4.06.2003
Friday, March 28, 2003 part one
00:00:00. [01: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Pike's Nursery]
[ad: Healthy Air]
[promo for News Radio 640 WGST]
[station id]
Rush: Hubba-hubba, dubba-dubba, greetings to you- thrill-seeekers and conversationalists and uh- malcontents, all across the fruited plain. If you're the- if you're in the- experiencing sympathies with the balloon lady from yesterday, we welcome you as well.
The EIB network and the Rush Limbaugh program= we are the most listened to radio talk show in America, and we are show prep for the media which follows. It's great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen. We are- by the way, let me welcome- where is it? There it is- dittocam's over on the right, everything's different from- from *inaudible*- the dittocam's set up different.
Uh, but it's not permanent, those of you watching on the ditto-cam at Rush 24/7, welcome. Brand new building and studio in our northern command location here at EIB. And uh- we only, everything is permanently done except the ditto-cam location, it's eventu- it's gonna be right there.
Announcer voice over: Live from New York, it's Open Line Friday!
Rush: I forgot it was Friday here, I'm so- I'm so absorbed here in our new, uh-loca- it is Friday, it's Open Line Friday. Yeah well, so you know the drill, folks. If, uh- if you think I haven't brought something up that needs to be brought up, this is the day you can talk about it. In other words, Monday through Thursday we talk about what I wanna talk about.
Thursday- uh, Friday, we'll add into the mix that which you think's important. Number's 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address rush@eibnet.com. Now as I was saying, for those of you watching on the ditto-cam- I'm gonna leave it up for all three hours today to inaugurate our new EIB northern command broadcast facilities and studios.
But where the thing is right now- I'm pointing right at you, it isn't going to stay there. Um, hopefully by the next time we use this, it'll be there- it'll be straight ahead of me- a little high, looking straight on. Which, um- makes the most sense, so bear with us today on that.
You know, my friends- when was this? I- this was, um- Tuesday of this week. I wanna go back, to this program- this Tuesday. I want you to listen to what I said, um- this past- you know what? I don't see a slate button in here. Is there- hello? I don't see a slate button in here, is there a.....
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:05:00. [02: Kim] [edit]
... there's not a slate button? So here, I guess we won't need one- I can just point at you. So here, we're gonna go back to this program, this past Tuesday. The first hour, the third segment- you're about to listen to me.
audio of Rush talking: Well, I'm glad I remembered this, cause I wanna go on record with this- because I have a feeling, as disorganized as the Iraqi's- the Iraqi army is, there's nothing in terms of a formal military operation going on here. Uh, we're gonna find Al-Qaeda terrorists and Hamas terrorists are actually some of the people firing at us.
Even now, down in Al Naseria and Basra, and in Baghdad- I am convinced that there have- you know, we've got this Al Qaeda training camp, it's in northern Iraq. We know of Salman Pack (?), south of Baghdad- where they were being trained. I'm convinced that some Al-Qaeda fighters, Hamas terrorists, so forth- are in this mix- disguised as the Republican Guard. You wait, make a note of this- it's going to be see, I told you so when we get down the pike.
(Back to Rush talking on today's show)
Rush: Lo and behold, ladies and gentlemen- it has happened to the- a mere matter of three days- the see, I told you so has come to pass. A story from the Sydney Morning Herald:
"Near Basra, Iraq: British military interrogators claim that captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra."
"At least a dozen members of Bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr..."- that's not to be confused with the wide receiver from the Detroit Lions, Az Zakim, uh- this is Az Zubayr, it's a town..." where they are where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions, this according to the Iraqi prisoners of war."
"It was believed that last night British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up."
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, thank you- yet another sterling see, I told you so and by the way, if any of you were still worried about whether or not there's a link, this should sew it up. But it doesn't matter whether it's a direct link or not, the war on terrorism is all the same war. Just like World War II, Germany and Japan- um, and the Pacific theatre, the China-Burma theatre, was all the same war.
We didn't not fight the Germans, until we took care of the Japanese, or versa-vice-a. And it's the same thing here, it's all the- it's all the same situation. I wanna move on to the audio sound bites in order here. Folks, one of the things we've been talking about here are the Bush haters- you remember throughout the 90's, through the eight years of the Clinton administration- columnist's like EJ Dionne Jr. and a number of others, on the left.
All we had to do was criticize Bill Clinton and we were called Clinton haters. That's all we were, Clinton haters. I'm gonna- I don't care what kind of emotion we had for Bill Clinton, it doesn't get close to the Democrat's and the left- not just in this country, but around the world- have for George W. Bush.
There is a seething- a seething hatred. I mean, you can see it before they say anything. Just mention the name President Bush and these people, uh- lose their composure. They are, um- they're irritational. You know, one of the things that I mentioned yesterday- actually, I guess a couple days before- this American prospect story?
This is this website, the Robert Cutler's website and magazine. We always have this fun back and forth with, uh- we make fun of them, uh- they get mad at us. And there's- there's this writer there named Chris Moody, and we've had our backs and forth with him- their back and forths- and, he has always portrayed me, in his mind, as an arrogant blowhard, don't know what I'm talking about. I just sit here and- and mouth off.
Well the other day he went and talked to a Democratic consultant, and he happened to mention to her a couple of things that he heard me say on the radio, in the car, on the way out to see her- and she agreed with what I'd said. And this guy, Chris Moody- immediately- and he even wrote this.
He came to the conclusion- well, maybe Limbaugh is a brilliant conservative tactician, rather than just an arrogant blowhard. The point that I had made, and I'd been making it throughout the year 2002- up to the election and- and even now. The Democrat's cannot give anybody one reason to vote for them- they are just so obsessed with hatred.
They- it- it's just- it's visible, you can see the smoke rising out of their ears whenever Bush's name is mentioned- that they have failed. Well, they can't be honest about what they're for because nobody would vote for it anyway. I mean, liberalism- Socialism's dead, so they have to- they have to spin it and package it in such a way that it sounds acceptable, but they're not telling them- everybody what they're really for.
But they don't do that anyway- they are just solely, totally focused on criticizing, ripping- doom and gloom, negativism. And that's not attractive, it's not inspiring, it's not infectious- it's not, there's no charisma attached with it. And they're so obsessed, they can't get over Florida 2000, um- but there are other things too.
Bush is an idiot, he doesn't deserve to be where he is- they can't believe that he outsmarts them at every turn, and they just don't....
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:10:00. [03: Kim] [edit]
....any of this is real. And so they're just obsessed with this hatred, but they do not have the ability to tell anybody what they're for. Well, last night- on Hannity and Colmes, Charles Rangel appeared.
And I'll tell you- you know, I-I, um- I know many of you watch the media- about the war coverage, and you're really getting worried about it. Because you're hearing a bunch of different versions, if you hear the war as reported by the "embeds", you get positive news.
And this is- the- the thing's that are happening in this war are ultimately positive. There's hardly anything, um- that approaches the negative other than the loss of life and the prisoner's of war. In terms of our military progress though, what we've accomplished- it's stunning. There's no question about it, it's not even arguable.
And yet, New York Times- Washington Post- the networks, particularly ABC- appear to be going out of their way to portray us as actually losing. Or on the road to losing. Uh, I found a piece today- National Review Online by Victor Davis Hanson- who's a brilliant historian.
In fact, we watched one night- I guess it's a month or two ago, on the- on the History channel- there was a- multi-part series on the Spartans. And, they had a number of historians, uh- it was a documentary that had been put together and a number of historians did the narration and had on-camera interviews. And Victor Davis Hanson was one of them, and he's a contributing editor at National Review Online.
And he's- he's been watching the press coverage, and he's at wits end- watching the negative aspects of it. So he sat down and wrote a piece that chronicles all the positive aspects of the war- particularly, specifically in response to the negative things he's seeing. I'm gonna share with you some of it.
It's rather lengthy, I don't want to read the whole thing to you, but it is available at National Review Online and we will link to it on our website tonight when we update it to reflect the content of today's program. I've gotta take a break now, but when we come back- I'll just give you an example of this hatred that the- the Democrat's have.
They are Bush haters- I think we need to adopt that term- it's not enough to say these guys hate Bush, they are Bush haters, in every bit and then some- the sense that they thought we were Clinton haters. Y'know, our disagreement with Clinton- it wasn't based in hate. We were just appalled at somebody of- of that lack of character and discipline, and so forth- had actually ascended to the White House.
We were just appalled, and then furthermore- as the truth of Clinton came out- over those eight years, we were stunned and astounded that the American people didn't care. And of course, ultimately- the reason was- Clinton never really took on any big issues. That was the objective of that administration- don't deal with anything serious- it might go wrong, and that would lead to a bad legacy and we're not gonna have that.
So we basically ignore history for eight years, and a bunch of messes accumulated- nobody cleaned them up and now it's time to do it- and that's what we're doing. And we've got a President doing it- and the Democrat's know this- they're all oriented toward re-acquiring power and trying to help Clinton save and rebuild his legacy- because they're all tied to it.
But they're so obsessed, they just- they've got so much literal hatred- the war protestors too. None of these people are making any intellectual sense about what they're saying or what they're doing and it's patently obvious. And the more they talk, the better it is because it's not- they're not persuading anybody.
It's like- even a bunch of anti- war protestors are writing columns in Oregon- and here in New York, and in various parts of the country, uh- telling their fellow protestors- "Hey, you're not- don't count me with- you people are a bunch of idiots. You're out there tying up traffic and closing the bridges in San Francisco, you're laying across 5th Avenue in New York. And the very people you're trying to persuade to be on your side hate your guts, they practically wanna run over you."
I mean, they want the cops to arrest you and if the cops don't arrest you, they'd just as soon get in a cab and say speed straight ahead, and if you run over a protestor, I'll give you a five dollar tip. And the cabbie says I'll do it for two. You know- I mean, that's- they're not persuading anybody.
That's why I say let these people talk. But anyway, we come back from this break- I'm gonna give you a classic example of Democratic party hatred. Sheer, unbridled- undiluted, pure 100%, thouroughbred hatred. From the Democrat who would be chairman of the House Ways and Means committee if the Democrats were in charge, his name is Charles Rangel.
We'll get to all of it right after this, don't go away.
[promo for Rush's show]
[station id]
[ad: spoken promo by Rush for Theragesic]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:15:00. [04: Kim] [edit]
{ad: spoken promo by Rush for Theragesic] [ad: Guitar Center]
[ad: LendingTree.com]
[promo for the morning news show]
[ad: Southern Linc, wireless phones]
[ad: Greater Southern Home Recreation]
[station id]
Rush: And welcome back, Rush Limbaugh here. Open Line Friday on the EIB network. Alright, here we go- this is Charles Rangel last night- this is from Hannity & Colmes- and I- I just wanna prep you. Uh, Rangel here- accuses our military of shooting Iraqi women and children.
Hannity says to him- why would- why would countries sign on to a cease fire agreement, if we have no intention of ever enforcing it- because that's- that's what you're asking us to do.
Rangel: Listen, there could be a whole lot of things we should do when a country is corrupt and dishonest, and they lie and they cheat and you don't trust..
Hannity: That's not my point...
Rangel: But- but I'm saying, I just don't believe that you bomb women and children in order to enforce something- to lie and cheat- that's all...
Hannity: Wait a minute, wait a minute- wait a minute, Congressman, I'm not going to let you get away that. We're not bombing innocent women and chil- we are... with pinpoint accuracy...
Rangel: Okay, they're shooting themselves, Sean- you're right...
Hannity: ... everything possible to avoid it...
Rangel: You're right, they're shooting themselves- you know- they just don't act- they don't KNOW they're being liberated, so I made a mistake.
Rush: There you have it, folks. We are targeting Iraqi women and children- this is sheer hatred....
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:20:00. [05: Kim] [edit]
... everybody knows- in fact, the big complaint- if there is a complaint in the public, and it's not about- besides media coverage- it's not that we're losing the war, it's not that we're bogged down. It's not that things have slowed down.
If anybody, at least in terms of the people I talk to and hear from- if anybody's concerned about anything, it's that we are being too cautious in our targeting- that we are being too precise. Because we know where the bad guys are hiding- they're hiding behind the civilians and it's- it's going to get to the point where, in order to take these people out, we're gonna have to hit some of those targets.
And Rangel is trying- and lookit, I guarantee you, all he's doing is trying to get this out- he doesn't care what Hannity or Colmes or anyone else in that studio thinks of it. He wants it out there, just as a proposition that we are purposely killing Iraqi women and children. It's the Iraqi's that are doing that to their own civilians, it isn't us. And everybody knows this.
Now what kind of a charge is this? Other than baseless? I'm gonna make a prediction here to you , folks- this is risky, but I'm gonna go out on a limb. Just like I predicted that we would run into, uh- knowledge- this was last Tuesday. Just played it for you- that we'd run into knowledge- we would discover that Al Qaeda terrorists are actually in Iraq, and uh- taking up the Iraqi cause against our troops- and it's now been documented.
I'm gonna make you a prediction about the battle for Baghdad. Whenever it happens- you've heard that we, uh- a number of people thought this whole war would be rather quick, you've heard the term cakewalk associated with it. In fact, Kenneth Adelman is out there apologizing- he's actually written columns, he's the former arms control director in the Reagan administration.
He's- he's out there actually, uh- apologizing for having written columns in which he used the term cakewalk. He said he misjudged things, he misjudged the strength of the Iraqi forces and their resolve and he's- he feels badly about it. And alot of people thought, uh- and said so, to one degree or another, that they thought this would be a cakewalk, quickly done- or there'd rapid surrenders and so forth.
Well, I'm gonna tell you what I think, based- based entirely on what I perceive the Iraqi strategery to be. I actually think when the battle of Baghdad happens, it is going to be quick. I think it's going to be quick, I think it's going to be clean. I came to this conclusion this morning, I- I- well, it was this morning, but it was late last night, uh- to be truthful with you.
But I- you know, I- earlier this week, I made the point of saying that it'd be nice if the Iraqi's would send the Republican Guard, who are currently guarding Baghdad, out to the theater of operations outside- but they never do that, the enemy doesn't do what you want- well, they're doing it. He's sending the Republican Guard, he's breaking up the Republican Guard.
He's sending them out- try to inflict as many casualties on us- not trying to defeat us, cause they know they can't. They're trying to inflict as many casualties on us as they can, be as barbaric as they can- cause they think we'll cut and run- a la Mogadishu.
So, I- I think by the time we make our move on Baghdad, the Republican Guard's gonna have been pumelled. I'll bet you, when it happens, that um- I don't know how long the siege of Baghdad will last and- but there will maybe be a little bit of time where we surround it and prepare for the move to take over, cause we're eventually going to have to move on Baghdad to take it.
I just bet you that when we do- I'll bet you that phase does go like alot of experts thought the whole war would go. Let's just see if I'm right. Now you know there are the Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar and Medina divisions of the Republican Guard. Based on these Rangel quotes, I think we need to assign various divisions to the Democratic party.
I think Rangel probably is part of the Nebuchadnezzar wing of the Democratic party- Tom Daschle, part of the Hammurabi wing of the Democratic party. I'm not going to let these people up, folks- they deserve the scorn that they asking for. More Rangel sound bites coming up.
[ad: X-M Satellite Radio]
[station id]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:25:00. [06: Kim] [edit]
[news break from ABC news]
[traffic and weather update]
[station id]
[ad: Baranco Lincoln- Mercury]
[ad: Atlantic Billiards & Barstools]
[ad: Nissan]
{promo for Sunday morning cooking show- Atlanta Cooks]
[promo for News Radio 640 WGST]
[station id]
Friday, March 28, 2003 part two
00:30:00. [07: Carl] [edit]
A man, a legend, a way of life. It's open line Friday. This is the EIB network.
By the way, folks, speaking of the people out there who predicted a cakewalk, there are many people who did express the fact that we'd go through the Iraqis like a hot knife through butter. Some of them are former military people. Nobody in the Administration did, but a lot of people close to the Administration, and a lot of these retired military types did. And some pundits also did as well. But so did a former President. William Jefferson Blyth Clinton said so. His quote is this:
This war is going to be over in a flash. So we can wait to do that. I mean, you can always kill somebody next week. You can't bring 'em back next week, so...
There was applause and so forth. This was Clinton trying to make the case we could stand for a little bit more diplomacy. Let the inspections work. Clinton was siding with the French and the Germans and the Russians and the United Nations and the Security Council. His point was, ah, this is going to happen overnight, this is going to happen in a flash, we're going to kick butt over there. We can always kill somebody, and we can wait til next week to do that. Can't bring 'em back next week, though, so let's do the diplomacy.
Bill Clinton, one of the people out there creating the notion this can be done like that.
And this just in from CNN, and I want to make sure that Charles Rangel gets this: Iraqi militia fired machine guns and mortars at hundreds of civilians today when residents of Basra tried to flee over a bridge toward waiting British troops. British military officials said it was mostly women and children.
British troops have testified that Iraqi militia fired machine guns and mortars at hundreds of civilians today when they were - residents of Basra, as they tried to flee over a bridge into the waiting arms of British troops.
Charles Rangel on Hannity and Colmes last night accusing the United States of targeting civilians, women and children, with our bombs and weapons.
Here's the second of three bites that we have. The question from Allen Colmes: "Do you support your commander in chief? Because that's another question, I mean, he is the commander in chief, do we have an obligation to support our commander in chief in a time of war?
CR: Listen, with all due respect to the President, I don't think he has the experience for me to be listening to him as to how the war is going, or what we should be doing. I listen
AC: He doesn't have the experience for you to listen to him?
CR: I listen to Rumsfeld, I listen to military briefers in the Congress, and I don't say anything derogatory about them, but it would be a tremendous stretch to say that I have an appreciation for the President's knowledge of international politics. As a matter of fact, the fact that we are at war - I think war itself shows the failure of diplomacy.
RL: Hey, he's trying to get in on some Tom Daschle action there, isn't he? Of course, Daschle's done a 180 now, Daschle is starting to slowly apologize, slowly admit that his timing was off when he said it. But here's Charles Rangel.
Now, let's not forget - you may remember this - when was the last time Castro was in New York? It was some big UN thing, like 8 or 9 years ago, Castro flew in, and they had some Cadillac limo from the '50s driving him around, just so he felt at home, and Calvin Butts, or some religious pastor, threw a big party for Fidel Castro, Harlem or somewhere, and Charles Rangel was on stage. These guys are all embracing Castro. And they're all talking about the wonderful potential of the Socialist paradise in Cuba - I kid you not - and they're making speeches on stage about how every child in Cuba has health care.
And the literacy rate in Cuba is sky-high, and all this sort of thing, and I kept going, well, hey! Why don't you, Senator, or Congressman, send your kid down there for medical treatment when they get sick? Why don't you send them to school down there if Cuba were so great? They actually embrace Castro. Here is Charles Rangel, after eight years of Bill Clinton, and his "we loathe the military" letter to Col. Holmes, saying he doesn't trust George W. Bush's military experience, or international experience, foreign policy experience.
I'm telling you, remember now the auspices under which you're playing this. This is pure, seething, hatred. I just want to tell you again, don't get alarmed at this stuff. This is not going to persuade anybody. All this is going do is take these left-wing kooks and oddballs and get them validated and so forth. This isn't going to persuade anybody. This isn't going to go out there and take anybody that's got an open mind about this, trying to figure out where they are, what Bush has done, this is not going to persuade anybody.
And I don't know what Rangel thinks he's trying - well I don't think he's trying to accomplish anything. I think these people, folks, are just irrational, they're so obsessed with Bush. He's got them so off their game. One more little bite here. This is, Hannity asks the question, I'm stunned at what you...
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:35:00. [08: Kim] [edit]
....you know, I think it's a shame. I think what you said about the President and the troops- really unfortunate.
Rangel: What I said about the troops, if you could have- if you could have any degree of the *inaudible* in God, that I have based on my own personal experiences about the troops....
Hannity: I know Charlie- we are not shooting- not bombing women and children *inaudible...
Rangel: Women and children are bombing themselves- okay, we'll leave that alone..
Hannity: We gotta get on- our troops are avoiding them, Charlie. (talking over Rangel) We're avoiding them Charlie- we're doing more to...
Rush: *inaudible.. they're bombing themselves- I'm sorry, they're bombing themselves. Charles Rangel- one of the leading Democrat's in the House. Can I give you my analogy? Maybe not a perfect analogy, but I think after all this, this fits.
There is a parallel, ladies and gentlemen, between the entrenched Iraqi leaders-whoever they remain. Could be Saddam, it could be his sons, Uday and Kusay. There's a- there's a definite parallel between the entrenched Iraqi leaders, who have had free reign for a lifetime- and our liberals who have had the same.
There is- there is an analogy between people like the Iraqi leadership and Charles Rangel, and all these other Democrats who ruled Washington for forty years- until 1994 when the Republican's took the House of Representatives away Tjefrom them and now they control the Senate as well.
You had these guys in Iraq, who've been there for two, three decades now- entrenched, have had free reign for a lifetime- and they are just, in that regard like liberals here. They refuse to go down, they refuse to cede power. Saddam won't give up, Saddam won't cry uncle, Saddam won't realize it's over. It's over for Saddam, it's over for his sons, it's over for his leadership and it's over for Charlie Rangel.
And it's over for the Democrat's who ran the House for forty years, it's over for Daschle, it's over for Nancy Pelosi, it's over for all of them. But they won't admit it- they won't cede their power. Or they- well, they have to cede their power- they won't act like they are in the minority.
Now I know the analogy is flawed, it breaks down in the *inaudible*- in the Baath party, Saddam's party maintains their entrenched power with force and the liberals do it with their dated, um- out of tune, out of place playbooks. But boy, I tell ya, there are alot of similarities in terms of not realizing the games up.
The Democrat's don't realize they've been skunked- they don't realize they've lost, they don't realize that they've got a long way to go towards coming back. And Saddam doesn't realize it's over for him. "Rush, how dare you compare these people to Saddam?"
Folks, don't say that to me- I didn't start this. How dare Charlie Rangel accuse George W. Bush and the American of targeting Iraqi women and children, when we're doing just the opposite? And he did it again and agai- when given the chance to retract it or say no, he misspoke, he said it again. Don't tell me that I shouldn't go making these analogies.
I'm just firing back with a shred of the ammo that Rangel and his gang are using. I want to also close the loop on something, I meant to do this yesterday and I forgot it. I had it right in front of me and we had other things going on. I mentioned- I guess two or three days ago now- that Marta's reading a book about World War I and she's fascinated by this book.
The book's called The Doughboys by Gary Mead-published in 2000- and there's a fascinating quote from Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat President, addressing the Senate on January 22nd, 1917. Listen to this.
Peace- this is Woodrow Wilson speaking, Democrat- you tell me if they've changed any. You talk about a party in a rut, you talk about a party with an old playbookm, you talk about a party that hasn't realized it's modern times. Listen to this from Woodrow Wilson in 1917.
(actual quote follows, Rush quoted it right for a change)
"peace without victory [...] Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last, only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit. The right state of mind, the right feeling between nations, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance."
He was saying that any peace that came about as a result of victory was tainted- because it stigmatized the losers, it made them feel bad, it forced peace on them. And it made them feel vanquished, and humiliated and they were at peace under duress. They had made an intolerable sacrifice, losing- peace should never come about, he says, as the result of victory. Peace should come about only between equals as a result of discussion and negotiation.
This is a Democrat....
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:40:00. [09: Kim] [edit]
.... in 1917, rejecting the notion that peace follows victory. Course, this is the Limbaugh doctrine, that you only get peace after victory, and here's Woodrow Wilson speaking for the Democrats today. It's uncanny, from 1917- January 22nds.
Quick break- back with more, we'll get to some phone calls and continue our rotation with our audio sound bites. I also have the questions today, from the Centcom brief- took place at seven this morning. Remember, on selected days- I'm going to go ahead and answer these questions as though I were the briefer.
And answer them as I'm sure the briefer wishes he could, but can't because of diplomacy, and whatever other constraints the military faces. Sit tight, alot to do today, we'll be back and continue in a moment.
[promo for the Limbaugh letter]
[station id]
[ad: Autozone]
[ad: Fox News Channel]
[ad: Mountain Harbor, a resort community in Tennessee]
[ad: Tires Plus]
[promo for News Radio 640 WGST]
Rush: Half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair. And by the way, it was this angle of the ditto-cam that's the, uh- the half of my brain you can't see- that is uh, tied behind my back. Great to be with you, folks. Open Line Friday and the EIB network.
Um, more on the Tom Daschle story here- "Stepping back from comments he made last week, that President Bush failed miserably in diplomatic efforts to avoid war with Iraq- Senator Daschle said yesterday, "My timing wasn't the best." On March 17th, just two days before the first bombing strike in Baghdad, Daschle said, "I'm saddened, saddened that this President failed so miserably at diplomacy."
I'm saddened, Tim. I'm very saddened, Tom. I'm- I'm saddened, Tony, that we're....
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:45:00. [10: Tom] [edit]
Daschle: -now forced to war.
Rush: Now, those remarks drew fire, as many charged it was wrong for Daschle to publicly challenge the pResident on the eve of armed conflicts. It was -- comments were labeled divisive and brazen political posturing by Mark Racicot, the Republican National Committee.
Well, in an interview from his Washington orifice this morning, Daschle indicated he did -- he did not know the timing of the start of military action when he made the critical remarks. And he added, "It's - time -- to move past this. It -- ah -- of course it is, Tom! Let's just forget you totally! You know, it'd be great if we just wiped you out of our memories, and forget everything you're doing insane.
Because it's -- actually, we don't want to do that because of the entertainment value provided. But, I'll tell ya, again, this is just another -- glowing example of how -- the -- rationality has totally escaped these people. So obsessed are they with their hatred for Bush. And so obsessed are they with finding any political opening they can.
You know, he's saying, "I -- hey -- I didn't know that war was gonna start so soon after my comments. Why, if I would have known that, I wouldn't have said it." That's bogus. But -- it's -- another example of these people opening the door right into their own noses. Daschle and the Democrats did this right after September eleventh.
You will remember, when I remind you, that some weeks went by before we mounted our campaign in Afghanistan. The Democrats were getting a little impatient. They thought they had a political opening. Bush isn't doing anything! So they went out on a Friday or a Saturday, and they raised holy hell!
"Where's the president? It's time to strike back! These people hit us on September eleventh. The president's not showing leadership.. The president's unqualified. He's a selected president, not an elected president. He's not up to the job. Just listen to Peter Jennings. Blah blah".
And the next day, we leveled Kabul. The next week, we went in there and turned Tora Bora to two thousand degrees. And these guys had egg all over their face. And Daschle's done it again here. So now, he's trying to tiptoe back out of this.
And his excuse is: I didn't know hostilities were going to start. I didn't know we were going to bomb Baghdad, Tim, uh -- so soon after my insightful comments. I'm not going to take those back, Tim, no. But I will say that my timing -- in -- making -- those -- comments -- was unfortunate. But, no -- I -- meant what I said. I think this president is -- um -- an embarrassment, Tim.
I don't know how else to say it, but I wouldn't have said what I said if I would've known -- harm's way was going to come to our brilliant boys and girls -- uh -- men and women in uniform. Who, by the way, are equipped better than ever. Because of the lobbying efforts of my wife, who can't lobby the Senate. I -- Want, Tim, for you to remember this. That -- she can only lobby the House.
I don't really know till after these -- things happen what details are. But -- they're -- military aircraft, especially. And uniforms -- because of the -- lobbying efforts -- of -- my -- lovely wife, these -- best trained and equipped -- troops in the history of the world, Tim.
[rustles papers]
Okay, Senator Daschle, just keep digging that hole. You know, we'll sit around, and we'll pile the dirt on for ya. Let me take quick break, we'll come back, and we'll get a phone call in after this segment. And honor our commitment here on open line Friday to talk to you. Back after this.
[promo: PigBoy on 640AM]
[ad: avacor hair regrowth treatment]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:50:00. [11: Kim] [edit]
[promo for a Saturday morning show, Dr Gene]
[ad: Charity Motors]
[ad: Blue-Emu Topical Pain Reliever]
[promo for News Radio 640 WGST]
Rush: And we make a stab at a phone call here before the hour ends- Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania. Ed, I'm glad you waited and welcome to the program, sir.
Ed: Yeah, thank you, uh- you asked me to be brief, so I will. I'm a bleeding heart liberal, registered Democrat- always have been my whole life. Not only do I support the troops, I am so proud of them. I am so proud...
Rush: Okay, got a question- hold it, hold it, hold it- I've got a question. You support the troops?
Ed: Of course I support the troops, now who- who's the...
Rush: Wa- wait a minute! Wait, I've got a question about it, and if we run out- don't sweat it, if we run out of time, I'll hold you til the next hour.
Ed: Okay, for an- okay, go ahead.
Rush: Can you tell me who you have voted for- for President or Senator in Pennsylvania- or anybody else, who also supports the troops?
Ed: I know, uh- well, I don't know who I voted for who also supports the troops. I imagine anyone I voted for supports the troops..
Rush: Well no, that's my point, uh- that's- that's exactly my point. My- my point is alot of people are up to saying they support the troops, but I'll bet ya that alot of people saying they support the troops voted for people who are not in favor of this action, opposed it- and have cut the military for eight years?
Participated- in fact, if you voted for Democrats, I guarantee you you voted for people who've cut the intelligence budget, you've cut the military budget- and so I question this notion that you actually have supported the troops. You may think you are, but you probably voted for people who haven't.
Ed: Well, you know- I don't know, I think that's a little- I don't know about all that stuff...
Rush: Well, I do- that's cause I'm host and that's- lookit, let you think about it. No- gotta take a break here,(talking over the caller). Now look, Ed- Ed- Ed, look, the hour is over, but I'm going to get to you when the next hour starts in five or six minutes here.
Just be patient- you need to go to the bathroom or whatever, grab a sandwich- go ahead. We'll be back and the first thing we do is talk to you, cause I wanna be fair with everybody I talk to. Don't go away.
[station id]
[ad: Administaff]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather update]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 00:55:00. [12: Tom] [edit]
[weather]
[warmongering propaganda from ABC news]
[Ari Fork Tongue spins for the junta]
[local embedded reporter spins for the junta]
[warmongering propaganda]
[stocks and weather]
[station ID WGST 640AM]
[ad: Nissan sales promotion]
[ad: the golf show]
Friday, March 28, 2003 part three
01:00:00. [13: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Peachtree Service Experts]
[ad: Pike Family Nurseries]
[promo for News Radio 640 WGST]
[station id]
Rush: And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Nice to have you with us- we just keep trucking, we just keep moving. We are here- and we are here, you can count on us being here, and you are- you are comfortable being confident, that we are dependable. We are who we say we are, we're going to be here when we say we're going to be here- you need never have any doubts about the EIB network at any time, any day of the week.
announcer voice-over: Live from New York, it's Open Line Friday!
Rush: Yes-siree bob, and you know what that means, my friends- this is your day, those of you who call can have, uh- a little greater role than normal in determining that which we discuss. For example, if you think something needs to be discussed that hasn't been, on this program- feel free to do so this day.
Monday through Thursday, the program's devoted exclusively to the things that interest me, or things that I care about. But on Friday we throw your interest in the mix- 800-282-2882 and the e-mail address is rush@eibnet.com. Now, fullfilling our commitment, pledge and promise, we go back to Ed in Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania, who was cut short by the end of the previous hour.
Okay Ed, you got alot of time here, no need to feel any pressure or constraints- what's on your mind?
Ed: Alright, well as I was saying- uh, I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, I'm a registered Democrat- have been for years, probably always will be. And, I wanted to- you- you know, I support the troops. Not only do I support them, but I'm extremely proud of them.
I'm so proud of these guys, and these women over there, and I think what they're doing for this country is absolutely- its- it's just remarkable...
Rush: Well, that's great- you know, I- I'm- great, I hope you voted for people who, uh- feel the same.
Ed: Well, now you're talking- you were saying that before. You were saying something about well, you know- did you vote for people who support the troops. Rush, I find it hard to believe that there's not an American in this country- Republican, liberal, Democrat- that doesn't support the troops at this particular time.
Now you were talking about votes and stuff like that, or financing or funding or whatever for the military. Well that's all legislation and stuff like that, which- you know, to be honest with you, I don't really understand it...
Rush: Well, wait a minute Ed- Ed, don't slough that off, it's a rather important point. If you vote for people that cut the military budget, that do not vote to increase military pay......
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:05:00. [14: Tom] [edit]
Rush: (voicing over caller) --at max, I dunno -- does it -- precisely because it is legislation. Now, I --
Ed: (voicing over Rush) [unintelligible] -- go ahead. I'm sorry.
Rush: (voicing over caller) -- now I'm proud -- look at - I'm happy -- that you support the troops. It's great to hear what you said. But there's one thing you're wrong about. There are people in this country who are not for the troops, they're -- very publicly saying so. And, when you got people like Charles Rangel saying the things that he said last night on Hannity and Colmes, that we are purposely bombing Iraqi women and children.
That doesn't sound to me like he's supporting the troops. And he's a ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. So -- yeah -- there are people in this country that are not supporting the troops. They're on the protest march, they're at die-ins. They're laying down on Fifth Avenue in New York. They're tying up traffic in San Francisco. They're all over Portland, Oregon and Chicago. They're everywhere, Ed.
Ed: I understand that. But let me ask you something, Rush.
Rush: Yeah.
Ed: Do you honestly believe that Charles Rangel and Tom Daschle are sitting by the television, watching ABC, and hearing about troops dying, or go -- what, do you think that they're giving themselves high fives?
Rush: -getting. Themselves high fives when what?
Ed: Uh -- when there's a report of troops being killed. Or --
Rush: (voicing over caller) No.
Ed: --troops being captured.
Rush: (voicing over caller) No.
Ed: Do you think they're sitting there going Yippity Do Dah, Yippity Yay. There goes another - stone at George Bush.
Rush: -ahh -- another stone at -- I think this: I think that there are a number of Democrats who are secretly hoping that we lose this war. For their own political gain. I think that there are a number -- all that -- yeah, they set themselves up to benefit from it, if the war doesn't go well. I think there are a number of Democrats are hoping that Bush screws this up, and doesn't benefit from it.
I don't think there are Democrats cheering when our troops are taken prisoner of war. I don't think they're doing anything like that. And -- I -- don't -- that they are -- um -- seeking or hoping that we lose. Anything like that. But they are making plans to benefit from it if it happens.
Ed: Well, can I ask you: Do you think George Bush and the Republicans are making plans that, if it's totally successful, to take advantage of that in an upcoming election?
Rush: -ahh -- certainly. But I don't think that's why they're starting -- why we're doing the war.
Ed: I hope it's not.
Rush: -I don't think -- I don't think that we did this -- if this -- you know, I'll tell you what, if there was a political calculation behind doing the war, it wouldn't have happened. Because the risks are too great. I don't think Bush is doing this for his re-election effort. Uh -- I think he's doing it for the reasons he's stated.
Ed: Well, I don't think he's doing it for re-election either. Uh- but -- I guess I want to get to my point. Because a gentleman that -- I guess, your screener, asked me to kind of move along a little bit. But -- I -- would ask you this, Rush: now, I support the troops. I'm proud of the troops. I'm a Democrat.
[Rush snores]
Ed: I'm a liberal. Okay. Now, let me ask you: do you think that by constantly blaming Democrats for everything, accusing the Democrats of all the things that you accuse them of, accusing all the other foreign countries trying to -- [unintelligible] from Freedom Fries to what, we're gonna stop eating turkey on Thanksgiving, -
Rush: (voices over caller) - ah -- I've not done that
Ed: Don't you think there should be a dialogue? I mean --
Rush: (voices over caller) No.
Ed: Okay. Let - me finish, really, please. Because war on --
Rush: (voices over caller) What more is there to ask me?
Ed: Okay. Well, let me ask you sir, do you think that all this rancor and ranting is pulling America together, or do you think it's dividing America?
Rush: -ahh -- I think what the Democrats are doing is dividing America. I'm not --
Ed: (voices over Rush) Well, I'm asking what you're doing --
Rush: (voices over caller) -- dividing America. Let me tell ya something, there's a big difference here between optimism and pessimism. This is one of the most optimistic places you can come. If you say you support the troops, you need to be listening to this program every day, Ed. If you say you support the troops, what your fellow Democrats are saying out there out to repulse you. If you say you support the troops, and you're proud of them, then what some of your fellow Democrats are saying ought to make you mad enough that you say you never vote for them again.
Do not accuse me of dividing or causing rancor. I don't come here and start things. I react to things. I defend the things I believe in. I defend the people I believe in. And I can count on getting up every day, and reading or hearing Democrats attacking those things I believe in and those people I believe in. It's happened every day that I've been alive. It intensifies when Democrats lose elections. It's been intense as I've ever seen it since the 2000 election in Florida.
There hasn't been an hour go by that some Democrat hasn't said something insulting or offensive or divisive about Bush or about the military or about our effort here or about Bush's legislative agenda. Lying to the American people about his tax cut. Lying to the American people about his agenda. Lying to the American people about every facet of George W. Bush.
What I do is defend the institutions and traditions that I think define this country and make it great. Including the people who are advancing the ideas I believe in. I do not attack -- you know, this is -- and -- I -- hear the direction of your question. You're trying to turn this around and make it sound like I'm doing the attacking. I am defending. When Charl -- I didn't say a word about Charles Rangel until he launched last night. Same thing with Daschle. I -
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:10:00. [15: Carl] [edit][Note to editor: Checked: John Conyers ]
...won't say anything about Daschle until Daschle opens his mouth, and attacks the things I believe in, and then I stand up to the plate and defend them.
What I do is not divisive. What I do - if there's anybody out there trying to unify people with optimism, and a positive outlook, it's this program. Each and every day. And we're doing it against the people who are trying to stand against us.
You can't say the Democrats are trying to unify people. They're not. They're trying to divide. No Democrat has yet - these Presidential candidates or anybody else - no Democrat has come forward and told us what he's for. No Democrat has given us a reason to vote for him. The Democrats are out there telling us why we ought to hate Bush, why we ought to get rid of Bush - I mean, John Conyers and some other Democrats in the House are mounting impeachment proceedings!
They're trying to get that off the ground, simply because of this war. Well I'm going to defend Bush on this. But Bush is - just to let you know, in case you've missed it - I've been critical of Bush, too, if I think he's doing things wrong on the agenda on the domestic side, just to remind you. But don't go there, with me being divisive. Don't throw the ball in that direction 'cause you're basically just throwing me a hanging curve ball to knock out of the park, which, I just did. Thanks, Ed, for the phone call, I appreciate it. You have - actually I don't know if you know it or not, but you have actually followed through on what I have often said is the primary responsibility of a good call. You have essentially defined a good call. You have made the host look good. In this case, great. And I thank you very much for your call.
We'll note this on the website tonight and signify your contribution to the program.
Let me give you an analogy here, folks. That - well, 'cause this business of you support the troops, ah, everybody is out there saying they support the troops. Liberals are saying it. Democrats are saying it. Those of you out there who are maybe moderates or Democrats or liberals who, because you don't want to get ripped to shreds verbally, you don't want to be criticized. You're out there saying you support the troops too. Well, let me ask you this question again. You say you supported the troops, so what have you done?
You say you support the troops? Is that OK? Is that enough? "I support the troops." Are the troops any better off when you say, "I support the troops"? Let's look at what you've done. If you voted - the odds are, if you voted for a Democrat, you have voted to cut the military budget. Over the last eight years. If you voted for a Democrat, odds are, you voted for somebody who also voted to cut our intelligence budget and gathering abilities. You've voted for a Democrat, the odds are you voted for a Democrat who has refused to increase military pay, while at the same time trying to increase the amount of money we give to entitlement programs to people who've never lifted a finger to defend this country. Nothing against them, but I think it's a little out of whack. We don't vote for a pay raise for people who are actually over there in the theater of battle, but we'll vote to increase the giveaways to people who won't lift a finger to defend the country. I think it's a little obscene.
So, if you say you're supporting the troops, ask yourself who you voted for, and ask if your support for the troops has been followed, or carried out, by the person you've been voting for. And the odds are, if you say you support the troops, and you voted for a Democrat, you have voted for somebody who probably voted to cut the military budget. And not just once, but for every year Bill Clinton was in the White House.
And along this same line, let me give you an interesting comparison. Take a 20-year-old in the military. A 20-year-old that is in Iraq today. A marine, member of the Air Force, Army, Navy, you name it. A 20-year-old is over there wearing the uniform. And let's compare that 20-year-old to a 20-year-old in the protest game in America. Compare it to the 20-year-old laying down on Fifth Avenue in New York, or tying up traffic and bridges in San Francisco. Or making a fool of him- or herself in Portland. One of those 20-year-olds faces death. Every minute of every day. The other 20-year-old fakes death. One 20-year-old is over there facing death every day, the other 20-year-old is laying down in the middle of the street doing a die-in, faking death. One of the 20-year-olds deals with a hard, cold reality each and every day. The other 20-year-old is dealing in fantasy.
One 20-year-old, the one wearing the uniform of this country, is risking his or her life every day. The other 20-year-old is risking being on TV. Maybe risking being arrested. The 20-year-old...
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:15:00. [16: Kim] [edit]
... military is giving his all. The twenty year old in the military is risking his life to protect the twenty-two or twenty-year old protestor who's faking dying. And the protestor, who is faking dying, who is dealing in a fantasy world- that twenty year old protestor is doing everything he can to thwart the twenty year old wearing the uniform.
It's repugnant- and the twenty year old who is the protestor, who's faking death, who's living in a fantasy world, who's risking being arrested or being on tv, is doing everything he or she can to thwart and sabotage the efforts of the person who's twenty year old- twenty years old, wearing the uniform. Protecting the twenty year old's right to engage in all this silliness.
Now which of these two twenty year olds would you rather have on your team? And which of these two twenty year olds makes you proud and which of these two twenty year olds embarrasses you or makes you laugh? Take a quick break and be right back, stay with us.
{promo for www.rushlimbaugh.com] [station id]
[ad: Guitar Center]
[ad: Lo-Jack, stolen vehicle recovery system]
[ad: General Steel Buildings]
[ad: Aspercreme]
[ad: Goodyear Tires]
[ad: Sherwin Williams]
[ad: Focus Factor]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:20:00. [17: Kim] [edit]
[ad: Focus Factor]
[station id]
Rush: Go ahead folks, admit it- you are addicted to this program. EIB- an airborne phenomenon spread by casual contact- and when you get it, you are cured. We're going to join the Pentagon briefing now. Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers. General Myers speaking at this time.
General Myers:....and while there will continue to be sporadic, even serious engagements in those areas, the regime does not control them. And they're, again, annotated by the highlighted color there.
The air campaign continues as well. We flew almost a thousand sorties over Iraq yesterday, mostly against Iraqi regime leadership and command and control targets, ballistic missile threats and major communication nodes.
As you'll see on the slide now, we have air supremacy over approximately 95 percent of Iraq. The area over Baghdad and just north we are not yet calling our skies. While we've been flying freely over Baghdad, we have some surface-to-air missiles system -- missile systems currently unlocated in that area.
That said, since the beginning of operations, our forces have fired more than 650 Tomahawk missiles and dropped more than 5,000 precision-guided munitions.
Overall, our plans are on track. We are degrading Iraqi forces, particularly the Republican Guard, by air, and that's fixed wing and rotary wing. And we will engage them with the full weight of our combat power at a time and place of our choosing.
As we've said before from up here, we're going to be engaged in a difficult fight ahead, but the outcome is certain. We will disarm Iraq and remove the current regime from power.
And finally today, I have three videos and one more picture slide.
The first video is of an F-16 delivering precision-guided munitions against enemy troops in western Iraq that were firing mortars at Special Operations forces.
The second video is of an AV-8B Harrier dropping a precision- guided weapon on a tank in the open, south of al-Amarah.
Rush: I love watching this stuff. (gloating)
General Myers: ...And the last video is of a Predator firing a Hellfire missile at an Iraqi communication dish outside the Ministry of Information yesterday in Baghdad. As you'll see when the tape ends and freezes, you'll see that the dish is in a parking lot actually some distance from the ministry building...
Rush: We were able to precisely hit a DISH!! Satellite dish, but a dish! We creamed it..
General Myers: ... The ministry building's there at the edge, off to the right, right lower edge.
Also in our last picture slide here, the image depicts military equipment dispersed in residential areas. The red dots indicate location of military equipment in this neighborhood, and we've highlighted just four of them in the yellow boxes. This neighborhood is located approximately 30 miles south of Baghdad, in the proximity of the Medina Republican Guard division.
This image up here is a tank on a transporter that's in the middle of a neighborhood. They have some armored personnel carriers here that are in neighborhood streets. We have handouts, so you can see these better, probably when we give you the handouts. The upper right is a tank on a residential street. In the lower right are armored vehicles in trees.
[cut off by station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather update]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:25:00. [18: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC News -- WGST 640]
[News Radio WGST 640]
[Ad: Baranco Lincoln Mercury]
[Ad: Posture D]
[Ad: Atlantic Billiards & Barstools]
[Ad: Lennox Finance and Mortgage]
Live coverage of the Defense Department Briefing:
Rumsfeld: they go beyond that, they been used, quite complimentary...
Myers: Ivan --
Rumsfeld: Go ahead.
Myers: Ivan, you know, there's that old adage that you probably know as well, that no, no plan, no matter how perfect, survives first contact with the enemy. I think some of that was shown in the way we orchestrated the opening moments of this conflict. I don't think anybody expected it to come out -- be laid out the way it was. And that wasn't exactly according to the plan, but it had the flexibility inherent. So I stand by this plan, I think General Franks put together a good plan. I'll give you a definitive statement: I think it's a brilliant plan. And there will be -- there's branches and...
Friday, March 28, 2003 part four
01:30:00. [19: Immaadd2] [edit]
and sequels to everything that might possibly happen, but the plan is sound, it's being executed and it's on track. And that's essentially what General Wallace said, too. He said we're about where we expected to be. That's one of his quotes as well. So.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: (Off mike) -- the people that you're talking to haven't seen the plan, for the most part.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Q: General Myers?
Rumsfeld: Pam?
Rush Interjecting: I wish I were answering this question.
Pam: Could you, General Myers, on that same subject, maybe narrate for us what we've seen in the last week from your perspective, particularly on the ground: with the fast punch up north, what the purpose of that was, and if it's shaken out the way you thought it would; stringing the Marines out behind to protect the lines of communication, how that's going; and then the effects-based air targeting. So if you could -- the problem I think we're all running up against is we talk to a lot of retired officers, who may be Gulf War focused or Kosovo focused, and this is very different. And can you explain to us why it's different and how it's different and how that's stacking up against what you expected to see at this point?
Myers: I guess I can try, and the secretary, please help me on this as we go through it. But in 36 hours, we're on the outskirts of Baghdad. You know, it took 38 days of air war before for the 100 hours of the ground war to take place last time. So it's a much different objective, much different way of addressing a much different problem.
Pam: And why do you want to be on the outskirts of Baghdad so quickly?
Myers: Because we could. There has been -- (laughter). Well, and I don't mean that to sound flippant. Because we could, and it was necessary to try to bring down this regime as quickly as possible. I didn't say quick, I said as quickly as possible. You've heard us both stand up here and say this is going to take some time and the tough part is yet ahead of us. Obviously, we can measure the miles between the Kuwaiti border and where the Medina division is right now and where the 1st Marine Division is. We know that's a long way. We know those lines of communication are important to our well-being and that they have to be protected. There has not been a militarily significant assault on those lines of communication since we began. We (Rush talking over Gen. Myers)...
Rush: They're slaughtering these people!
Myers: knew we were going to bypass Basra. We were not going to stop there and work the Basra problem; that was going to be for the British forces, who are in there now working with some of our SOF and some of our close air support, to work the Basra problem. The air plan has gone as we thought it would, concentrating on regime command and control targets, and other targets that allow them to communicate either propaganda or with their military. And that continues in beating down the Republican Guard divisions.
Pam: Are you able to give us a little bit more of the whys -- why you did it that way?
Myers: Well, not yet. I think some of that would give away the whole plan, and it just gets into the operational detail, I'd like to avoid.
Pam: Did the intelligence revealed at the U.N. about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, did that at all hinder the military operations now? Did that reveal sources and methods of intelligence that would have been useful in this campaign? Did it make it more difficult?
Rumsfeld: I don't think that I've seen specific pieces of information that would allow someone to come to that conclusion, although I can't say that it's not true. Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, last time we met with you, you were asked if the supply lines were stretched or vulnerable, and actually you both said no. And you also said the Fedayeen Saddam were onesies and twosies. Do you still stand by both those statements?
Myers: I just said that I think the attacks on the lines of communication with our -- inside our forces have not been militarily significant, and we're dealing with the death squad attacks on those lines of communication. There have not been regular army forces, I don't think, attacking those lines, unless it's been close to one of the major population hubs. But they're being dealt with. There have been some battles that have been bravely fought by our folks, and they have dispatched the enemy, in many cases quite quickly.
Rumsfeld: I'd have to go back and see what we actually said, but --
Q: You said onesies and twosies --
Rumsfeld: Let me respond. I'd have to go back and see what we said and what the context was. But my recollection is, we said that -- not that there were only onesies and twosies in terms of the Fedayeen Saddam. We know the numbers there; there's somewhere between 5,000 and 25,000 in the country, depending on how you characterize them. But what we said was the attacks outside of cities have been relatively small, as the general said. And I suspect that's what we actually said.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you've said that the military outcome of this is certain, and I'm sure that not too many people doubt that. But what does seem uncertain at the moment are the mood of the Iraqi people and whether or not -- despite whatever dislike they have for Saddam Hussein, whether they will welcome American and British forces as liberators...
Rush interjects: Awe, save me -- save me
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:35:00. [20: Immaadd2] [edit]
Jamie: Is it possible that you've miscalculated the desire of the Iraqi people Rush: "No"
Jamie: to be liberated by...
Rush: "they're afraid of being shot to death. The thing - Gee, what's so hard about this -- this CNN reporter"... Jamie: an outside force and that because of their patriotism or nationalism, that they'll continue to resist the Americans, even after you prevail militarily?
Rumsfeld: Jamie, don't you think it's a little premature -- the question? We'll know the answer to that. As portions of the country are liberated, we'll have people on the ground, embedded with our forces, who will have a chance to see what happens and see how they feel about it. Why do we want to guess? What we do know is that people behave fairly rationally, and if they have a gun to their head, and they're told, "Don't surrender," and they're told, "Don't assist the coalition forces coming in, or we will kill you," and then they go and kill somebody
Rush: Thank you!
Rumsfeld: and execute him in front of everybody else to make sure everyone really got the message,
Rush: Thank you!
Rumsfeld: it's not surprising that people's behavior is one of caution.
Rush: Thank you!
Rumsfeld: Now the other part of the answer to your question, it seems to me, is also self-evident. And that is, there is not "an Iraqi people." There are Iraqi individual people, and they're going to be all across the spectrum! The ones who were close to Saddam Hussein and been getting the Mercedes cars and all the good food -- they're going to be unhappy, and they're not going to prefer that we're there. The people that he's repressed and threatened to kill and whose children have been killed by him -- they'll probably have a somewhat different view. Will there be people in the middle who are ambivalent? Sure. They'll be all across the spectrum. But we've -- we don't need to try to answer those questions. We have time. We'll see what happens. (Cross talk.)
Q: Mr. Secretary, can I ask you a question about the Fedayeen Saddam? You mentioned that they were in touch with Saddam's family. Can you give us what the sense is of the Iraqi leadership? Is Saddam alive? Is Saddam's family giving orders to these irregulars?
Rumsfeld: I don't know. We do know that historically they've reported up through one of the sons. That is what I had reference to. Yes.
Q: And how about the status of Saddam? Do you know what --
Rumsfeld: Everyone has a different opinion. (Cross talk.)
Q: Mr. Secretary, I wanted to clear up what you said earlier about the Syrian -- or the NBGs coming in through Syria. Are you suggesting or is there information that this in fact state-sponsored, these are state-sponsored shipments of military goods?
Rumsfeld: I don't think I want to get into it. It's an intelligence issue. They control their border, and we're hopeful that that type of thing doesn't happen. (Cross talk.)
Q: And I had one follow-up, sir. The casualty figures currently officially released by the U.S. military show 28 dead and 40 wounded. Now the proportion of wounded and dead would be -- would seem to be historically way out of skew, because the number of wounded is usually far more than the number killed in action. Is there -- can you explain why that would be, or -- and is there any effort to either unreport or underreport casualties from the battlefield?
Rumsfeld: Oh, my goodness! Now, you know that wouldn't be the case. There's no -- no one in this government, here or on the ground, is going to underreport what's happening. That's just terrible to think that. Even to suggest it is outrageous. Most certainly not! The facts are reported. (Pounds fist.) When people are killed, they're killed and we face it. When people are wounded, we say so. When people are missing and we know they're missing, we say so. And when we're wrong and they wander back into camp, as several have recently, having been lost or with other units, we say so. Absolutely not!
Myers: The only thing I would add to that is that there can be reporting lags. And with embedded media, you know, you can hear reports, but before the families are notified of either wounded or killed in action or missing, we don't release the figures. So, there could be some lag time. But we never -- we're never going to hide those numbers.
Q: Mr. Secretary -- (inaudible) -- was there a conversation with General Wallace between any of the high command in Washington or elsewhere to tell him that what he had said was not helpful? Or do you encourage your major combatant commanders to speak their mind as they see the tactical battlefield, even though it may be slightly different than perhaps it is seen in Washington as a more strategic battlefield?
Rumsfeld: I know of no one in Washington who's said anything to General Wallace.
Q: Or General Franks?
Rumsfeld: The other question, I don't have any idea what kind of guidance they get in terms of what they say, do you?
Myers: I don't know that they get any guidance, not from you or from --
Rumsfeld: Not from us. They may get guidance from Tom Franks, or -- (inaudible) -- the land component commander or somebody, but --
Q: So is this an endorsement of plainspoken assessment of your battlefield commanders, when it may not necessarily agree with the perception that the administration has --
Rumsfeld: Look, the administration does not have a perception...
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:40:00. [21: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rumsfeld: I have a perception, General Myers has a perception, and we say what we think. There's not some coordinated perception that's being peddled. This is a -- people see what they see and say what they say.
Rush interjects: This is not a Clinton administration...
Rumsfeld: My personal view is that their tasks are to do what they've been asked by General Franks to do. And it's to fight a land war in Iraq. And to the extent that includes meeting with the media and saying things, then that's General Franks' and General Wallace's concern.
Q: So there's no problem with General Wallace as far as you're concerned?
Rumsfeld: I have not read the article. I don't know how I can be any clearer. I saw the headline, and I tend over the years to have developed a certain hesitancy about believing that headlines tell the whole story.
Q: General Myers?
Q: Mr. Secretary, you have not actually mentioned the humanitarian effort so far. Could you outline how that is going? There are reports of Iraqi civilians inside Iraq really beginning to get hungry. And what the latest is on the movement of the massive supply? And are you anxious to get that moving quicker?
Rumsfeld: We have not seen any accurate reports or intelligence that suggests there's a humanitarian crisis in Iraq. We have seen some reporters, (Rush laughing) and pictures of people hoping to get water or hoping to get food as food has been brought in. (Rush laughing) Whether that's anecdotal or representative of something is unclear. I suspect it's more anecdotal. There's no question there are people who are hungry and want water. We do know that water mains were broken and that there was some fraction of the people down south who did not have good water for a period. We also know that the Brits have got a water line going in and people are bringing truckloads of water in.
Rush: Okay, all right -- all right, I can't, I'm sorry, Rums - Rumsfeld a better person than I - I am. I can't deal anymore with these questions, folks.(thumping noise) Sorry, just can't do it. Our local affiliates if you were sticking with us, here. We're going to take our uhh, forty-two commercial break here, and will be back and resume normal programming right after this.
[Promo: Rush]
[Ad: E Harmony.com]
[Promo: Rush]
[Ad: Nissan]
[The Kimmer Promo: Mr. Sparky]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:45:00. [22: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: Mr. Sparky]
[Promo: WGST]
[Rush: intro music]
Rush: Welcome back folks, got uhh, it's great to have you with us. It's Rush Limbaugh, the all knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling, all concerned, all everything, Maha Rushie, and we go to the phones at 800-282-2882. This is Anita, in East Hartford, Connecticut, welcome Anita, glad to have you with us...
Anita: Oh, Rush Limbaugh, it's so nice to talk to you, but I have to talk to you about something important...
Rush: Okay.
Anita: I just cringed the other day, when you talked about Daschle and Clinton and the democrats and you said to them, " You need to get on board with the president, because that's the best thing you can do for your careers. You just be on board with him and then afterwards when everything's success, a success, then you can uhm, they'll have tapes of you saying you're on board with the president, and that be great, And then the next day, you said, that Clinton was making speeches saying he was on board with the president and he was supporting the troops, and supporting America, which he does not, and Daschle was doing the same thing, and it was really as they were taking you're advise.
Rush: I don't think they are because they didn't - they didn't really take my advice. Were you worried that I'm going to help them out of their -- their -- their big...
Anita: Yes.
Rush: No.
Anita: You know, you know Rush...
Rush: Yeah...
Anita: My heart just breaks, because after 9/11, (sigh) I was so angry. The democrats were saying, " Where is President Bush? Why isn't he out here?" I knew right away that he was running for his life. Then after it happened, they said, "Why didn't President Bush do something to prevent 9/11?" and all the democrats are doing the same thing. They're saying, " Why didn't he prevent it?" Now, our people are over there, and, only God knows what, President Bush is preventing with this war. You know what I mean?
Rush: Yeah, but -- uh, uh, exactly. But, let me -- let me, calm your - your nerves here on the -- on the business of the democrats taking my advice. Let me -- let me put it in the context I offered it. I - I ad -- I suggested that they do much more than they have done or will do. Do not worry about them taking my advice. They're not going to do it. They're incapable of it. What I told em to do, was to get actively on board, to join the country in this effort, and then when it ends in victory, share the credit. What they've done is set themselves up to only benefit if this goes badly. I don't understand it? The same thing with the economy. They've set themselves up where the only way they benefit if the economy stagnates or gets worse. The only way they politically benefit, the -- they're politically calculating all this. That's the first thing that they're doing wrong.
The thing's that you site, that both Clinton and Daschle did, were half hearted, and simply because war has now started, and they, you know, they realize that they had made some mistakes, but they, this -- this was, you know, Clinton uhh, if it hadn't been for me telling you about it, I don't think you'd know about it. That little effort, or that statement of Clinton, where, supports the troops and all that, that -- that little thing in - in Little Rock, hardly anybody, paid any attention, I never saw one mention of it on television. It was mostly a wire story, and Daschle, has really not gotten on board, all he's done is said that his original statement was "Ill-timed". The statement where he said "He was saddened that the president had failed, in his diplomacy." but uhh, they're -- they're not on board, they're and even if they do it for one day, they're not going to be able to maintain it.
Uhh, trust me when I tell you, "When ever I advise democrats as to what to do, I only do it because I'm confident that they won't." They're incapable of it. They hate this man so much, that they just can't bear the thought, of people thinking they agree with him or support him. It's (Thumping sound) just, it's - it's religious almost, Anita, so, you know, my -- I give them my advise, only because I know they won't do it, and it's just my way of explaining what they ought to be doing if they were, truly the people they say they are. It's my way of illustrating they are not who they say they are. That's just the way I go about it. I appreciate your concern. Thanks for the call.
We'll be right back.
[Promo: EIB Network news Radio 640 WGST]
[Ad: Maui]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:50:00. [23: Kim] [edit]
[ad: a promo for travel to Maui- Maui.com]
[ad: Posture-D]
[promo for a morning sports show]
[promo for News Radio 640 WGST]
[ad: Saturn]
[ad: Culligan Water Softeners]
[promo for the morning news show]
Rush: Well, we've got one hour left here, my friends- on Open Line Friday, and alot of stuff to try to cram into it. We will, uh- do our best to compress it- have to speak fast, that means you'll have to listen fast. We've got your phone calls, so a great hour, straight ahead. Sit tight, be patient- we'll get right to it, don't go away.
[station id]
[ad: Red Lobster]
[station id]
[news break coming up]
[traffic and weather update]
[news break]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 01:55:00. [24: Tom] [edit]
[warmongering propaganda from ABC News]
[news: smallpox vaccinations are killing some recipients]
[local news]
[stocks and weather]
[ad: Shumate Air conditioning and heating]
[promo: WGST 640AM - promoting diversity of opinion!]
Friday, March 28, 2003 part five
02:00:00. [25: Kim] [edit]
[ad: ALT Communications]
[ad: Hill Air Charter]
[promo for morning news show]
[station id]
Rush: And we are back, we've got broadcast excellence straight ahead, my good friends. It's Rush Limbaugh, this is the excellence in broadcasting network on Friday.
annoucer voiceover: Live from New York, it's Open Line Friday!
Rush: And that's your golden opportunity to, uh- define that which we talk about or speak about today. Your concern that certain things are not being discussed and this is the day for you to try to bring them up. Let me try to squeeze as much into this hour as we can- since we did join in progress, the Pentagon briefing, it always take away from program time.
But sometimes those things are entertaining, frustrating, informative or all of the above. The telephone number if you'd like to join- 800-282-2882 and if you wanna go the e-mail rate- uh, route- it's rush@eibnet.com.
The allies- uh, this is a Washington Time's story- "The allies accelerated the bombing of Baghdad last night by striking the city's telecommunications building, while the Pentagon said it has pinpointed a site outside Baghdad that may hold prohibited chemical weapons."
" The Defense Department said more than 100,000 additional ground troops are headed to the Persian Gulf to bolster an American ground presence of fewer than 100,000 now inside Iraq, poised to fight major tank battles."
This is the rolling deployment, and it is part of the original plan. This is not an emergency deployment, it's- "Oh, we've encountered trouble, we didn't know we were gonna face this kind of opposition, Myrtle (?)" This is part of the plan, rolling deployment- this is what, uh- Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld came up with.
"A special-operations source said it is not yet known whether the U.S.will prove to the world that Iraq harbors chemical weapons. Weapons analysts have not yet gained access to the site or tested materials believed to be there."
" A senior Pentagon official said last night, "We are confident chemical weapons are hidden around Iraq, we'll find them during the course of the war or afterwards."
One of the things I think that, um- we're gonna have to do, if we're going to find a large cache of these things, is get into Syria. I think alot of these things have been moved to Syria- you know, Syria obviously, in addition to being an Iraqi ally- Syria is, I mean- a literal sandbox and playground for terrorists.
And this is, uh- ......
Friday, March 28, 2003. 02:05:00. [26: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Dominique de Villepin Bashar Assad Fedayeen Tallil airfield Charles Rangel Hannity and Colmes Nebekanezer ]
.
..of the el Assad regime, now his son Bashar, runs this little Disneyland for these people, and they're, I'm sure, that we're going to have to utter some things in that country to find the full scope of what Saddam has.
I just want to go on record again, remind you, ladies and gentlemen, that, just a theory I have, just a hunch: that, everybody's been talking about the shock and awe, and this war was going to go fast, and there would be mass surrenders, and the Iraqi command and control would just realize the gig's up and surrender and quit and so forth, and that hasn't happened, so the press is, "Well, pockets of resistance; a little heavier than you thought, maybe we're not as good as you thought, we may [unintelligible] lose the war.
Yaddadaddada." I'll just bet you, by the time we do make our move on Baghdad, the Iraqi - you know these people cannot resupply themselves - they've got no way of getting ammo in there, they've got no way of getting new weapons, they've got - I mean, they're going to run out of things, and they're going to run out of people. We're picking them off.
One of the things I don't think is accurately being reported enough, you know one of these little Fedayeen Saddam groups come out, or one of these other paramilitary units, terrorist units, whatever. We're slaughtering these groups. This is the thing that's not being said. They're not announcing Iraqi casualties. And I don't know why. Believe me, they're in four and five figures, I think. And I - we're decimating these people, they can't resupply, and I bet you by the time we make the move on Baghdad, that will happen fast, everybody thinks, "Oh, that's going to be urban warfare, Myrtle, that's going to be tough. It's going to be bloody. It's going to take a long time. It's going to take weeks and months to take Baghdad."
I bet by the time we move in there, it's relatively quick. We'll just see, my friends, if I'm right.
More evidence here of terrific progress being made. With the arrival of the C-130 transport plane, Iraq's second largest airfield Thursday took on a crucial role in the US war strategy, a way to sidestep Iraqi attacks on supply lines and get the troops what they need.
Tallil airfield, mothballed since the '91 Gulf war, was captured Saturday by US soldiers, is now an important forward base on the way to Baghdad. Supplies and men can be delivered there without having to travel by ground from Kuwait. There's no reason to risk bloody encounters with Iraqi forces that are still roiling in the South.
A hastily posted sign declared that the airfield is now known as "Bush International Airport". The immediate goal was to speed all the stuff of war - fuel, ammo, water, food, reinforcements to the front, shortening supply lines that had extended as much as 200 miles into Iraq. This is just terrific progress.
France's attempt to repair relations with America and Britain over Iraq backfired yesterday when Dominique de Villepin, their foreign minister, refused to say which side he supported during a speech in London. de Villepin said he hoped for a swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of casualties. Asked by the Telegraph whether he hoped American and British forces would win the military campaign to remove Hussein, he replied angrily, "I am not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."
In his apparent reluctance to choose sides, will have done serious damage to his "charm" offensive. Senior British officials said they were stunned. Has he now changed his - has he said he supports US victory? Did I see that? Trying again and again, trying to make clear he supports here a coalition victory, after this.
This is akin to Charles Rangel, on Hannity and Colmes last night, accusing American fliers and military people of being baby killers. He says we're purposely targeting women and children. In this battle.
Charles Rangel, a ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, joining with I guess the Nebekanezer wing of the Democratic party, or the French wing, depending on who's actually running it.
We posted a picture on our website, maybe yesterday or the day before, and we put a caption underneath this picture. Our caption was, "Sure, this is about oil." This picture is reminiscent of the cover on Time magazine after the Oklahoma City bombing. It is an American soldier, carrying an injured Iraqi little boy, and there's now the story behind this picture. The war in Iraq only a week old, and one photograph has already become an icon, a young grimy soldier in full battle gear, a look of deep concern on his face, carrying a wounded Iraqi child to safety. Ought to show this picture I guess to Charles Rangel. The photograph's been on newspaper front pages, was featured prominently on Rush Limbaugh's website, Rush 24/7, world newspapers and broadcast outlets, most American TV networks have also displayed the picture, the brass, the military brass...
Friday, March 28, 2003. 02:10:00. [27: Carl] [edit]
[Note to editor: Checked: Joseph P. Dwyer Bellingham, WA Cary, NC Victor Davis Hanson ]
...mentioned it before the press during the briefing process. The soldier in the picture is Private First Class Joseph P. Dwyer, 26, still in the field. He's about 80 miles outside Baghdad, with his outfit the 3rd Infantry Division.
He was misidentified by a superior in the field, and in the original caption, and until today he had no clue that he was famous. When he found out that this picture of him with this little boy had been plastered all over the world he laughed, couldn't stop laughing, he was both amused by it and a little embarrassed.
He's a medic and he decided to join up after 9/11. That's basically the story. He's lived the past six years in North Carolina, where his parents moved after his father retired as a New York Transit Policeman. He grew up in Mount Sinai on New York's Long Island; his three older brothers are New York City policemen. One brother lost a partner when the Trade Center towers collapsed. I mean, everyone lost someone, a lot of good people. Dwyer was sure that he had lost someone too, he believed that his brother had been killed; thought he was gone. When he talked to him the night of September 11th, he learned his brother was safe, and that's when he said, "I knew I had to do something." Two days later, Dwyer enlisted in the Army to become a medic. "It was just what I could do at the time." That's what he was doing, so it was 9/11 proposed.
This is - you know this picture - the old cliche, you know, a picture is worth a thousand words, and this one is worth twice that.
Speaking - I don't have the picture here; I didn't print it out - but there's another picture making the rounds and it is a picture of thirty attorneys in Bellingham, WA, and other protesters marching through downtown Bellingham Wednesday, because they believe the war in Iraq is illegal. Attorneys joining the protest march no doubt preparing to sue somebody on the basis that the war is illegal.
From email - I have a couple of little emails that I procured last night -
Hello, Rush, my name is Angela Hawkins. I live in Cary, NC. I'm a stay at home mom. I listen to you while I'm in the car running errands. My four-year-old son is generally with me. Today after I picked him up from his play school, he said, "Mommy, I know who one of the presidents was." I said oh really, who? He said George Washington. I told him he was correct. I then asked him if he knew who the current president was, assuming he would say George Bush, because he had gone with me to vote last time and every time we passed a polling place we'd speak about voting for George W. Bush. But when he answered my questions, he said very matter-of-factly, without any hesitation, almost in a sort of "you mean you don't know?" type of tone, that Rush Limbaugh is the president. I almost lost control of the car, Rush. I said Who? He said - my own four-year-old son said Rush Limbaugh is the president. I then reminded him George Bush was, and how we had gone on to vote and he said, oh, that's right, he was somewhat disappointed that he was not correct. I thought this might give you a laugh.
They think I'm president out there! In the kindergarten community. As it were.
HR, your son thinks I'm president, too. That's the power of the media, ladies and gentlemen.
I've got to take a break. When we come back, we'll get to some phone calls. I said earlier I have this great piece from Victor Davis Hanson today, a noted historian from National Review online, headline "History or Hysteria", and it is about his utter total frustration following this war on TV. And he tries to put the truth in perspective.
We've also got some of the questions from the White House briefing today, you know I'm threatening every day to either answer the questions from the White House briefing or the CENCOM briefing, as we would all love to hear them answered, if I have time I'll squeeze some of those in. Let's take a break; we'll come back and move on, right after this. Don't go away.
[ad: EIB Network]
[ad: station id]
[ad: General Steel Corp. 888-98-STEEL]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 02:15:00. [28: Immaadd2] [edit]
[Ad: The General]
[Ad: Guitar Center]
[Ad: Zmax]
[Promo: Rush]
[Ad: Pike Family Nursery]
[Ad: Nissan]
[News Radio 640 WGST]
Rush: You know, some of the most uhh, irresponsible, painted reporting, and - and not just in this war, (several word unintelligible) but in general comes from Reuters, and here is an example; "A Baghdad office of Iraq's ruling Baath party was hit by an air strike today killing eight people, including several civilians, witnesses said" Come on, Reuters, don't fall for - define civilians for us here. You know who these people are. They're probably military people dressed as civilians. We've heard this. What's so hard about admitting that this is the case? Reuter's correspondent, Nadeem Ladky, quoted residents as saying "The blast, in Baghdad's Monsieur district, occurred around noon, demolishing the parties neighborhood office, and several nearby houses. Basically we turned the block into rubble," Ladky said. Local residents said that they pulled eight bodies from the wreckage including, Baath party militia members and several citizens.
Now as you know one of the uhh, uhh democratic party's "rising stars" has been uhh, NATO's General Westly Clark. Uhh, many democrats after his appearance on Meet the Press, a couple weeks ago, maybe it was a month ago, now, began salivating, "Hey, he's our Colin Powell" they said, of General Clark, and General Clark was hired by CNN. He is one of their, retired Genera, "experts" offering on the spot commentary twenty- four sev-.
You know what, can I give you another analogy. I been big on analogies today. You know what this war coverage -- and I'm not complaining about it; this is just trying to help you put it into perspective. You know what, if -- if I can do an analogy between this war and football, and this is not saying football is war, don't misunderstand, but the way this war is being covered with the "imbeds", if you wa...
Friday, March 28, 2003. 02:20:00. [29: Immaadd2] [edit]
Rush: you cover football the same way. You'd have a journalist, out there wearing a uniform, not participating in the play, but actually lining up, with the offence and the defense, and then after every play, giving a report. The winning team might end up winning the game 28 to14, but it might have come back from 14 to nothing to do so. And in the course of reporting the game, the team that actually end up winning, might have been reported as getting its ass beat. A "bad day" three yard lost - A "bad day" three yard lost. "Ohh, pass interception, we just lost a mortar shell, and it has been intercepted by the bad guys." I mean that's -- that's the way this war's being reported.
That's why you've got to keep this in perspective. I mean practically every mortar fire, or bomb launch or what er - is being reported, it's the same thing as every play, or maybe every series, in a football game being reported. And of course, it doesn't give you any indication what the final, ultimate outcome is going to be. And of course in football, sometimes you get," Oh, uh, da, da, Coach, did you know this game was going to take this long to play?" "Were - were you prepared? Uhh, was it part of your plan? Did you expect this kind of resistance from the defense? Did you really think that team is gonna come in here and uhh, just lay down for you like they thought, or did ya expect this kind of resistance?" And of course, you know, most football games take about three hours, but this baby went three forty --five. " Were you prepared for that?" I mean that's the kind of, thing that we're getting, here.
Anyway, about Westly Clark, as his uhh, role of commentator on CNN has unfolded, this the story from The Spectator, The London Spectator, " So much for the democrats hope that, retired General Westly Clark was going to be their Colin Powell, he's more Benedict Arnold than anything else if you believe the mail we've been getting here." says the Democratic National Committee staffer, who only a month ago was touting Westly Clark, as his parties answer to the military star power aligned with the republicans. Any cache` Clark might have had is pretty much... "Ohh, Wow look at what they say!" " He's pretty much "Pee'd away", here on TV." Said the staffer from the Democratic National Committee. (Tapping sound)
And here's more, " Since the outbreak of, "Operation Iraqi Freedom", Westly Clark has been on CNN, "bemoaning" the pentagon and General Tommy Franks strategy, in the opening days of taking down Saddam, and while several other senior retired military men have critical comments about the ongoing fighting, such as Barry McCaffery, another former Clinton Era official, Clark has far been the most vocal critic, of this administration." "It just looks really bad, that he's knocking the troops, and the way we're executing this war," said the staffers at the Democratic National Committee. He's taking hits everywhere, on TV, in the newspapers, talk radio. People are furious at Westly Clark. We can't fund-raise off performances. (Laughing) like this. (Laughing). We can't fund-raise off performances like this. "The only Presidential candidate that would probably want to be seen with him right now is Howard Dean." Says the spokesman or women or whoever from the Democratic National Committee. "Prior to Westly Clark, "tanking" on CNN, the DNC had him pegged for political stardom. He visited New Hampshire, he had hinted that he was interested in perhaps, running for president as a democrat, but now the DMC isn't so sure, uhh, what they can do with him. Because he's so negative about the effort that we are conducting over seas. That he's not ingratiating himself with the American people." I'm sure he's given his marching orders from Bill Clinton, my friends
[Ad: D. Geller & Sons]
[WGST 640 News]
Friday, March 28, 2003. 02:25:00. [30: Immaadd2] [edit]
[ABC News WGST 640]
[Local news News Radio 640]
[Ad: Baranco Lincoln Mercury]
[Ad: Mountain Harbor]
[Ad: Brunswick -- Atlantic Billiards & Barstools]
[640 WGST]
[Intro music for Rush Limbaugh show]
Rush: Well, ZZ Top, working on "Brand New Bumps" for the EIB Network. We got an email from Billy Gibbons the other day that says, " they are soon to be, on their way to us after we tell them exactly what we need."
Folks uhh, the President is uhh, said, to soon...
| 
