All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 31, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:41
August 31, 2010, Tuesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
President's going to talk about Iraq tonight.
This is just beautiful stuff.
I want to get to that in a minute.
I do want to mention I'm going to indulge myself a little bit in the third hour of the program.
All over the country there are hotly contested United States Senate races.
Thirty-four of thirty-three or thirty-four seats are up this year, and a lot of Democratic incumbents who were presumed a year ago to be very, very safe, aren't safe.
My own state is one of them.
We've got Russ Feingold, who's a Lulu.
He has done one thing in 18 years in the Senate, and that was pass McCain Feingold, a bill most of which was struck down by the United States Supreme Court as unconstitutional and that nobody cares about.
Well, he's been there forever, and he fashions himself as this sort of independent guy because every now and then he votes no on a few things, and it was presumed he was going to win.
This is a different year.
Everything about 2010 is unique.
As long as I've been covering politics, I haven't seen a year in which conservatives were this active, showing up at meetings, showing up at rallies, truly concerned.
We've all expressed doubts about the liberal direction of our country.
But now it's real fear.
People are acting, and secondly, the people in the middle don't like what they bought into two years ago.
They're terrified of it too.
In any event, this is producing in some states at least, different types of candidates.
In Florida, the candidate for the Senate was supposed to be Charlie Christ, the conventional moderate Republican governor.
Instead, the Republican candidate is Marco Rubio, who's a reform-minded member of Congress.
In Alaska, the incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, pending a recount, is probably going to lose to a completely non-traditional candidate.
In my own state of Wisconsin, we've got a candidate for the United States Senate running against Feingold, who has a nonpolitical background.
These are the kinds of people that we've always said.
Gee, I wish people like this would run for office.
Well, this guy is running, and I'm going to have him on the program for a few minutes in the next hour of the program, not because I want to focus an entire hour of Russia's show on one race in Wisconsin, but because I want to make a larger point about some of the people that are running and how alternative messages may be what the public wants to hear this year.
He's got an interesting story to tell, and we'll have him on in the final hour of the program.
Now on to Iraq.
The president is going to address the nation in prime time on this.
Everything they do is calculated.
Their calculus is often screwed up, but he wants to go on national television, and he wants prime to talk about Iraq.
The final American combat forces have been withdrawn.
By the way, there's a misconception out there, especially among the lefties, that the president is saying that we've had withdrawn all of our troops.
We still have troops in Iraq.
They are merely not in a combat role.
They're out there doing things like supporting the Iraqi government, security, and so on, but the last combat troops have been withdrawn.
So the president's going to speak about Iraq tonight.
What can he possibly say about this that isn't ridiculous?
Is he going to declare victory?
Victory in a war that he opposed?
His entire primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, which wasn't the it'sn't that seem like a long time ago that he was running against Hillary.
That sounds like it seems like a decade ago.
That was two years ago.
It was the first half of 2008.
He was ripping on Hillary because Hillary was apparently not sufficiently opposed to the war.
I'm going to get us out of a war.
This is the war we should have been fought.
The surge isn't going to work.
Harry Reid, the surge has already failed.
So now, Obama's the president.
The war in Iraq, the combat part of it at least, is over.
How does he declare victory in a war that he says we shouldn't have fought?
How does he declare victory of a strategy that he says was going to fail?
I'll tell you what he should do.
And if Obama did this, He'd win praise from everybody other than his crank lefty Huffington Post base.
But they've got nowhere to go.
He doesn't need to appease them.
They're the only people that are still with him as it is.
It's the rest of the country that he's losing.
The American public has always loved magnanimity.
A gigabyte moment going on here.
They love it when politicians are magnanimous.
By the way, if you weren't listening to the first hour of the program, we Wisconsinites are fed up with having our dialect criticized and mocked and ridiculed by the Eastern elitists that run this program.
And we're going to fight back against it.
In any event, the president has the ability to be magnanimous.
He can rise above this.
He can be the kind of can't purse president that people thought they were getting when he was running.
I remember all of that bland rhetoric of Obama in 2008.
It's the reason he got elected.
People bought into it.
They fell for it.
He was a radical who was passing himself off as something other than that.
He passed himself off as a unifier.
He passed him off as somebody who was the kind of president that America was ready for in the new century.
A unifier who was beyond partisanship, who was beyond labels.
That's what people liked about Obama.
Here's what he should do.
He should get up there tonight and say, look, this was a very costly mission.
We lost several thousand American soldiers and many more were wounded.
Some of us opposed the effort.
Others supported it.
We can have that debate in the history books.
But the reality is right now, the goals of the mission were achieved.
Some of us criticized the strategy and didn't think it would work.
I was one of them, he can say.
We were wrong.
The change in strategy brought in by President Bush and General Petraeus worked.
And they deserve our thanks.
We have our differences on many things.
But what President Bush did worked.
It certainly won me over, and I was, as you know, a major skeptic.
I have such faith in General Petraeus that he was able to convince me that there are ways of fighting these types of conflicts.
Now as we move into a period in which the Iraqi government has to stand on its own and we face other challenges.
Thank the American soldiers and their families who gave such an incredible sacrifice, and thank our predecessor for taking on a fight that wasn't always popular, for which he deserves some vindication.
Do you understand how much people would love that?
To admit that you were wrong in your criticism of the surge, to at least raise for the first time the possibility that those Americans who supported this war weren't bloodthirsty people who were in it for the oil, but actually were pursuing a policy goal that they believed in.
Obama needs a reach out.
He needs a unifying moment.
And if ever there was a time or an issue that's dropped in his lap to unify, it's Iraq.
As much as he opposed this thing, he is the president.
At the time that the war is essentially over.
That's what he ought to do.
Now we had a caller in the first, oh, the Democrats are going to do this, the Democrats are crafty.
I don't believe this bunch of Democrats is very crafty, because I don't believe the president is going to do it.
The reason he's not going to do it is he is incapable of doing it.
He's not that big.
Even for his own personal political benefit, he won't do it.
He can't bring himself to admit that that guy who he sees as a yokel from Texas could possibly have been right about this.
After all, I'm the intellectual, I'm the person who understands, I'm the person who can deal with the leaders on the foreign stage.
I'm not that cowboy down there.
He can't bring himself to acknowledge that Bush may have been right.
Because if he opens that door and opens the door, then maybe he's been wrong on a lot of other things too.
So he won't do it.
But I'm telling you, if he did it, it would work, it would be appreciated, it would win back at least somewhat the confidence, not maybe the trust, but the confidence of people in the middle that President Obama is not as brazenly partisan as he seems to be.
But I don't think he's going to do that.
I think he's going to talk about Iraq.
I think he's going to talk about the sacrifices made by the soldiers, and then he's going to move on and he's going to politicize everything else.
He'll talk about Afghanistan and he'll talk about the other challenges that we have.
I think this is a missed opportunity for him.
It's a missed opportunity because he isn't smart enough.
He's not magnanimous enough, and he doesn't have it in him to reach back to controversial decisions made by his predecessors and praise them.
As for where we are in Iraq, I don't believe this is over.
Because it can't be over.
Nothing is ever over.
There's no guarantee that there isn't going to be trouble in Iraq.
There's no guarantee that there isn't going to be divisiveness.
You still have a nation that does have a problem with Sunni versus Shiite.
You still have the problem of the Kurds feeling disenfranchised from the larger country.
All of that is real.
It shares a border with the most with the biggest problem country we have in the world right now, Iran.
There are a lot of reasons to worry about what happens in Iraq.
But that you can say that about any country.
It is fair to say, though, from this point forward, it's the problem of the Iraqis.
At some point they have to stand on their own.
They're either going to show support and confidence in their government, the current government is either going to get its act together, or it isn't.
What we do have, however, in 2010, is a nation in the heart of the Middle East, a Muslim nation that is an ally of the United States.
With all of the problems that we are facing with Iran, a nuclear Pakistan, the spread of terrorism, Hamas to have in the middle of the Middle East a Muslim nation allied with the United States, and whose citizenry is generally supportive of the United States, is a much better thing than the alternative.
Had we not acted, Saddam Hussein and his belligerence would have continued.
You'd be facing the potential of weapons of mass destruction not only in Iran, but Iraq, the potential of them using them against one another.
We're terrified right now of India and Pakistan.
Can you imagine if Iraq had embarked on a weapons program and whether or not they suspended it or not prior to this war, the inevitability is that they probably would have resumed it at some point for no other reason than they're terrified of the Iranians next to them.
The war in Iraq came at tremendous costally and human lives.
But the people who said it couldn't be won, and the people who made fun of the notion that if instead of playing fighting that war on defense, that by going on offense and going after the terrorists and going after what was left over of the old regime that you couldn't win, they were wrong.
And that is virtually the entire Democratic Party.
As for where we stand with the rest of the Middle East, Afghanistan is as big a problem as ever.
We still don't have a plan to deal with Iran.
But thanks to President Bush, and thanks to the fact that his input was ignored, this president doesn't have much concern right now with Iraq.
That was solved for him.
He's the beneficiary of it, and if he was smart, he'd say so tonight.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Mark Stein will be here tomorrow and Thursday, and Mark Davis will be here on Friday.
Rush has to come back next week because he's running out of marks to do his program.
Every Mark who does a talk show in America is a fill-in for Rush.
Those with other names need not apply.
Doug did a good job on Friday, right?
He's a non-Mark.
Carl Rove did the show a couple of weeks ago, I believe.
Yeah, um.
You called him Mark.
Yeah, just that can be the whole thing.
Our names really aren't Mark.
Just makes it easier for the audience.
If Rush is in here, just say Mark.
This, the following story speaks to the kind of government we want to have.
The EPA is coming out with new stickers to be put on new cars.
You all see the sticker if you go in.
Well, nobody goes into a car dealership anymore because our economy is not recovered.
Actually, car sales are one of the few things that's okay right now.
They're not healthy, but they're not bad.
You've got that mileage sticker that they put on, and everybody sees the mileage on the great big large letters.
The mileage figures used to be ridiculous.
They finally admitted that, and they changed them and they came.
Nobody ever got the mileage that was on those cars.
The only way that you could ever get 29 miles per gallon on the cars that said 29 miles per gallon is if you drove like Joan Claybrook or Ralph Nader.
If you're going 25 miles an hour in, you leave the stop sign and you get up to speed three days later, they finally come up with realistic numbers.
And I admit, those numbers are a benefit.
There's nothing particularly wrong if presuming that you try to have some accuracy with giving the public some feel for what the fuel efficiency of an automobile is.
But the regime that we have in place now, that's not good enough.
There isn't a single aspect of life where they don't think more government won't do some good.
So they're coming up with new stickes is a chart of what these stickers will look like.
The stickers are bigger than the car.
You've got to estimate the average annual fuel cost, the miles per gallon, the cost for the hybrids, and they go beyond that.
They want to give each car a letter grade.
Not making this up.
Every car will get a letter grade for its fuel efficiency.
I guess they think the American people are too stupid to understand that 31 miles per gallon is more fuel efficient than 27.
And the 36 is more fuel efficient than 22.
Most of us are able to take a look at that number and then decide where that fits in in terms of what we're looking for.
And we all know how people buy cars.
It's always a trade-off.
How much horsepower?
What kind of car are you going to get, and trade it against the fuel efficiency?
People who drive cars that get 17, 18, 19 miles per gallon, they know they're making a trade-off, even in that category.
The car that gets 19 can be more attractive than the one that gets 16 if everything else is equal.
People can figure this out on their own, but that isn't enough because we live in an anti-state, and we've got to have government walk us through lives.
We'll give them a letter grade.
Do you know what you need to have to get an A plus?
Today's New York Times.
To get an A plus, the car will have to have fuel efficiency of 11 miles per gallon.
The highest grade A plus with fuel economy rated is equivalent to 117 miles per gallon and up would be reserved in a simple rating for zero emission electric cars.
Plug-in hybrid electric cars, which get rated at the equivalent of 59 to 116 miles per gallon would get an A grade in some conventional hybrids like Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion would get an A minus.
You know what the only upside in this is?
The smokeness of the Hollywood lefties who drive around in their Priuses because they're saving the planet.
They're better than the rest of us who drive our SUVs and gas guzzlers.
They're just going to have an A-.
You know Larry David's going to trade in that Prius and get something that at least gets an A. He's going to want to get the A plus.
You only have an A-you're not that much better than me driving my car, which I'm sure is going to get an F or whatever.
The letters go down.
Conventional hybrids, Ford Fusion, Toyota Prius A minus.
Other hybrids like the Nissan Ultima Ford Escape and Toyota Camry would get B plus Grades.
If the grading system existed now under assumptions developed by the agency's 306 small cars on the model year 2010 would receive a B, only eight SUVs would receive a B plus.
The highest grade for any van would be a C plus.
There's another problem here.
The government of the United States remains the largest single shareholder in General Motors and has a major stake still in Chrysler.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in a government that owns a majority interest in a car company, putting grades on all cars until they sell their stake in GM and until they sell their stake in Chrysler.
They shouldn't be putting out evaluations on anything because they do have two masters to serve.
As for me, I'm perfectly capable of buying a car without Barack Obama giving it a letter grade.
Summarizing the cost of the war in Iraq.
Their number is 79 billion dollars.
The stimulus was 862 billion.
I know it's comparing apples to oranges.
But it took eight years to spend the 709 billion dollars in Iraq.
Obama's trying to spend the eight hundred and sixty-two billion dollars in two years.
At least in Iraq we have a war that we won.
Brett Stevens has a great column of today's Wall Street Journal.
Headline is the Paula Abdul Theory of Foreign Policy.
He writes about the need for liberals to take positions that make them feel not only good, but better than the rest of us.
He writes, and this is a brief excerpt, there is the ground zero mosque.
Among its virtues, say the supporters, is that it will advertise American tolerance and strengthen the land of moderate Muslims in America and abroad.
But put the cliches aside.
The deeper political idea at work here is that moral inputs are the essential ingredients to an ultimately more important than pragmatic outputs.
Uncharitably speaking, this is what might be called the Paula Abdul theory of foreign policy.
After the famously forgiving former judge on American Idol.
Never mind that you can't sing or that you're letting yourself be played for a sucker.
What counts is that you feel good about yourself.
Presumably because you're doing something good.
Another name for this kind of thinking is moral narcissism.
Like the people who can easily afford a more expensive car and can easily afford gasoline, but drive the Prius to the award show because it makes them look good.
I'm saving the planet.
Look at me.
He continues, supporting the mosque is an opportunity to flaunt their virtue by the simple means of making a political declaration.
Question to Mosque's supporters.
Has your check to Mr. Ralph's Cordoba initiative been mailed already?
Or would you rather the Saudi government pick up the tab?
The Obama administration's approach to Iran is another instance of moral narcissism in action.
It took a peculiar political conceit to imagine that the Islamic Republic was a misunderstood creature offended by Bush administration arrogance that would instead yield to President Obama's charm offensive.
Then again, President Obama's approach wasn't dictated by a long train of examples of the Islamic Republic rebuffing every diplomatic overture made to it, or by a sober assessment about the drift of its politics in recent years.
Nor did the president seem much concerned about the consequences of Iran playing the U.S. for a fool while it again played for time for its nuclear programs.
But none of this really matters.
Because the real point of the diplomatic outrage wasn't pragmatic.
It was about the administration and its supporters demonstrating that they were the good guys vis-a-vis Iran.
I want to expand on Stevens' piece.
This is what drives most American liberalism.
The feeling good about themselves because they're so enlightened.
It drives them.
They look down their noses at anyone who isn't one of them.
That's why they think conservatives are stupid or racists or bigots.
You're not enlightened.
You see it in their attitudes all the time.
For them, ratifying their own self-worth is all that matters.
So they think they're saving the planet when they put up a windmill.
Look at my building.
We've got a windmill here.
We've got solar planets and solar panels here.
Aren't I a good person?
Why we're going to reach out, we're going to reach out to the North Koreans, we're going to reach out to the Iranians because we are good people.
We're not bellicose belligerent people like those conservatives.
The feeling good about oneself, the smugness of liberalism is what drives them.
Conservatives focus on results.
Is this going to work?
For liberals, when the conclusion is drawn that the things don't work, they just move on.
Boy, it was easy to be against the war.
Wasn't it?
The war was going to be fought.
President Bush was committed to it, and the Congress approved it.
So why not oppose it?
You get to have a mulligan on it, don't you?
It doesn't matter if you are wrong or not because you didn't win.
Your side didn't prevail.
We're fighting the war.
So you can pass yourself off as morally superior because you care about the troops, you care about their families, you don't want them to die.
You're above war.
You're not somebody who's like those people who think that war is the answer to everything.
In the meantime, if the goals of the war are achieved, you aren't harmed by your opposition.
You merely got to feel good because you were opposed.
The problem comes in when liberals gain power, when their positions have consequences.
And face it, the opposition of President Obama to the war in Iraq was irrelevant.
President Bush fought it exactly the way he wanted to fight it on his own terms.
But when they're in charge, governing on the basis of feeling good has real consequences.
We can put up all the solar panels we want across the country and pat ourselves on the back for saving the planet, but the reality is that those solar panels are only taking natural gas plants out of commission, natural gas, which has a very small carbon carbon footprint itself.
The windmills that we're building and putting up all over the country may look good and may make those who embrace them feel like they're saving the planet, but the energy costs in building the windmills are real, and all of those businesses are still on the same electric grid that are served by the same coal and nuclear power plants than if there weren't any windmills there, but we feel good about ourselves.
I happen to think that the Prius is a marvelous car.
I'd never drive one.
I need more horsepower.
But it's a great product that Toyota came up with.
They found that there was a segment of the market that wanted a fuel efficient car.
For people who are buying it for their fuel for its fuel efficiency, that's fine.
But there are people who buy the Prius because it's their own self-worth status symbol.
I am a superior person to you.
Because I'm driving a car that doesn't damage the earth.
Whether you're driving a Prius or an explorer doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference.
China is putting up a new coal plant every single week.
The entire third world is becoming industrialized.
South America is raping the rainforest.
Your decision on the vehicle that you're driving isn't going to have any impact on the planet at all.
But it allows you to feel good and feel better than the rest of us.
If you're conservative, you get this kind of attitude thrown in your face all the time.
You don't care.
You're in it for big business.
You're in it because you're concerned about your bottom line.
Me, however, I'm above all that.
There's a reason that the Prius windows are as big as they are.
I'm sure there's an energy savings component to it, but you don't see many of those lefties and those Priuses tinting their windows, do you?
It's all about love of self.
It's all about love of self.
As for the mosque, it's really easy To say let's let them build the mosque because that means we are an enlightened people.
Simple to say that.
But why would you say it?
You say it because it makes you feel good.
And it shows a complete lack of respect for people who think that allowing that mosque at ground zero or speaking up against that mosque at ground zero is something that is important for them to do because of what happened on 9 11.
You oppose the mosque because you really think it will improve relations between Americans and Muslims, Christians and Muslims, Muslim Muslims of all stripes that it'll improve our perspective in the world.
Is that why you're doing it?
Or are you doing it because it makes you feel better than those loudmouth talk show hosts and those Yahoos who are against the mosque?
This is what drives much of liberalism.
Not what the end result is, but how good they feel about themselves.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Stick around for the next hour of the show.
We've got a very interesting candidate for the United States Senate who I think is going to win on in the next hour of the program.
1800 282882 is the phone number Bloomfield, Michigan.
Ed, it's your turn on EIB.
Yeah, you're talking about the cars and driving up for yes or whatever.
Yeah.
And i every time I think about this, I think I know that these people have no clue what they're talking about.
There is no good information that anything man's doing is causing problems other than maybe in cities like Los Angeles or something.
But you know, an overall climate change is not happening because of man.
No, but no, but if if we argue that it is, that gives you the opportunity to do less to damage the climate, so you tell yourself.
It's all about feeling good about yourself.
Logically I do understand that.
I know, I'm just saying that logically, you can't they can't win their argument.
When you take a look at the amount of pollution being belched out right now in China, to think that the car that you drive is going to have anything to do with anything is ridiculous.
So they do it just to feel good and to pretend that was Cheryl Crow said we should re use less toilet paper.
Well, why would she say that?
She said that because it made her feel good.
That was her notion of sacrificing in the environmental war.
You're talking about stinky hero, right?
Yeah.
One piece of paper.
But in order for the the liberals to affect what they want in the world, they're gonna have to go to war with China and India and all the other polluting countries.
Well, they don't want they don't have how many times have you heard liberals focus on the amount of pollution from China and India?
No, never.
Almost never, because they don't care about that.
If they really thought that man was causing climate change in this country, they would be screaming about the third world that is embracing coal like crazy.
They'd be screaming about China, they'd be screaming about India.
Do you know that in some Chinese industrial cities, Americans who go over there on business have to put masks on because they find it's so hard to breathe?
That's how dirty the air is over there.
You never hear a focus on that.
Instead, they rip the poor suburban who's driving the SUV, they rip George W. Bush.
For them it is all about looking better than the people in their own country.
They aren't sincerely concerned about any of these issues.
Thanks for the call, Ed.
It's the same thing with the mosque.
If you don't believe me, listen to this editorial today's New York Times.
Tell me if this isn't written for any reason other than for the New York Times and its readers to feel morally superior to us goons who object to the mosque.
They write, the hate filled signs.
Just start there.
The opponents obviously are filled with hate, since we're not on that side, why we must be filled with love.
The hate-filled signs carried recently by protesters trying to halt plans to build an Islamic center and mosque in Lower Manhattan were chilling.
We were cheered to see people willing to challenge their taunts and champion tolerance and the first amendment.
But opportunistic politicians are continuing to foment this noxious anger.
It is a dangerous pursuit.
Already New Yorkers have seen a troubled young man slash a Muslim taxi driver with a knife.
A zealot in Florida is threatening to burn a stack of Korans on the anniversary of September 11th.
Where does this end?
The country needs strong insane voices to push back against the hatred and irrational fears.
President Bush, pres excuse me, President Obama made a passionate defense of the mosque, but only once.
Most Democratic politicians are ducking.
So far, the leader with the courage to make the case repeatedly is Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
He has said firmly that the developers have a right to build and that New York needs a powerful memorial to those who died, surrounded by a living city.
He has rejected efforts to move the mosque, noting that for opponents no distance will be far enough.
Later the mayor invited the wounded taxi driver to City Hall, then he went on the Daily Show with John Stewart to remind non New Yorkers that there's already another mosque down there within four blocks of the World Trade Center.
There's porno places, there's fast food places, it's a vibrant community.
It's New York.
Surely Mr. Bloomberg isn't the only politician left out there with courage and good sense.
Boy, don't they feel good?
And don't those people who read the New York Times feel really, really proud of themselves?
They're willing to overlook this jingoism.
They're better than the talk show hosts, they're better than the hooligans who are objecting, and while we're doing it, let's now find every atrocity committed against a Muslim anywhere in the United States and blame it on the hate that's been started because of the opposition to the mosque in New York.
It's all about feeling morally superior.
There is a flip side to this equation.
What happened on 9 11 was one of the worst atrocities in the history of our nation.
It was an unprovoked assault on innocent people that's forever changed this country.
Those who suggest that putting the mosque there is inflammatory, have the same right to their opinion as do the people who lecture them that they're supposed to keep their mouths shut.
My own personal view is that this site was chosen for a reason.
It was chosen for a reason of getting a reaction.
Putting it there was a deliberate act of provocation.
They wanted to provoke the reaction.
Let's get really in your face.
Let's put a mosque right there.
Except that.
And then when the provocation gets the exact reaction that they wanted, they object to the reaction.
It's like the artists who take government grants and create revolting pieces of art for the purpose of getting a reaction.
Then when they get the very reaction that they shot for in the first place, they criticize the people who offered up the reaction.
Do they have a right to put a mosque there?
Yes.
Do people have a right to say you shouldn't put it there?
It's insensitive, it's obnoxious, it's a provocative action, they have that right too.
Neither side has any moral high ground to stand on.
They're both just expressing opinions.
And if you don't believe me, ask the New York Times if they've never suggested that something wasn't done at the right time or the right place, or wasn't itself insensitive.
They have the right to put their mosque there, yes, and I have a right to say that I think that's an obnoxious thing to do.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush and EIB.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I've got a really good hour next.
We're going to be talking about this fall's elections.
I happen to have a belief that this is going to be a transformational election.
I don't know if they're all over the country, but where I'm from, Milwaukee, everywhere you go, you see these obnoxious bumper stickers that say coexist.
Written inside several of the letters, like inside the O and through the E and through the X, they change the letters a little bit to reflect some sort of diversity, like you got a star of David in there and the peace signs in there.
The point is is that all peoples of the world should get along.
Why would you put that bumper sticker on your car?
You put that bumper sticker on your car only to advertise that you're a good person.
You believe that we should all get along.
Of course, the real world isn't that simple.
Sometimes you have nations like Iran That want nuclear weapons, and we have a real and legitimate fear that they'll give them to Hamas, they'll give them to other terror groups, and that they will use them.
We have the real fear that if the Pakistani bombs get in the wrong hands, that you could start World War III.
These are real fears, and sometimes you have to act on them, and sometimes coexisting isn't good enough.
There's a reason they don't put the swastika in there with all the symbols of those for whom we're supposed to coexist.
Because sometimes there really is evil in the world.
Sometimes there are problems that can't be dealt with simply by being nice to others, as the president is demonstrating through his ham-handed dealings with Iran.
▲
Export Selection