All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 27, 2010 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
December 27, 2010, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, we had some concern that we'd have to uh do a best of rush program today because of the stormy weather on the East Coast.
Would we be able to get me in to do the program?
Would we have broadcast engineers available?
Mike Mamona's in.
Your commuter took four hours, four and a half hours.
Four and a half hours.
See what happens when you have to rely on government operations to get somewhere?
But he made it and I made it, and we are we're here and we're happy to be here.
Huge storm, eastern half of the United States, cold weather all over the place.
I think the southwestern part of the U.S. is the only part of the country that isn't freezing right now.
But we've survived, we're here, and uh I'm here to do a program for you.
I want to talk about the war that nobody talks about.
Do you know that more American soldiers died in Afghanistan this year than in the last two years of the war in Iraq, and that the numbers are growing?
Now I don't have an agenda on the issue of Afghanistan.
This is a very difficult problem.
And there are people on our side who disagree.
There's no consensus on the right about what to do with Afghanistan.
There are strong American conservatives, patriots, who believe that this war is a waste of time and money, that we're accomplishing nothing, and all we are doing is sacrificing American lives without accomplishing anything.
There are others who argue strongly that our goals in Afghanistan aren't as important as the cost human and dollars of the war.
Now, on that that side, there are other people who strongly support the war effort, who believe that we are sending a terrible message in the war on terror.
If we bail, they believe that the Taliban in Afghanistan can be defeated.
They also believe that as the Taliban is returned to power, Al Qaeda will have another safe haven.
They also believe that we would be sending out a strong message that America doesn't have the stomach for a long fight.
People on both sides are represented on the American right.
And I'm not here to pick sides on that.
My own view on Afghanistan is irrelevant for the moment.
I happen to think that there are strong arguments in both cases, but I'm not sure that propping up the Karzai government is the be-all and end all of American foreign policy.
I don't know that we wouldn't be able to survive with Afghanistan having some Taliban influence.
But that's not my point.
My point is that this debate isn't even happening.
We've got no real debate in America about what our role in Afghanistan is.
Despite the fact that prior to President Obama taking office, we were engulfed in a debate for five years about the war in Iraq.
That war was the issue.
It consumed President Bush's presidency, and I think it had a lot to do with his unpopularity at the end of his term.
The American public was no longer supportive of the war.
The American public gave up on the war right before the war turned.
A lot of people thought that it was a waste of money.
They thought that we were in an unwinnable situation, and the left hammered on Bush.
They were relentless.
If that war was the driving issue in American life...
Why is this war?
The war that nobody talks about.
Today's New York Times, Taliban fighters appear quieted in Afghanistan.
Okay, isn't that great?
The Taliban is quiet in Afghanistan.
Their contention is that the Taliban is staying out of the Capitol City and doing most of its trouble out in the mountains.
Whatever.
What we do know is that this war is getting more expensive, not less, that the war is getting deadlier, not less, that the Taliban appears to be at least as strong as it's ever been.
And we also know that President Obama's December review, which never happened, hasn't led us to any point where the administration itself even seems to know whether or not it's in this war for the long haul.
This war has been swept under the carpet.
And it's been swept under the carpet because the people who normally squawk whenever American military force is used have just shut up about this one.
Where are all those stop the war placards in people's front yards and on the bumper stickers of the cars?
There's a few of them, but there are nowhere near as many as there were during the war in Iraq.
And I'll tell you why.
The opposition to the war in Iraq was for a lot of people, not everybody, but for a lot of people motivated by opposition to Bush.
For them, the war on Iraq was simply a way to beat up on President Bush.
And all of their rhetoric about we shouldn't be over there, the war is unwinnable.
That was just their proxy for being able to take pot shots at President Bush.
If there was a sincere anti-war movement in America, they'd be griping about what's going on in Afghanistan.
But that movement wasn't severe.
It wasn't that long ago to remember how the media covered Iraq.
I don't have the greatest memory in the world, but I can at least go back five years.
Every month, every newspaper in this country and every one of the networks would do that little graphic about how many Americans lost their lives in Iraq that month.
You'd have the running tally.
August was the bloodiest month yet.
American deaths increased in September.
Where are those stories now?
Where's the monthly tally?
There's no coverage of this at all.
Even the administration is changing the terminology in referring to combat deaths.
They are now referring to deaths of NATO forces.
Well, the United States is the biggest portion of the NATO force.
But they're blending American soldiers into the NATO death toll.
They refer to this as the NATO operation.
Almost as if to pretend that this isn't almost entirely an American effort.
And they accused President Bush of covering up the war deaths by not allowing video to be shown of the coffins coming home.
They're the ones that don't want any exposure to their war.
And suddenly the people who are demanding that we see coffins, demanding that we see, demanding that we see the figures, demanding that this war be run with more transparency.
Suddenly they don't even want to hear about this war.
For those of you who live in liberal areas, Berkeley, certain portions of Boston, Madison, Wisconsin, place I live in Milwaukee, and you're bothered by liberals who want to nag you.
I've got the surefire way to get them not only to shut up but to go away.
Bring up Afghanistan.
They have no desire to talk about that at all.
Because this is their war.
They can say all they want about it was President Bush who got us into Afghanistan in the first place, but it was President Obama who ran in 08 and pounded Hillary Clinton for not being sufficiently opposed to the war, in saying that the reason we shouldn't have been in Iraq was that it was taking away resources that could be used in Afghanistan.
That was the war that President Obama, as candidate Obama said was the important one.
It's the one he wanted.
Furthermore, it's the war he now owns.
This president has twice in his two years in office, changed policy and changed the approach in Afghanistan.
He's running the war.
It's his war effort.
If he wanted to bail, he could.
And again, I'm not advocating that.
And I'm not saying that this war effort is wrong.
For many of us on the right, we're torn on this.
We are adamantly anti-terror, but we also don't think that American resources can be sacrificed at a time that we have real threats from Iran, North Korea, and wondering if the real problem isn't in Pakistan, which after all is where most of Al Qaeda appears to be hiding out.
So I'm not coming at this with the agenda of ripping on Obama's war.
The point I'm making is that nobody's even talking about this war.
President Obama is not suffering any loss of popularity over his fighting of the war in Iraq in Afghanistan, the way President Bush did in his fighting about the war in Iraq, because the war in Afghanistan is buried on page 247 of the newspapers.
It's not being talked about at all.
In the 2006 congressional elections, when President Bush was still in office, There were Democrats all across the country who made the war in Iraq a campaign issue.
You'll remember the crowing, idiotic as it turned out, from the Democrats in the Congress.
Harry Reid declaring the war in Iraq was lost, right at almost the exact precise moment that the tide had turned on the war, when the surge was just beginning to work.
There was no talk of the war in Afghanistan in the 2010 elections.
For all of the Republican victories in 2010, the war in Afghanistan was off the table.
This war is literally out of sight, out of mind.
I think we are seeing here the true colors of the phony peace movement in the United States.
They're not opposed to war.
They're not opposed to sacrificing young American military.
They're only opposed to wars that occur when a Republican is the commander-in-chief.
They're not on him on this issue at all.
Now I'm looking at a chart here that's showing the pace of the war in Afghanistan.
U.S. other NATO deaths, 2007, 117 U.S. 115 NATO.
2008, 155 U.S. 140 NATO.
2009, 312 U.S. 2022 other NATO.
2010 this year.
500 U.S. 216 NATO.
By contrast, in Iraq, the American military deaths declined between 2007 and 2010, 904, 314, 149, and then 60.
So the pace of the war in Afghanistan is showing an increase in American casualties and a lack of progress for the American war effort.
Yet because the right is divided on the issue, and Republicans in Congress do not want to appear to be disloyal to the president or to the troops, they're silent about this.
And the anti-war left, which claimed to be so concerned about us fighting wars that we had no business fighting, has just taken this one off the table.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush on EIB.
This is the Rush Limbaugh program.
Russia's on vacation this week.
Your guest host today is me.
I'm Mark Belling from Milwaukee.
Right now I'm talking about the war that no one's talking about.
The one in Afghanistan.
Do you know what a the left's version of American military policy is?
Deciding whether or not gays get to serve in the military.
That's been the most talk We've had from them about the military in ages.
They don't care at all about the real purposes of the American military.
They don't care at all what we're doing with the military.
For them, the military is just a tool, a whipping boy.
When there's a Republican president, we got a rip away.
We're spending too much money on the military.
When there's a Republican president at war, well, we're going to be against the war.
When there's a Democratic president, can we make the military diversified?
Can we welcome in gays?
Can we make the military the same liberal swamp that we're trying to turn the rest of the country into?
Suddenly all of the issues get changed.
I need to get to some phone calls here.
1 800 282, 2882 is the phone number.
Let's go to Lake City, Tennessee, and Judy.
Judy, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Mark, what's worrisome to me is how he is bypassing our Constitution and our elected officials to get his agenda through.
One thing C SPAN and Atlanta General Tony Dant is he's given all the Pale Grant money and the retrofitting of their campuses to the historic black colleges.
The agriculture department set aside four point six billion to minority farmers.
There are less than fifteen thousand of them.
They've had eighty-four thousand applications.
The day that Colbert was testifying that cost the taxpayers a hundred and forty-seven thousand dollars.
Well, C-SPAN too, they had the Justice Department suing the state of Washington because they are arresting too many black felons.
So the Justice Department wants them to restore it.
You're covering a lot of territory for me, Judy.
I think your concern is that the President of the United States is functioning as though he's the only branch of government.
With regard to Obamacare and his drafting of rules that now state that we're going to have the very things that the original bill didn't call for, whether it's the use of federal funds through the grant-making process and now even the fights against Obamacare in the courts, the President seems to think that he's above all other branches of government.
The American public, I think, didn't elect Republicans in last month's election.
What the American public did was try to restore checks and balances against President Obama.
The Republicans have done nothing to warrant winning a landslide.
What did they do in the last two years that differentiated themselves from the Republicans that were so unpopular between 2000 and 2008?
It's true there were a lot of good candidates.
In my own state of Wisconsin, we produced some spectacular candidates.
Some of the Republicans who were running were a lot better than the old version of Republicans.
But it wasn't like you had this huge Republican resurgence because all of a sudden America walked up and said, you know, after all, I guess I love Bush.
I love the Republicans.
They were very concerned about the direction that President Obama was taking this country, that he was going way too far.
And they felt that the only way to stop that would be to put in place a Congress that wouldn't let him go any farther than he's going right now.
They were alarmed and terrified at how much money he's spending.
They looked at this stimulus in which he just carpet-bonded money all over the country for no purpose other than rewarding his friends, fattening the deficit without seeing any real resurgence in the economy.
They needed to have something to put the brakes on him.
That's why the Republicans won.
Let's go to Crofton, Maryland.
John, it's your turn on EIB with Mark Belling.
Yeah, Mark, I appreciate the things that you've been talking about.
And you're making me sick because I'm 70 years old.
I was here in Washington.
I'm in the Washington area.
I'm about a half hour away.
In 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't care who was in favor of the START Treaty, but for us to be negotiating on an even keel or actually giving the benefit to the Russians as though they're as strong as we are, when we say we're the only superpower, why are we treating the Russians like they're superior?
I have no idea why the president was so focused on the new START Treaty.
He...
At a time in which we are concerned about a war that we've got in Afghanistan, at a time in which we are worried about what's going on in North Korea, at a time in which Iran Is still moving toward the bomb.
Why we're negotiating a ballistic missile treaty with Russia is beyond me.
All I can figure is that he wanted to make it look like he had accomplished something.
If anything, that treaty set us back because it restricts our ability to engage in more work on defensive missiles, which is the only thing that's ever going to prevent us from being wiped out if one of these countries does try to try to nuke us out.
I don't know why he was so focused on that.
What I do know is this all those Republicans who voted for it, all they accomplished in passing another dumb treaty that won't do anything is give President Obama the ability to stand up and say that he's accomplished something.
I think there's a lesson in these developments of the last few weeks, including what the president is doing now with Obamacare, and that is that the Republicans better buck up and understand that they need to do what the American public sent them there to do, which is serve a check on the president.
Looking at the TV monitor here, it says UPS is suspending operations from Maine to North Carolina.
I thought UPS like that they were like the post office, neither rain or sleet nor snow and all of that.
The National Football League called off a game yesterday because of snow.
And it wasn't like what happened in Minnesota last weekend where the roof caved in at the Metrodome.
They just didn't want to play in the snow, I guess.
It was in Philadelphia.
They're playing tomorrow night.
I don't know if it's a big statement about anything or not, but they never used to call off football games.
I used to love turning on football games in the stadiums filled with snow.
Yeah, safety of the fans and all that.
Well, fans can't make it, the fans can't make it.
I'm here.
We're in New York, supposedly paralyzed.
I'm the guy from Wisconsin.
I came armed.
I brought my rubbers.
That's critical.
I brought no, the ones on my feet.
I brought my rubbers.
The sidewalks aren't shoveled.
If I didn't have those, I'd be laying around somewhere.
Times square with people wondering who the idiot tourist was.
The hotel that I'm in, everyone in everyone in the hotel is Chinese.
Nobody from America is able to get to New York for the holidays.
All the flights were canceled.
I'm the only person I'm the only person speaking speaking English in the hotel.
I think that's ridiculous.
I'm part of uh thing that Brett Bozell's organization uh does every year.
He runs the Media Research Center.
They compile the most outrageous quotes of the year to come from the news media and entertainment people and so on.
The worst cases of liberal bias, the most outrageous statements.
They compile these every month, and then at the end of the year they have awards for the worst of the worst.
And I'm one of the people who gets to vote on that.
I don't send anything into these guys, but if they haven't found one, I've got one from today's paper.
This is the New York Times.
I'm going to read a paragraph verbatim.
I there is no satire here.
There is no sarcasm.
This is written straight.
Bill Carter and Brian Stelter.
Bill Carter's the one I think that writes all the books about Leno and Letterman.
Does that make comedian John Stewart?
Despite all his protestations that what he does has nothing to do with journalism, the modern day equivalent of Edward R. Murrow.
Now, how can you read this and not comment on it?
John Stewart, Edward R. Marrow.
Is there something wrong with that picture?
Do we need a point of reference on Edward Armor?
Edward R. Murrow is the revered CBS newsman from the 40s and 50s.
Reported on the war, then he was a big TV network star in the 50s, hosted a couple of programs, remembered for bringing down Joe McCarthy and constantly smoking on television.
Who was Edward R. Marrow?
He is the hero of American broadcast journalism.
CBS has been working off the legacy of Edward R. Murrow for 50 years.
I wasn't around for any of Edward R. Murrow's reporting, but apparently he was the conscience of America.
The role that Cronkite sort of was supposed to take over after Murrow passed the law.
Now the best they can bring up is John Stewart.
They're doing it because John Stewart used his program to pressure Congress to use federal money to pay for health care costs of 9 11 responders.
This was actually a controversial proposal that was before the Congress a couple of weeks ago.
Specifically, it was in the Senate, and there was a threat of a filibuster.
It's a controversial proposal because the opponents don't think that it's the role of the federal government to be paying the health care costs of public officials in a specific state.
Secondly, there was no funding source identified for it.
Generally speaking, if you're a cop from Louisiana and something happens to you in Louisiana, it's the state of Louisiana that's responsible of the city that you work for.
And there were legitimate objections to the bill.
The concern was that these are bills that belong in New York City and New York State and not with the federal government.
Well, fine.
John Stewart was on the other side of the issue and he used his program to say, we ought to take care of this.
If we're not going to help out the people who the police officers and the firefighters are risked their lives, what does it say about us as a country?
Whatever.
In the end, Stewart's side won.
And the New York Times story is suggesting that this makes him the new Edward R. Murrow, the crusading journalist who is able to get government to respond after a media figure brought up an issue.
Really?
For the last 20 years, when Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts have spoken out on public issues, there has been a real and genuine public policy consequence to that.
Were it not for Rush and other talk show hosts, Hillary Kerr would have passed in 1993.
The Republicans were ready to roll over on that.
Were it not for conservative talk show hosts, I don't believe we would have been able to stop cap and trade last year.
Were it not for conservative talk show hosts, I don't know that there ever would have been a voice for the Tea Party movement.
All of those things happened because people who are out there and on the media, certainly not the mainstream media, but out there talking on the radio or talking in other media outlets, are raising issues that are resulting in people coming to action.
The reason that they've got to come up with John Stewart as the new Edward R. Murrow is that there isn't anybody else on the left that can get anyone to react.
When's the last time any public figure changed his position on an issue because of anything that Keith Olberman said?
When is the last time that anybody reacted to something that happened on the Katie Corick News?
Brian Williams, is he driving any debate?
Even the New York Times.
The mainstream media doesn't have the ability to move anyone anymore.
The only place that people are reacting to the news and information that they learn about and rolling up their sleeves and taking action, the only place where there are any public policy responses are in conservative talk radio programs, shows like this one.
Yet, when someone like Rush raises something on his program and people respond, they're mocked and they're they're called ditto heads in a derogatory fashion.
They are only responding because Rush told them to.
You get this all the time.
I get it on my own program in Milwaukee that if if listeners react to information they hear, they're only reacting because I told them to react.
As if they're automatons, robots, as unthinking people who can simply be told these are your beliefs, and this is going to go under your skull and you're going to accept it.
And it's considered terrible.
We're considered to have a terrible impact.
They're demagogues.
They're driving people to think this, that, and the other thing.
That's somehow bad.
But when a lefty like John Stewart raises an issue on his program, why that's wonderful.
He's the new Edward R. Murrow.
The reason they're highlighting Stewart is it's the first case that they can find in the last 20 years of anybody reacting to anything that anyone in the liberal media said anywhere.
But there's true activism and true involvement all over the place right now.
The media, the alternative Media, talk radio, the web, even Facebook is rallying all sorts of people to action.
There are many instances that we have of public policy responses being changed because of things that people found out about on the radio or the internet.
It's only considered to be a good thing by the New York Times when those reactions are from the left.
1-800-282-2882 is the phone number on Russia's program.
Let's go to uh is it the Dall's Oregon?
Scott, it's your turn on EIB.
How'd they do on the name of the city?
You did pretty good, Mark.
It's called the Dalls.
Two words, but listen, great job.
You've uh already touched on my point a bit about how can this be constitutional what they're doing with Obama overreaching, you know, with the separation of powers, and then can't the Congress they control the purse strings, can't they stop funding on this and just stop it next year?
Well, that's an interesting question.
And I think my comments that I made at the end of the last hour, I suggested that the Republicans need to wake up.
They now have control of the House of Representatives and a large much larger minority in the United States Senate.
They need to realize that President Obama, for all the public fainting to the right, and I'm going to move to the center, that he's not moving to the center at all.
You know, he learned well from Bill Clinton in that little visit to the White House.
Pretend you're moving to the center, but govern even harder to the life to the to the left.
Make your public stance moderate, but then use your rulemaking authority, use your your court appointments, use every other power of your administration to stay on the left.
That's the way, you know, Dick Morris called it triangulation.
That's the way you keep your base happy, and that's the way you fool the American public into thinking that you got some sort of message.
How do the Republicans respond to this?
If they don't understand that this guy is going to continue to try to get through everything that he wants, and if he can't get it through legislation, he's going to do it through rulemaking, then they're missing the point entirely.
Can they cut off the funds?
Well, they can certainly try.
What the president is doing and changing the rules on Obamacare to now fund end of life counseling, the so-called death panel provision.
That's got to be something to embolden the Republicans not to fund this.
Now, I think it put, you know, it's going to put the president and the Congress at loggerheads.
If the funding bill doesn't get through the House, it probably isn't going to pass.
You can filibuster this stuff over in the Senate.
So, yeah, they can try, and they need to understand that the president here is going to be in on every chance he can, publicly toward the center, but in terms of his actual actions, what he's doing in office, he's going to stay on the left.
I'm Mark Ellen sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Normally, when I do the program uh from Russia's studio in New York, the chief of staff, HR is the person who I work with most closely and who screens the calls.
He's on vacation, interestingly, in Milwaukee, where I'm from, so he's there and I'm here.
So I'm working with the legendary Bo Snerdly, and I asked the staff, well, on the air, should I refer to him as Bo and I was told no?
You're a guest host.
You are to refer to him as Mr. Snerdley.
All right, Mr. Sternley.
He told me that Russia's been getting some abuse for not staying on the subjects that are really important, and that maybe one of the guest hosts should go out and do three football topics in a row.
Well, I already mentioned the fact that the Philadelphia Eagles had to move their game to Tuesday night because the fans couldn't get to the stadium and watch the game because it was snowing yesterday.
How is this one?
The two New York football teams yesterday combined to give up 83 points.
How's that?
No smiles from the skeleton staff that we have here in New York.
The uh the Chicago Bears managed to put up 38 on the supposedly vaunted New York Jets defense, and my Green Bay Packers put up 45 on the New York Giants defense.
So that that that's that's two.
Yeah, the Giants aren't very good, and Tom Coffin's probably going to be fired, and he's going to be the rare case of a suit.
Well, John Gruden was sort of forced out.
Winning a Super Bowl doesn't guarantee you long-term job security.
Um I I do a Third football topic, but I don't have one.
Batavia, New York, Rick, it's your turn on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, uh, first of all, I'd like to say, um I wonder if you're a democratic plant by running your arguments off the wall instead of the subject of Afghanistan.
Do you really do you really think that Rush Limbaugh would put a democratic plant in here on his program?
May maybe so the audience misses him.
I don't know.
Why do you why do you ask that, Rick?
Okay, the argument.
Once the house starts fire, you don't say, hmm, why was I playing with matches?
Okay, you worry about putting the fire off.
Right now, I'm a 20-year military man.
I got a son who comes back from Afghanistan in January.
And we either got to fight the war or do like we did in Vietnam.
We won and just go home.
This the problem is we're dragging out people making money, but people like my son are dying over there.
We need to either fight the war and win it, and we could do it, believe it or not, in a matter of months if we fought it like we did World War II.
You say, hey, well, we're coming tomorrow.
What's your hang up with what I said then?
You still there?
Yeah, I am.
I'm asking what your hang-up is with what I what I said about the Afghanistan situation.
Because uh you said we need to talk about there's no discussion about why we're there.
No, what I said there's no discussion about the war at all, including the points that you're raising about how we're fighting the war.
Once he put General Petraeus in charge, we were supposed to pretend that there isn't a war going on.
The point that I'm raising here is that the American left is extremely hypocritical in suddenly silencing itself about its opposition to the war the moment that it becomes President Obama's war.
Whether or not we fight the war to win, or whether or not we're to be in a holding pattern or what, these are all things that I think need to be discussed.
The point that I'm making is that the hysteria that helped bring down President Bush and discredited the war that we won, the war in Iraq, is nowhere to be found with regard to what's going on in Afghanistan.
I'm not denying that there are a lot of people on the right who believe that this war needs to be won and are even supporting the way President Obama is fighting the war.
The point I'm making is that this obsession with tearing down support for the war, this obsessive media coverage that we saw in Iraq is totally non existent now that you've got a Democrat fighting the war.
We don't have any oversight of President Obama, we don't have any questioning of the war strategy.
We don't even have anybody raising questions about whether or not we're doing right now against the Taliban is working.
Okay, we've driven them out of the Capitol, and they're out there on the mountains.
Is that is that working or not?
Is the timetable for withdrawal now off?
I don't know the answer to any of those things.
I'm merely saying that if we're there, this is an issue that we ought to be talking about because it's a real policy question.
I'm not raising opposition to it.
I'm just saying that all of the griping that you heard about Iraq silenced the moment Obama became commander-in-chief.
Thank you for the call, Rick, and I appreciate your son's service.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Belling guy accused me of being a democratic plant.
Democratic plant.
In fact, I should go back to Milwaukee and say, you know, all these years I've actually been a Democratic plant.
On Obama's foreign policy, do you not get the impression that he doesn't have a foreign policy, that he has a political policy?
This whole notion of having the December review and then start withdrawing the troops in July, these are all political decisions.
They don't have anything to do with the war effort in Afghanistan.
New start.
Let's do a treaty with the Russians just because we need to do something and we want to make it look like we're trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
We're worried about nuclear weapons with the Russians at the same time that Pakistan has a bomb and has al Qaeda in Pakistan, that Iran is trying to get the bomb, and that North Korea is threatening to use a bomb, and he's cutting his deal with the Russians.
In the meantime, there's North Korea, and the thing is sitting out there.
No one knows what they're up to.
They all of a sudden get very militaristic with the South.
The South is freaking out.
No one knows if they're plotting another war, I'll tell you what they're doing.
Twenty twelve is a big year for the North Korean regime.
It's the centennial of Kim Il sung.
He's the father of Kim Jong il, who is the current leader.
And they've been saying forever that 2012 is going to be the year that tremendous prosperity came to North Korea.
What they are attempting to do with this militaristic action and with the nuclear program is blackmail the West.
▲
Export Selection