RUSH: Robert in Monument, Colorado. It’s nice to have you on the EIB Network, sir, hello.
CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call.
RUSH: You bet, sir.
CALLER: You make my day every day.
RUSH: I appreciate that, and I know.
CALLER: Listen, I want to talk about a little something different. I think that it’s time that we call for Reid’s resignation.
RUSH: I did that.
CALLER: I was just astonished last week, and then no one’s come out and said anything about this —
RUSH: I did that.
CALLER: — to hammer this guy.
RUSH: I did. We’re going to be talking about this in the next hour because there are all kinds of Democrats trying to circle the wagons now. Dingy Harry went out there and said the war is not winnable, and you got Chuck Schumer over the weekend saying, ‘Ah, yes, we can win it.’ They’re trying to protect Dingy Harry. But I called for his resignation last week. In the midst of all these calls for Gonzales to quit and all these other people, here is a man undermining the US military, de-motivating, doing the opposite of inspiring them, proclaiming his own country and his own military defeated. You have General Petraeus coming into town this week, into Washington, the architect of the surge, and he’s willing to appear before Congress. Guess what? Pelosi can’t fit him in the House agenda! The Democrats don’t want to talk to General Petraeus. They all confirmed him. He was confirmed in the Senate close to unanimously, I believe, but they don’t want to talk to him. ‘Benedict Arnold Harry Reid’ is what I called him last week, and if anybody out there in public life today in government needs to be resigning — in shame and in disgrace — it is Harry Reid.
RUSH: Chuck Schumer was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace yesterday and said you guys misunderstood Harry Reid. Harry Reid thinks we can win, and Wallace said, ‘Senator Schumer, do you agree that the war in Iraq is lost, and is that the consensus of Senate Democrats?’
SCHUMER: Okay, well, what Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost. In other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shi’ites and Sunnis, we are not going to solve that problem. The war is not lost, and Harry Reid believes this — we Democrats believe it —
RUSH: Oh, come on.
SCHUMER: — if we change our mission and focus it more narrowly on counterterrorism, going after an Al-Qaeda camp that might arise in Iraq. That would take many fewer troops out of harm’s way. That’s what we’re pushing the president to do.
RUSH: That is absolute BS! These guys want the troops to come home. This is an emergency circling of the wagons to try to convince the American people that Dingy Harry, ‘Benedict Arnold’ Reid didn’t say what he said when we all heard him say it. ‘It’s lost. The president’s not listening to us. We can’t win.’ They’re not talking about a different kind of war. They’re talking about no war! There’s not a different-kind-of-war movement. It’s the anti-war movement. The anti-war movement is headquartered in the Democrat Party. So Wallace says, ‘Senator Reid said this, ‘We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war,’ and you said, ‘You look at the polling numbers of Republican senators, the war in Iraq’s a lead weight attached to their ankles.’ Senator, is it appropriate to talk about political advantages? Is it appropriate to talk about polling numbers when you’re discussing a war?’
SCHUMER: There is nothing wrong when the American people signaled on November 6th that they wanted a change in course, to work hard for that course. Will those who continue to follow the president suffer political consequences? Of course. That’s as plain as the nose on your face.
RUSH: Well, not if we win, not if the surge is successful. They don’t think it’s possible! In fact, Schumer as much as said what Harry Reid said: We can’t win this. He’s out there saying they both think we can. It’s classic, folks, literally classic. Here’s the president. This is the president at his Oval Office meeting today with General Petraeus, and an Associated Press info babe said, ‘Mr. President, Senator Reid says you’re ‘in denial’ about Iraq and that Congress is going to pass a bill that includes a fair and reasonable timetable for withdrawal, could you compromise? Could you accept anything that looks like that at all?’
THE PRESIDENT: Politicians in Washington shouldn’t be telling generals how to do their job, and I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, ‘Just wait ’em out.’ It would say to the Iraqis, ‘Don’t do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives,’ and it would be discouraging for our troops, and therefore I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal, and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job.
RUSH: He’s not backing down. The question was from the info babe at AP, ‘Will you compromise? Can’t you find a way to compromise?’ How do you compromise between victory and defeat? As I so eloquently and presciently asked last week, ‘How do you compromise between victory and defeat?’ Now, we also heard in Chris Wallace’s question, ‘Senator Schumer, do you agree the war in Iraq is lost? Is that the consensus of Senate Democrats?’ We had a call about a half hour ago from John in St. Louis who said that there can be consensus in science. Of course scientists, many of them, as you know, when you’re talking about a consensus among scientists about something, you’re talking about theory — and global warming right now is this theory (It’s not even that. It’s a religious movement) and its defenders require the fundamental element that all religions require in order to believe it, and that’s faith. They just call their faith ‘consensus.’ What if I were to say to all of you leftists, ‘Hey, look, there’s a consensus around the world among Catholics, Christians, Protestants, that you’re going to go to hell if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ.’ What would their reaction be?
‘What do you mean consensus?’
‘Yeah, most theologians agree that this is true, most practicing Catholics, Christians, and Protestants believe, if you don’t believe in Jesus Christ, you go to hell.’
How would you like it if I told you, ‘You’ve got to start changing your life and live the life of a good Christian,’ because a consensus of people think it? What if I told you that? Your reaction would be outrage. You wouldn’t put up with it. What if I said to you that George W. Bush had a landslide victory in 2004.
‘What do you mean, landslide?’
Well, a consensus of voters. If consensus makes it all true, if they had a consensus it means everybody finally agrees with him. If 51% in an election is landslide, is a consensus, why then you Democrats have nothing to disagree with? We’ve all agreed: Bush should be president. You see how silly this is? This is why I say a consensus of the American people have made me the most accurate and correct media figure of today. I have the largest audience of them. I have more stations. I’ve got more listeners. They all agree with me. What I say is right! You have to accept it or you’re a Rush denier. It’s the same thing in global warming. It’s no different. It’s just you change the nature of the sin. You change what the Garden of Eden is. You change where hell is. You change any number of things, what you have to have faith in. It’s a religion, right down the line.
RUSH: Pana, Illinois. Sharon, thank you for calling. Welcome to the EIB Network.
CALLER: Yes, Rush. I just wondered, as a mother of a son who’s in Iraq, I wondered where the outcry of the public was when Harry Reid said what he did and yet they had such an outpouring of love and everything for the boys and girls who were killed at the college — and where are the people? Why aren’t they outraged and doing something?
RUSH: About Dingy Harry?
RUSH: Well, I don’t think a whole lot was made of it in the Drive-By Media, but I also think that people that would do something about it, what are they going to do? People like us don’t go protest.
CALLER: Well, what about calling our representatives and really putting forth an effort to do something?
RUSH: Well, they’re not going to do anything about it. You’re talking about Republicans, right? Ha-ha-ha-ha.
CALLER: Well, I’m talking about — (Laughing.) Right. That’s for sure!
CALLER: I know my son is there, and to hear something like this is so degrading to our military.
RUSH: Oh, I can imagine. When I heard it last week, what did your son think? How do you think it affects them all, I mean, to hear the Senate majority leader tell them they can’t win?
CALLER: Well, I can’t imagine. I can’t imagine them laying their lives down for people like that — and then, you know, here they are. They’re putting their lives on the line for these very people.
RUSH: Well, that’s right, because they’re putting their lives on the line for everybody. It’s called freedom.
RUSH: We have the freedom to be stupid and silly. In this case, it wasn’t… You know, you put this back in the Civil War, this is treason. You get a president like Abraham Lincoln dealing with this in a different time in this country.
CALLER: Maybe we better go back to that. We had Pelosi doing what she did, and this guy doing this, it’s just so outrageous.
RUSH: I want you to take comfort in one thing, and that is I can’t tell you how many e-mails I’ve got from people who are livid about this. You are not alone. Now, the media is not going to go out and interview people and ask them what they think of this — and if they do, it will be people that agree with Harry Reid. The media is as agenda-driven as any other political group is. They live this delusion that they’re above the fray. They’re above all of this, and they’re simply the guarantors of the Constitution and all this sort of stuff. They’ve chosen sides. It’s obvious from the vast majority of them, the Drive-Bys, they’re moving forward a specific agenda, and that is an agenda to advance Democrats, pure and simple. All of a sudden in the news today there’s a story: ‘Is illegal immigration the sleeping giant issue of 2008?’ What do you mean ‘sleeping giant issue’? People like me have been warning about this for two years, but there’s a story in a Washington newspaper today about how, ‘Ah, may present problems for Democrats.’ Oh! If it’s going to present problems for Democrats, the Drive-Bys have to get on it and fix it — and that’s how this all works.
RUSH: Here’s Patrick in Howell, Michigan. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.
CALLER: Thank you, sir. It’s an honor and a privilege.
RUSH: Thank you, sir.
CALLER: I’m calling with regards to Harry Reid’s remark. I’m wondering if there’s a way to look at it as a good strategy, as a chess move of sorts. The longer that Reid and Pelosi and the liberals make it appear to the terrorists that they’re dividing us, the longer that they’re going to wait us out, which means the longer that we’re there can maintain a presence, then the surge can begin to work. It’s a great gambit, to use the chess term.
RUSH: I’m not sure I understand. ‘The longer that Reid and Pelosi and liberals make it appear to the terrorists that they are dividing us, the longer they’re going to wait us out. That’s what’ll happen’? The terrorists are going to wait us out for what?
CALLER: Well, I think that they believe they’re wearing down our resolve. I think they’re probably looking, watching the news and they’re thinking, ‘We’re winning.’ I think the terrorists —
RUSH: I’m sure they think they’re winning, but they’re waiting for 2008, for a Democrat president. That’s what they’re waiting for. You know, I appreciate the thinking. I appreciate the theory. I love thinking people calling this program. But I’ve got to step in here. Patrick, hear me on this. Hear me on this. These are liberals you are talking about, Harry Reid and all these Democrats, Pelosi. They don’t want to win, Patrick! You realize if they are credited with the victory, they’re going to be dropped by their base. Folks, this is distressing to me. Patrick, how long you been listening to this program?
CALLER: I’ve been listening since 1993.
RUSH: Oh, this is… (banging desk).
CALLER: I’m not saying the liberals thought of this themselves. I’m thinking it’s the White House allowing them to prolong this idiocy. I would not give liberals this much credit for any kind of thought. I think that perhaps the GOP, or I don’t even go so far as to say —
RUSH: No, don’t say GOP.
CALLER: — them, but any at the White House.
RUSH: No, no, no. Yeah, say White House. ‘If the White House…’ For your theory, it could not be party wide, GOP-wide. No, no, no.
CALLER: No. No, I’m not saying that, either.
RUSH: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
CALLER: Just the White House, just Bush, maybe, just Rumsfeld, saying, ‘Let them think, let the terrorists wait us out, because we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.’ They know, if they attack us, we’re going to go right back to that day on 9/12 —
RUSH: They don’t —
CALLER: — when the country was unified, and just think if they did.
RUSH: They don’t —
CALLER: If a bomb went off in New York —
RUSH: They don’t know that! They don’t think that! Especially if a Democrat’s in the White House, there’s no way they’re going to think that. I don’t think Bush has this much guile. Look, as I say, I appreciate the thought. They want money. They want to take it to him. This is not about letting the Democrats hang themselves at the expense of the military and all that. The military is being denied funds here. That’s not Bush.
RUSH: Quickly, Janelle in southwest Washington State, nice to have with us. You have 30 seconds, but I wanted to get to you.
CALLER: Thanks, Rush. It’s nice to talk to you today. I wanted to bring up the fact that I think so many Americans are so uninformed, and there’s a wonderful little book — or very interesting, not wonderful, but interesting — ‘Messages to the World,’ Osama bin Laden, and if I had my way about it I would require every American to read this to thoroughly understand why we’re in this fight.
RUSH: That’s a great suggestion. My only fear is that out of every 100 Americans that we were able to get the book to, at least 45 of them would think that George Bush and Karl Rove wrote it, even though the byline says ‘bin Laden.’