All Episodes
Previous Next
June 23, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
June 23, 2009, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks, John.
Appreciate it.
And thank you, Rush, for the continuing privilege of showing up every once in a while.
Rush returns tomorrow, which makes everybody happy.
And one of the things that makes me happy when guest hosting is the penchant that the guys back at HQ have for coming up with great guests.
Really enjoyed Byron York last Friday.
And what a joy this is.
This is a man.
You already know the level of credibility and respect that he has developed as an analyst and a journalist.
But I'll also, I'll just tell you something else, too, because it's not true of everybody.
Just the graciousness, because I'll be out deployed at the conventions doing my local show back to WBAP here in Dallas-Fort Worth.
I'll be trolling the concourse at the Pepsi Center or something.
I'm like, oh, there's Michael Barone.
And I've got my little recorder.
And he will never fail to just endure the beating from me for five or seven minutes of Q ⁇ A that I can play on my show.
So I just really, really appreciate it.
And I haven't had the chance to tell him, but I can now.
And what better place to do it than right here on the Limbaugh Show?
Michael Barone, welcome.
It's great to have you.
Well, it's great to be with you, Mark, and I'm glad I didn't tell you just, hey, get out of my way, buddy.
Exactly.
He did.
I'm in a hurry to go somewhere important.
He did blow me off in St. Paul.
We'll talk about that.
No, no, no, no.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Well, I'll tell you what, let's do.
As you and I speak, it is right here in the wake of the meet of an Obama news conference that has covered a little bit of everything.
Good bit of Iran, a good bit of health care, a lot of domestic and foreign things.
Hastily called in the daytime, are we overanalyzing?
Well, I think, you know, I think the Obama administration, the Obama White House, President Obama himself are encountering some difficulties that they didn't really expect.
I mean, you know, they expected with his soft, soothing words to, quote, the supreme leader, quote, of the Islamic Republic of Iran that, you know, that after the Iranians had their election, that they would glide over to meet with President Obama and, you know, dazzled by his message of change and hope would decide they didn't really want a nuclear program after all.
And, you know, we've extended invitations for the first time in years to Iranian diplomats to attend our 4th of July celebrations at our embassies overseas.
That's still on, according to the State Department.
Wow.
Yep, we'll have hot dogs and hamburgers for them.
I don't know if they're going to be halal or not.
Yeah, I was going to say, the Muslim dietary reaction to the American hot dog may be another entire international incident.
Yeah.
But, you know, he's encountered some problems there, and he's encountering some problems with public opinion on health care, on spending, on deficits that I don't think they anticipated.
You have been a longtime student of polls and numbers and the public face and public stature that politicians put forward, analyzing strengths and weaknesses of all of the above.
What we have here is something really interesting.
A president who still seems to be very widely liked.
People say they like him, approve of him, feel good about him.
But when asked detailed questions about things he's actually doing, the enthusiasm wanes a little.
Well, that's true.
You've got, and the enthusiasm seems to be waning, in particular among voters who classify themselves as independents.
I mean, we've been, you know, the last two or three years of the Bush presidency, when you looked at the responses by party identification, independents looked a lot like Democrats.
They were very critical of George W. Bush.
They did not support his policies and so forth.
Now independents are starting to look a lot more like Republicans.
And we've seen that in the ABC, Washington Post poll, as in the CBS New York Times and NBC Wall Street Journal polls last week.
The independents suddenly are saying, we don't like all this deficit spending.
We don't like the government running these businesses.
They see Obama increasingly as a liberal and as more liberal than what they want.
And so, for example, in the NBC Wall Street Journal poll, independence job approval of President Obama was 60% in April.
It fell to 45% in June.
That's kind of a significant fall among the middle of the electorate.
So I think they're seeing more big government than they thought.
And as Peter Hart, Democratic pollster, for whom I worked from 1974 to 81, know him very well, says in comments on the NBC Wall Street Journal poll, which he's an advisor to, this administration is leaning much more to the left than independents expected.
This is a clear and important danger for him.
That's the Democratic pollster analyzing the NBC Wall Street Journal poll.
There is a narrative that we use to comfort ourselves at night here in conservative America that the sheer audacity, if I may borrow that word, of the actual Obama agenda will shake people awake in a shocking realization of what voting for him has actually meant and actually done, government-owning GM, our children's and grandchildren's futures mortgaged to a socialist agenda.
And not that all of a sudden we're going to have a 70-30 win for the Republican nominee in 2012 or Republican majorities in 2010, but that there will be a teaching moment waiting to happen here if the narrative goes that way.
Is that a pipe dream or even a remote likelihood?
Well, I think it's a less remote likelihood than it used to be.
I mean, I think the Obama advisors, Democrats, many people who did not necessarily take that position thought that the economic distress that we've suffered from the last 12 to 18 months was going to change the balance of opinion on whether or not you should rely more on government or markets, whether you wanted a big government or a smaller government.
And I think that the Obama people said they're going to want a big government now, now that the failure of markets has been conclusively demonstrated.
Well, that's not the conclusion American voters seem to have drawn.
When you look at the rather abstractly framed issue of do you want a larger or smaller government, the media polls are telling us that opinion hasn't changed at all.
It's still on the side of smaller government.
And in fact, independent voters are more for smaller government than they used to be.
When you ask specific questions about the deficits and about government running, you tend to get negative answers to Obama.
When you ask specifically about GM, you get very negative answers.
You've got, I think, 80% of the voters in some polls saying they want us to pull out of GM.
Obama's saying, look, I don't want to run General Motors, but he told the mayor of Detroit that they were going to, you know, the chief executive was going to keep his office in Detroit and not move to Warren in the suburbs.
I think that when you're saying you not want to run a company, but you tell the CEO where he has to punch the time clock, you're running the company.
You remember Michael Barone for years at U.S. News and World Report.
He's been on every television network known to man.
I guess it was springtime that you went over to the Washington Examiner, and you're doing great stuff there.
I wanted you to give us a couple of minutes on your most recent piece.
The New York Times revealed that one of its reporters was kidnapped and held by terrorists in Afghanistan for seven months.
And The title of your column there was, Whose side is the New York Times on?
Establish that premise, please.
Well, the New York Times, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the New York Times, who was a terrific reporter in his time and a very good writer, had made a decision, and the Times people carried it out of not revealing the fact that this reporter, David Rhode, who very bravely was out there covering things in Afghanistan, had been kidnapped.
They had fears for his safety, which sound reasonable.
Other media cooperated with him, including some people like conservative blogger Ed Morrissey on Hot Air.
He had got word that Rode was captured.
He called the New York Times.
They asked him, please not to reveal it.
And he said, okay, I'll go along with you.
So the Times is on the side of its own journalists and it wants to protect them.
I'm on the same side on that.
I think that's good.
You know, a lot of in Iraq and Afghanistan, a lot of journalists have been killed.
We attack mainstream media a lot, but the fact is these people are taking risks.
At least 33 journalists have been arrested in Iran in the last week.
So I'm all on that side.
But when the Bush administration, when the New York Times got the story of the National Security Agency's surveillance of al-Qaeda suspects abroad, contacts with persons in the U.S., they broke that story, even though the Bush administration and George W. Bush himself asked them not to, because that revealed to terrorists what we were doing and enabled them to avoid detection.
When they broke in December or in 2006, June, I think it was, the story about the Swift Bank surveillance of terrorist financing, an entirely legal and unproblematic thing, according even the ACLU, nobody questions that that's legal.
Again, the administration asked them to stop it, that it would present dangers to the American people.
The New York Times decided to print it anyway.
They got Pulitzer Prizes for some of these stories.
But I think they seem to be operating as kind of a transnational entity, not as Americans, not as people who have some responsibility to protect American citizens, protect residents of this country, protect foreigners who were here and foreigners in friendly countries whom we also want to protect.
They didn't seem to, the responsibility that they felt to their colleague David Rhode, quite correctly, they did not feel towards the larger number of people of America from a more remote but definitely credible threat.
A consistency check from the always, always compelling Michael Barone.
Go to Washingtonexaminer.com where he is the senior political analyst.
What a privilege, sir.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for the almanac of American politics, a big thick brick that I devour with gusto whenever it comes out.
And I just really appreciate you.
Well, I appreciate being on, Mark.
Good luck to you.
Thank you, Michael.
Michael Barone, check him out at WashingtonExaminer.com.
And seriously, if your household does not contain the almanac of American politics, your house is underfurnished.
And the book does actually constitute an actual piece of furniture.
It is.
I use it as a table often.
All righty, let's use.
Yeah, don't be cute.
1-800-282-2882.
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis, fill it in for Rush.
That was Michael Barone.
Let's get some more of you on the phone.
When we broke last hour, there was a guy, like in the Wayne, The Clock is a Cruel Mistress in radio.
You know that when the top of the hour is coming, it's coming.
The gentleman sought to portray the curious disappearance of Governor Sanford as fueled by an intra-Republican feud.
Wow, that never happens.
Between the lieutenant governor and the governor.
Let me tell you a little bit of what he was referring to because I know a little bit about that.
And as you know, a little information is a dangerous thing.
And then we'll bust out into all kinds of other things.
The items from the president's news conference.
And let's see, a tiger getting busted for not giving enough back to the community.
What is the obligation of really rich, famous black people to quote unquote, give back to the community?
And what does that mean anyway?
We'll ask about that because Jim Brown is just going to go off on Tiger tonight on HBO's Real Sports with Brian Gumbel.
I offer you this so that you don't have to actually hear the voice of Brian Gumbel coming out of your TV because that can be painful.
So, with all those things and more coming up, I'll just tell you it's the Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in, and we'll be right back on the EIB Network.
It is the Tuesday Rush Limbaugh Show.
Rush will actually be here for the Wednesday Rush Limbaugh Show.
That's a good thing.
And I'm Mark Davis at WBAP Dallas-Fort Worth filling in, and that's all.
So it's a good thing for me, and I hope it's working out okay for you.
That was a joy to bring you, Michael Barone.
Always, always appreciate it.
And it's nice.
I think I mentioned this like once a show and only once a show because I just, it makes my life crazy.
I think there must be some listeners around here.
Many of you kind enough to throw me a word or two on the occasions that I fill in.
You can follow me in the expanding cult of Twitter at all one word Mark Davis, M-A-R-K-D-A-V-I-S, all one word Mark Davis, bam, and follow me wherever I will lead you.
It is a strange and wonderful journey.
All right, let's go to the journey of your calls, but also the journey to some kind of resolution on the Governor Sanford thing.
The gentleman who had like 45 seconds to get it in at the end of the hour mentioned that this might be a bit of a feud between Governor Sanford and the lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer.
I know not to be confused with Andre Brower, who played Lieutenant Frank Pebbleton on Homicide Life in the Street.
They are never confused in public.
Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer.
What should we say?
The history first or the modern day first?
Let's do the modern day first because here's how weird it gets.
Here's you have a Republican governor and a Republican lieutenant governor.
Lieutenant Governor Bauer issues a statement to the Politico blog and says he requested an immediate phone conversation with the governor on Monday.
Quote, that request was denied because the governor's chief of staff does not know where the governor is and has not communicated with the governor since he left South Carolina last Thursday.
I cannot take lightly that his staff has not had communication with him for more than four days and that no one, including his own family, knows his whereabouts.
Now, is this some Democrat looking to derail Sanford's presidential cred?
No, this would be the Republican lieutenant governor of South Carolina, Andre Bauer.
Now, the first thing that occurs to me is: can somebody get this guy under control?
Or the second thing that occurs to me is, does he have a point?
Now, I mean, here's the Republican Lieutenant Governor throwing the gov under the bus with a little fire started.
And here's Lieutenant Governor Bauer with the kerosene just adding more incendiary material.
So what's going on here?
Well, welcome to more than you ever knew about South Carolina.
But if you're wondering what in the world would make this happen, in 2006, Lieutenant Governor Bauer faced primary challenges in a general election.
They're not elected on the same ticket.
They're elected separately from the governor.
And the first person he faced was Mike Campbell, son of Carol Campbell, legendary longtime governor of South Carolina.
And during the course of the campaign, Carol Campbell's son, Mike Campbell, got the endorsement of President Bush 41, a friend of his well-respected father.
And, you know, another, he got another endorsement, too.
The other endorsement was from Jenny Sanford, Governor Sanford's wife, the first lady of South Carolina, choosing to endorse the opponent of the sitting lieutenant governor.
That probably doesn't create a lot of Christmas card traffic between the Sanford and Bauer households.
So while that might explain why Lieutenant Governor Bauer is probably enjoying this a lot, what it doesn't explain and what needs to be explained is just what the heck was going on here.
And here's the deal.
I really like Governor Sanford.
And there's a silly thing about me.
When I really like people and think they might have something going for 2012, I want them to do well.
I don't like weird stuff.
I like for them to really get out there and be good and explain stuff that needs to be explained.
This does.
There's a law of physics here that if there were a really good, plausible, easy-to-understand explanation, it would have come out by now.
He's an avid outdoorsman.
I need to get away from the kids.
You had to do some writing.
Yeah, over Father's Day weekend.
Please.
So somebody, please offer up the really plausible thing that will make everybody nod and go, oh, okay, I get it.
I get it.
I get it.
Now we can move on, and Governor Sanford can continue toward what may well be a serious challenge for the president for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.
Absent that, the guy could be done.
And that's probably unfair, I guess.
I mean, well, I know, well, it's unfair just in Republican circles alone.
If you take a look at the entire spectrum, look how forgiving we are about all manner of, I mean, look what Bill Clinton got away with, got elected twice.
Barack Obama can hang out with all manner of malcontents and America haters, and that's all fine.
You know, four days on the Appalachian Trail and this guy's done for the GOP nomination.
I think I'd hate to think that.
But by the same token, you've got to play the field the way it's striped.
And the way it's striped right now is Republicans have to explain everything.
So, you know what?
Could somebody please do that?
Could somebody please do that?
And today would be good.
That's all.
Because I really do like the guy.
I really, I want to see a 2012 race that includes him because I think he's, you know, might have a little more stones than some of the other GOP people I'm hearing about.
So we'll see how this works out.
All right, I'm pretty well done with that unless you want to go there.
Let us return to your calls next: 1-800-282-2882, 1-800-282-2882.
Obviously, everything that's big in the news now, got a couple more things I want to visit with from the president's news conference.
And Tiger Woods giving back to the community.
Is he doing that enough?
Whatever that means.
All of this coming up on the Tuesday Rush Limbaugh Show.
I'm Mark Davis filling in from Proud Affiliate WBAP, Dallas, Fort Worth, Texas.
And we'll be on the phone with you some more next.
So don't go away.
Thank you, John.
1-800-282-2882.
All right, calls are ready.
Let me, because I'll never get to it if I don't right now.
Just a quick news conference excerpt.
The president spoke to the gathered media about a lot of things.
And the very first question was intriguing.
Let's take a short walk through it, and then we'll be right on the phones with you at 1-800-282-2882.
I was trying to remember the last few news conferences I've watched.
I think it's been a rotating thing on who gets first question.
The first question today was from Jennifer Lovin of the Associated Press.
I like her, and I'll tell you why here in a minute.
I like her for something she did in April, and I like her question today.
I don't know.
For what it's worth, I kind of, I get a little nostalgic sometimes.
And I sort of miss the addled ravings of Helen Thomas.
Just you knew that no matter how the news conference was going to go, especially during the Bush years, that she would blurt out some non-sequitur and just sort of see how that would work its way through the room.
And anyway, those days, those days are gone.
So here's Jennifer Lovin of the AP, and the history on her.
In April, she and Jake Tapper kind of tag teamed on an interesting moment with the usually reliably clueless Robert Gibbs.
And it was the day when the Obama administration that had spent day after day, week after week, telling us that, hey, billions, it's not that much.
You know, that you get some billions and this many billions, tens of billions, hundreds of billions.
Don't freak out.
It's really worth it.
It's just ultimately, it's not that much.
I mean, look against the backdrop of everything.
It's just not that much.
You know?
And so with that as the tapestry for the April 20th or 21st, I want to say, Jennifer Lovin had a great question on the day that the administration wanted us to dance in the streets with glee because they had discovered, might want to pull off the road, they had discovered, ready, $100 million in savings.
I know.
Heady stuff.
I know.
$100 million in savings.
And we were supposed to just get thrilled about that right in the same seasons they were telling us that billions upon billions were just not so very much.
I loved that question from Jennifer Lovin and Jake Tapper.
And Mr. Gibbs, oh, I suppose predictably failed to really answer it.
And Jake Tapper got involved.
And it was just, it was a moment that I thought I, not that I thought I would never see, but that I thought would be rare, but has been more than rare and yet not frequent enough.
But listen, I will take whatever in the world I can get.
I mean, I'll take the occasional sip of water wandering through this desert.
And the occasional sip of water is a press corps that will occasionally challenge Mr. Gibbs, which is not difficult, and challenge Obama dogma every once in a great while.
Not nearly enough, but every once in a great while.
So with that in mind, see if you join me in appreciating Jennifer Lovin's tone as she asks a question, very first question out of the box of President Obama, essentially saying, you've still said that you'll deal with this regime, even with the beatings and the brutality.
Dude, is there anything they could do where you wouldn't talk to them?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open.
Can you say if that's still so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the peaceful protesters?
And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won't cross where that offer will be shut off?
Well, is there anything?
If they turn Jerusalem into glowing green glass with a nuclear device, are you still having Abdinejad over for mint tea and a hot dog on the 4th of July?
Is there, I mean, just please, just tell me where the bar is set.
I know Jennifer does not remotely intend the kind of scathing cynicism that I am adding to her question.
I won't foist that on her.
But I just happen to appreciate the question.
This fetish for talking to evil leaders, is there anything that would make you come off of that?
I suppose the answer would probably be a good thing to digest here for a moment.
Obviously, what's happened in Iran is profound, and we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out.
My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and that it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.
Boy, I can feel Ahmadinejad cowering in fear.
I can just feel the mullahs shaking in whatever boots are issued at the mosque.
I can just feel their concern over this president's steadfast desire to make sure they don't become a nuclear power or export more terrorism.
I just feel the vibe coming off him that America will not stand for this on his watch.
right we have provided a path whereby iran can reach out to the international community and get Twitter?
Great.
Al Gore invented the internet.
Barack Obama invented Twitter and a backyard Weber Grill barbecue.
Let's chat.
Let's talk.
Age and become a part of international norms.
It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path.
You know, those protesters made a decision.
Those protesters made a decision to get their brains beaten in by Ahmadinejad Khomeini's police forces.
They made a decision to risk their lives.
Presuming this story is as it's told, 27-year-old Nada, she made a decision to attend a protest that day, took a bullet and bled from every orifice on YouTube all over the world.
She made a choice.
She made a decision.
I think the decision made by the Iranian people has been pretty clear, Mr. President.
What decision have you made?
What limb have you climbed out on for these people?
They're risking their lives every day.
You won't even risk a point in the Rasmussen tracking poll.
Don't tell me that it's up to the Iranian people.
We have actually lectured them through, well, not lectured.
We have sort of been cheerleaders for them.
We've heavily suggested through Presidents Republican and Democrat.
Hey, Iranian people, reach out for that brass ring.
If at some point you develop the gumption to really shake it up and really have a rebellion, we'll be there for you.
How empty those words ring in the reality of the last 10 or 11 days.
How they respond to the international community as a whole.
We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed.
Good.
Just so you're monitoring it, that's what I want is I want monitoring.
I got to just please, please, moral clarity, knowing where you are at the outset, inspirational words, highly overvalued.
I just got to make sure you just make sure your finger is on the pulse.
Please make sure, please make sure that you do not fail to monitor.
I'm sleeping better at night already.
But just to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected.
But got to make sure their faith is respected.
There's a path available.
These protesters thought there was a path available to them, too.
It's called, tell you what, we get screwed in an election, we take to the streets, and the countries who have said that they want freedom for us will back us.
That was their path to freedom.
And so they took it.
And what did they find in their way?
A regime willing to kill them for taking that step?
And an American president unwilling to risk a thing to help them take that step.
How proud is everybody right now?
How proud?
1-800-282-2882.
Mark Davis in for Rush Limbaugh.
Back in a moment.
If you see Rick Derringer today, tell him to have a nice day from all of us of the fill-in staff of the Rush Limbaugh Show.
Love this guy from this was Rick sort of kind of a one-hit wonder on his own?
A lot of work with the Edgar Wintergroup, obviously.
He will roll through town every once in a while doing guitar shows at like the guitar center, stuff like that.
And I love what I've been able to achieve in life.
Good Lord, look what I'm doing today.
I'm doing okay in my industry.
But I will always look back on my so far 51 years and say, why didn't I learn to play guitar?
Anyway, we'll do a full hour on that sometime.
I'm sure.
1-800-282-2882.
Instead, I think we should defer to what people have brought us on the Rush Limbaugh show phone lines, including a little bit to the south of me in Waco, Texas.
Derek, hi, Mark Davis in for us.
It's a pleasure to have you.
How you doing?
Hi, Mark, in for Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
Thank you.
That is my middle name now, I believe.
That's right.
Hey, I'd be proud of it.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
Way to go.
All right.
John Quincy Adams wrote, Mark, that the United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
And also, Thomas Jefferson and four other presidents, by the way, wrote, peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, including Iran and Israel, and entangling alliances with none, neither Iran, neither Israel.
And Ronald Reagan's tough talk was all right.
I respected Ronald Reagan.
He was kind of going the Ron Paul way.
I wish it would have been fully Ron Paul and not Ron Paul Light, but that's another subject.
But really, what killed the Soviet Union is the Soviets.
Central planning of how much concrete to make and how much steel to make, blah, blah, blah.
That's not sustainable.
All right, I tell you what.
Remove Reagan from the picture completely.
Give us a second term of Carter.
Oh, my God.
Stand by while I just kind of get the chills.
Give us somebody else.
Would the Soviet Union eventually have collapsed under its own weight?
The answer is probably.
But how long would that have been?
And do we know that?
The short answer is we don't.
The Soviet Union took the punch of a lifetime in Reykjavik when President Reagan made it clear that we were not going to give up on SDI.
That meant that the Soviets had to continue to spend money to meet us, to maintain their nuclear arsenal, to maintain the Cold War, because we weren't giving up and letting them win on that point.
And I mean, the falling, would the Berlin Wall have fallen by itself?
I suppose that would have happened too.
But come on.
I mean, there's some cause and effect here that I don't want to overstate, but I also don't want you to understate.
Well, I think in politics, we often get because of confused, very, very confused with in spite of.
And a lot of times it falls along partisan lines.
But I still think it's good to go to Article 1, Section 8 when war powers or war actions are needed, because notice since we've gone away from the Constitution, we haven't won Diddley squat.
And if we want to start winning again and becoming wealthy, hang on, look at this list.
Just help me out.
I want to go to just a couple of places you've gone because you just really seriously need to explain them.
Ever since we went away from the Constitution, we haven't won Diddley squat.
When did we, quote unquote, go away from the Constitution?
I would stipulate that we certainly are there, but what month was that, if you can help me out?
Okay, sure.
February 1950, the Truman administration.
Truman took off the way on his own.
That's all I need.
I don't need February 1950, quote unquote, haven't won diddly squat.
By winning, we mean what?
We won Gulf War I, didn't we?
Or were you away?
No, I was actually part of that, Mark.
Okay, then, wow.
Then all the more stunning that you would fail to add that to your narrative.
We won that.
And I'd suggest right now that victory, while not necessarily at hand in the broad sense of the war on terror, we toppled Saddam and have given Iraq a chance at what Iranians are currently willing to die for, and that is some self-determination.
Now, granted, that involves actually getting involved around the world, which is kryptonite to those of you in the Ron Paul coven.
And I love Congressman Paul a lot.
I really do.
I wish a bunch of Republicans had his courage on spending and on size of government and stuff like that.
But as far as the isolationism goes, man, forget it.
Mark, isolationism is implying economic nationalism, also called protectionism, and it's not.
Honest friendship, peace, commerce is something that we should apply to all nations, including Iran, including Israel, including the people.
How friendly.
How friendly?
How friendly?
Let's go to war.
Let's declare war and win the war.
Okay, how friendly do you want to be with Iran right now?
That's it.
I want to trade with Israel.
That's it.
I want to trade with Korea.
I'm sorry, Ben.
I don't want any relationship beyond trading.
That's it.
And that's not isolationism.
Well, no, the isolationism that I refer to is the failure to get involved when America's interests are threatened by evil abroad.
That's something that, you know, there's a kind of a radical libertarianism that says that don't do anything until the tanks are rolling down Main Street.
I think that's the height of stupidity.
No, no.
Article 1, Section 8, read it.
If we need to go to war, Article 1, Section 8, read it.
And if we vote for war, we go to war, and we win the war.
I understand.
So this is not a reticence to get involved ever, but let's not have these ill-defined either police actions or momentary war powers act things.
Let's go ahead and in order to deploy anywhere, we must declare war on somebody.
And I'll tell you, there's a sensibility to that.
And anytime anybody's quoting the Constitution, if they're doing it correctly, it's probably a good thing.
And you are.
In our remaining 30 or so seconds, if our goal after 9-11 was, and it was, to fight a war that will topple certain impediments to democracy in the Middle East that will make them safer and us safer, whom should we have, should we have declared war on Iraq?
Because just tell me how that would have gone in the context of the current war, which is so multifaceted.
No, we should have gone to where the hijackers were from, which was Saudi Arabia.
Specifically targeted where those hijackers were from in that network, which started during the Carter administration through Zbig Brzezinski.
We supported the Mujahideen, which grew to the Taliban and these monsters we create, break off their chains eventually and wreak havoc, and then we go crying about it.
I'll take that.
That is not an irresponsible answer.
And, Derek, thank you.
I appreciate it.
Usually people, often the answer is, well, Saudi Arabia, because that's where the hijackers are from, or Afghanistan, because that's where Bin Laden is holed up in a condo somewhere.
The thing that that misses is it wasn't a country that attacked us.
Saudi Arabia did not attack us.
Afghanistan did not attack us.
Iraq did not attack us.
Al-Qaeda attacked us.
And they are everywhere over in that godforsaken moonscape that is much of that region of the Middle East.
As such, there's a multi-theater war that needs to be fought.
We're fighting it.
It'll involve a lot of countries and a lot of time.
And so, I mean, and you either are up for that or you're not.
I understand.
1-800 to, I, by the way, am up for it.
If they can be patient for 500 years, I think I can give this war 10 or 20.
Who's with me?
Mark Davison for Rush.
Be right back.
We've got about 30 seconds to get to the top of the hour, and then another hour lies ahead for us to make our topical playground.
As I close out this hour, though, very seriously, I just want to just give a huge thumbs up and God bless Ed McMahon, who passed away at the age of 86 last night in Los Angeles.
By making others look better, he achieved his own incredible greatness, working with Johnny, Star Search, working with Dick Clark in the Blooper Show.
The sound of Ed McMahon's voice is part of the soundtrack of my life, and I know many of yours.
God bless you, Ed.
Job well done.
▲
Export Selection