going to work.
She, you know, it it's my instincts are this.
You can take a person of fine upstanding character, and you can that everybody knows, and you can throw out a bunch of charges, and there has to be some degree of believability before people will accept it before there's any proof of it.
It's she just does not come across as someone who ran a thug office as governor, who engaged in political hackery.
But we'll find out.
But I think it's I think it's a bogus investigation.
And I say I'm not looking at I'm not looking at things through rose-colored glasses here.
My instincts are that everything else they're doing is backfiring on them.
It's uh it's this could just be another bag of manure that has been placed in front of them.
Now I can see by the looks of the people on the other side of the glass that they think I'm all wet.
You would be amazed, ladies and gentlemen, how often that despite 20 years of credibility, proof, establishment of correctness, and so forth, you'd be amazed the number of times I am doubted by even those closest to me.
If I were a person weaker in character and stature than I am, I would be a basket case.
I wouldn't have the confidence to believe anything.
Because even those closest to me, you ought to see this.
Sometime I'm going to lower the shade, so I just don't have to see your reactions in there.
Oh, there he goes again.
Oh no, you're forgetting.
What do you mean?
We all thought X was a great guy, and then all of us who are you thinking, Jim McGreevy?
Bob Torricelli.
See, the problem is when you make allegations about those guys, you can believe them.
That's exactly my point.
Here's Tom in Valentine, Virginia.
Tom, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush.
How are you?
Very good, sir.
Thank you.
That's a very this big honor.
I'm a longtime listener, first time caller.
Great to have you here.
I was uh calling in about Sarah Palin uh Bush doctrine uh issue last night.
Charlie Gibson.
Yes.
There's a great uh blog post over on uh I think it's media blog on on that national review, which really shows that actually on that issue, uh Charlie Gibson was wrong, and Sarek Palin was right.
I think that's probably true for most of the interview.
Let me I I tell you what, I haven't played much of the Palin interview, and I get let me let me take the occasion of your call uh to to uh to get there.
In fact, here's here's where I want to start.
Well, let's let's go to Soundbite 17, and we'll get to this uh Bush doctrine thing.
The Bush doctrine thing was the one area where people on our side cringe.
Oh no, she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is.
Probably 12 people in the Bush administration know what it is.
CIA's forgotten about it, State Department's forgotten about it, Pentagon's forgotten about it.
But when she found out what he was talking about, she gave the right answer.
Anyway, here is uh let's see.
Forget six.
Let's go to number 17.
This is the NATO question.
This is a Charlie Gibson says, Sarah Palin, you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.
Ukraine, definitely, yes.
Yes, and Georgia.
Putin thinks otherwise, obviously he thinks otherwise.
And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
Perhaps so.
I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally is if another country is attacked, you're gonna be expected to be called upon and help.
Now, we're working on an Obama answer to a similar question to this that he got some time ago.
He didn't, he didn't know how NATO works.
We're working on finding that answer.
He does not know what she just said.
Now, this was reported by the drive mispalin would go to war with Russia.
She was just detailing what the NATO agreement calls for.
And by the way, the NATO it's a shambles.
Because it doesn't have the European members of NATO are worthless right now.
Except for the Brits.
But she said, look, perhaps so, that's the agreement.
When you're a NATO ally, another country's attacked, you're gonna be expected to be called upon to help.
So they they they love talking about this last night in CNN.
Let's go to Wolf Blitzer, and he's got the first up Jeffrey Tubin and then Lou Dobbs coming up.
He says to Tubin on the Georgia thing, by the way, Tubin is their legal guy.
Talks about what goes on in courts.
So forth.
On the Georgia thing, and what Palin basically said was that if Georgia were to be a member of NATO, the U.S. of course would be obliged to come to the defense of Georgia or uh Ukraine or any other NATO ally under those uh circumstances.
So she had she had that little nuance in there.
Well, yes, but I mean we went through fifty years of a cold war without going to war with Russia uh over things a lot more important, frankly, than Georgia.
So I mean, I I I just thought it was a somewhat odd answer, but we'll parse them very carefully.
Okay, he doesn't know what he's talking.
It's an odd answer because he's he's also thinking, okay, Cold War, now Sarah Palin wants to take us to Russia.
Lou Dobbs has to now bury these guys and explain to them what was really going on.
And Blitzer says, first of all, what do you think about this latest sort of twist and turn in the presidential contest?
If you're sitting there listening to Obama who's run the slickest, smartest, shrewdest campaign, right up until Russia invaded Georgia.
The man cannot find his tempo again.
He is not uh his campaign is like they're still on vacation.
You just heard The man talking there with Letterman.
He's boring, just as Palin comes in to give excitement to the Republicans.
He talks about exciting the base.
Sixty-two percent of men in this country have a favorable view of Governor Palin.
And I heard our colleague Jeff Tubin say, well, he's got some questions there.
He's got to think about that answer of hers on uh whether or not as a member of NATO, the United States would have to defend Georgia, had Russia and invaded it.
Let me help you out, Jeff Tubin.
No nuance required.
We would be required to do so, as would all of the members of NATO.
Exactly right.
So those are Lou Dobbs bringing the kids in the sandbox at CNN back to reality.
So Bletcher says, so I hear you saying that Obama seems to have lost his momentum.
Is Mojo, if you will, but McCain's gained it?
Is that what you're thinking, Lou?
This woman has turned feminism on its head.
You're watching women in this country trying to figure out what in the heck on the left, what in the heck this woman is doing to them.
Women on the right are saying they're saying, you know, wow.
She's she's talking sensibly because she's first pragmatic.
She's trying to be painted as an ideal log, uh, of course, by the the Democrats, but she's coming across very pragmatic.
She's strong.
And man, you gotta love the fact that this woman knows how to shoot.
So the uh, you know, the kids at CNN, they're just they're they're having lots of trouble here understanding this, they think they're the smartest people in the room, and Lou Dobbs is handing them their lunch.
I want to go to sound by 22.
We're gonna skip 21, Ed.
Folks, I'm sorry to give you these instructions publicly here, but we're doing it on the fly here today.
This is Charlie Gibson talking to Sarah Palin.
Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
I have not, and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you.
But Charlie, again, we gotta remember what the desire is in this nation at this time.
It is for no more politics as usual, and somebody's big fat resume, maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where yeah, they've had opportunity to meet heads of state.
But they've been wrong.
Whoopee do.
Decades and decades where, yeah, they've had opportunity to meet heads of state, but it doesn't mean that they're right about anything.
I want to replay this.
This is one of my favorite exchanges from the whole interview.
This is Charlie Gibson saying, what if Israel decided that it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would be cooperative or agree agree with that?
I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
So they were saying, well, she's just a piece of robotic.
No, she's sticking to her answer and not letting him ask it 17, 25 times and put words in her mouth.
We come back, we'll play the uh question and answer on the Bush doctrine.
But before we go to the break, I have a question.
The national hurricanes, and I'm serious.
You think I'm gonna be funny here?
I'm dead serious.
National Hurricane Center, Galveston, Texas, a warning has been issued.
If you don't evacuate in time and get out of the way of the approaching hurricane Ike, you face certain death.
I've never heard the government issue an order like that about a hurricane.
My serious question is given the serious life-threatening nature of the storm surge of Hurricane Ike.
Where is Obama lowering the level of the seas?
Said he could do it, said he was gonna happen.
Do we have to wait for him to be president for that to happen?
Or can he just go down there right now and wave the seas back?
Stand athwart the seas and say stop.
Has anybody seen Obama at any of these disaster sites, by the way?
Anybody seen?
Okay, here is the exchange uh between Charlie Gibson and Sarah Palin uh last night.
He says, Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
In what respect, Charlie?
The Bush what do you what do you interpret it to be?
His worldview?
No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq War.
I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation.
There have been blunders along the way, though.
There have been mistakes made.
And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.
That we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us.
Do you agree with that?
Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people.
We have every right to defend our country.
Now, when she finally was told what it was, she got it dead right.
She did get it more accurately than Charlie Gibson did.
Charlie Gibson's flaw here is when he says the Bush doctrine as I understand it is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.
We have the right to a preemptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us.
Well, we don't.
We can think somebody's going to attack us any time we want to think it.
She applied a more strict standard to this.
We have uh legitimate evidence that tell us tells us a strike is imminent.
The threat is imminent.
Then we do.
Look at, as I said earlier, folks, this is the one question and answer that made people cringe who watched it.
But people don't look at these things like they watch quiz shows.
You know, you don't get just one chance to get it right.
She came across as uh as likable.
She there were there were no major gaffes or any of this sort of thing.
She did fine.
She did extremely well.
And then I think it's it's uh drive-by is trying to parse this will again make a mistake.
Here's here's the thing.
This is what we forget.
Do you remember?
Back on the middle of July.
Barack Obama was on the uh well, the CNN played a clip of him saying this about his plan for Iraq.
He said, I'm gonna call in the joint chiefs of staff and give them a new mission, and it is to bring the war in Iraq to a close.
We're gonna get out.
There's only one problem with that.
The joint chiefs of staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces.
That authority resides in the commanders of the unified combatant command.
CENTCOM is the command with responsibility for Iraq and 26 other countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Uh Petraeus makes these decisions.
He would have to call Petraeus.
You don't call now, that is a major gaffe along with 57 states.
This guy is asking to be commander-in-chief.
This guy says he's qualified.
He's gonna get the joint chiefs in there, and you're gonna tell them what to do.
Now, this is a major gaff, and like all Obama gaffes, they're ignored.
And he's never asked about them.
Well, maybe is sometimes they do so they sort of do it with a chuckle.
Hey, hey, hey, you know when you said about the joint chiefs.
I mean, you really it's like we said, my Muslim faith with the with uh Stephanopoulos this past Sunday, my Muslim faith is your Christian faith.
Oh, oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
Hey, Chuck!
Hey, hey, stand up and let us see it.
Chuck, hey, stand up.
Oh my God.
Okay.
My Muslim faith.
Your Christian faith, Barry.
Oh, yeah.
Imagine if Stephanopoulos had not corrected him.
Imagine if that had made it all through Sunday without Obama.
Where would we be today?
Would that not be a firework?
Okay, folks, I hope you have a wonderful weekend.
We'll be back with you together on Monday.
A full week's broadcast excellence upcoming.
Been great today all week long.
Can't wait on Monday.
See you then.
▲
Export Selection