Kerry's Lame Response To Criticism Symbolizes Democratic Party's Problem (New Clymer Alert)

RUSH: Ask not what the Democrats have to do to win the red states; ask what the Democrats have to do to hold the blue states -- because Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry are creating Reagan Democrats by the gazillions. Joe Lieberman recognizes it, and the Washington Post is beginning to recognize it. A headline today: "Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Anti-War Remarks." Folks, it's gotten so bad that that TV show Commander-in-Chief is not even in the top 20 anymore. The ratings are plummeting there. That's that show where Geena Davis is the first female president, obviously portraying the role of Hillary as president, but the numbers are plummeting. The show is not even in the top 20, according to the latest Nielsons. Greetings, great to be with you, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies. The telephone number if you want to be on the program today is 800-282-2882, and the e-mail address is Rush@eibnet.com. All right, when your basic argument is that Bush lied about the war, the first thing that you do is create a political stunt to distract the public and embarrass your enemies.

Dingy Harry was the first to do this. Saddam Hussein was the second to do this. Dingy Harry shut down the Senate as a petulant little teenager might if he wasn't chosen to be on the first team in the afternoon softball game. Saddam Hussein shut down his trial today saying he's not going to dignify this trial and this courtroom with his appearance. So Saddam continues to take lessons from the Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, on how to conduct his trial. The House Democrat caucus today was gathering at nine o'clock this morning for a closed-door debate about its positions on Iraq. They are imploding! I keep telling you this. I know you have little faith, some of you. Some of you remain strong and confident, but the Democrats? Any time you have to retreat to behind closed doors to come up with your positions, you are in heap big doo-doo. I wouldn't have to go behind closed doors at all and tell anybody what I thought or to get into a discussion with anybody else about what I thought, not on such a simple core value as this. The Democratic leadership, including Representative Bob Menendez from New Jersey will meet the press or did meet the press at ten o'clock but I didn't see much about it.

Jack Murtha will be responsible for responding to the president's speech on behalf of House Democrats. That will happen at 1:30 today, and Senate Democrats will rely upon Senator Jack Reed, Democrat from Rhode Island -- without John Kerry this time for their rebuttal to the president's speech this morning at the Council on Foreign Relations. Senator Reed is speaking at noon but nobody is carrying it. Nobody is carrying what he says. I mean, the media knows the Democrats are simply embarrassing themselves now and they're trying to figure it out. They peaked too soon. Everything they just had it in their grasp -- they just knew it! -- and now the White House is fighting back, the White House is making speeches. When you go to the Council on Foreign Relations, if you're a Republican president, and you go to the Council on Foreign Relations to make a speech, you may as well be going to the headquarters of the mainstream media and the Democrat National Committee, because that's who's the membership for the most part. It's a left-wing think tank, is basically what it is. But Bush went into the belly of the beast. He didn't get a whole lot of applause. He got a smattering now and then but nevertheless fired right back at them, and also responded to Howard Dean -- not by name.

Now, what has happened here is Hillary's triangulation is not working. The Democrats' strategy is undermining their 2008 putative nominee, which is Hillary, because the likes of Harry Reid and Kerry and Pelosi and Murtha have lurched so far to the left that they've left Hillary behind and now she's having to fend off the kooks everywhere she goes because all these other people are placating the kooks. They're satisfying the kooks, but Hillary is not saying the right things to satisfy the kooks so the kooks are showing up to harass her. Let's go to the audiotape, because something happened yesterday afternoon around five o'clock that we just enjoyed immensely here and had some laughs over. CNN, The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer interviewing RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, and Wolf said, "What is your response to what John Kerry is saying?" In fact, let's go. Let's play #2 first because that's what this is all bouncing off of. We started all this ourselves on this program on Monday. Nobody commented on this. Kerry was on Slay the Nation on Sunday. Nobody watches that show. He made this outrageous statement. Bob Schieffer just sat there, absorbing it all. He let it all go by. I was outraged. We played this sound bite a number of times on Monday, had some comments, and after playing this bite, Mehlman was asked what he thought of it. This is what Kerry said.

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: [T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.

RUSH: "Terrorizing" women and children. We've got a picture we're going to put up on the website today of such an act. An American soldier "terrorizing" an Iraqi child, is actually holding the child and feeding it milk from a bottle. This is what our troops are doing. This is characterized as "terrorizing" by Senator Kerry. So Wolf Blitzer said to Ken Mehlman, "What's your response to this?"

MEHLMAN: John Kerry was on Face the Nation this past weekend and he talked about American troops terrorizing Iraqi people, going into Iraqis' homes. I thought that was an incredibly irresponsible comment. I thought that Nancy Pelosi's echoing the retreat and defeat strategy that was laid out earlier was also wrong. I think Democrats all around the country need to stand up and be counted.

RUSH: And then in the midst of all this, Wolf Blitzer, after this interview, reported this.

BLITZER: Getting a quick reaction to my interview only within the past few minutes where the chairman of the Republican Party Ken Mehlman who took a strong swipe at John Kerry for comments he made on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer this Past Sunday. David Wade, a spokesman for John Kerry, just sent us over a statement saying: "Ken Mehlman's filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft dodging, doughnut-eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common, neither of them know anything about how to make American troops safe. John Kerry will continue to speak out about how to succeed in Iraq and protect brave American troops."

RUSH: Senator Kerry, let me just tell you right now: I don't eat doughnuts. I eat Boston cream puffs. Most of the time I spit 'em out. They taste too much like ketchup to me. (Laughing.) Folks, he can't even respond. He can't even defend his own words. This is typical of where the Democrats are. The Democrats can't defend their positions. Kerry is just an arrogant elitist. He basically expects to get away with saying whatever he says. Whatever he says, we're supposed to sit down and marvel at the brilliance, at how far ahead of the curve John Kerry is. He shouldn't be made to defend his words. Why, who do we think we are? We're nothing but a bunch of common plebes, and for us to dare question John Kerry, why, who the hell do we think we are? This Boston Brahman stands high above everyone else in his own mind alone, and what's happened here, this comment as basically taken him out of the running for the '08 nomination. If he ever was in it if the first place, this nomination is now not his at all.

Hillary probably loves me for doing this because it's focused attention on it, because nobody else was talking about this until we brought it up here on this program on Monday. Furthermore, it's Christmastime, and, folks, I'm a person who gets into the holiday season. Good cheer for everybody. I want to spread the good vibes. I love this time of year, and of course we all know that giving is the real essence of this Christmas season. So I have been thinking about a gift that I might assemble and give to various people called the John Kerry swift boat gift basket. Put some Boston cream puffs in there, a little miniature bottle of ketchup, like you get when you go to a restaurant, they have little ketchup bottles on the table. Make sure it's Heinz ketchup, put some exploding rice pudding in there, some "surrender fries," a do-it-yourself Botox kit, and 40 types of hair spray. Even throw in some euros. Gget ten dollars' worth of euros just to make people who get the John Kerry swift boat gift basket feel at home so they can use the currency of his favorite part of the world.

RUSH: I want to go back to this Wolf Blitzer bit again, this Kerry statement from David Wade, and I want you to stop and think about it now. This is a guy who ran for president last year, this is a guy who wanted to be president of the United States, and this is how he deals with critics. What's he going to do to terrorists? What's he going to say to them? Is this what they teach you when you go to the debate society at Yale, or Harvard, or wherever it was he went? "Don't defend what you say; don't explain what you said; don't tell anybody how your critics are wrong. Just go out and make some little swipe." This is sixth-grade level. Doughnut-eating draft dodger? I mean, this is an honor to be called a doughnut-eating draft dodger. I'm moving up with these people. I used to be right wing extremist.

BLITZER: Getting a quick reaction to my interview only in the past few minutes with the chairman of the Republican Party, Ken Mehlman, who took a strong swipe at John Kerry for comments he made on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer this past Sunday. David Wade, a spokesman for John Kerry just sent us over a statement saying, "Ken Mehlman's filthy and shameful lie about a decorated combat veteran is disgraceful. Political hack Ken Mehlman and draft dodging doughnut eating Rush Limbaugh have something in common."

RUSH: (Laughing.) Draft dodging, doughnut-eating Rush Limbaugh. You notice here he says "decorated combat veteran." Throw that back in there, "decorated combat veteran." He's learned nothing from what happened to him last year. He's just one of these arrogant, condescending elitists who thinks that he's allowed to say whatever he wants to say but nobody has the right to challenge him, and anybody who does, "Why, who do they think they are? I don't have to dignify these people with a response! I'll just use what they taught me at Yale: doughnut-eating draft dodger!" At any rate, I think this symbolizes the problem that the Democrats have -- and if you watched any cable TV last night, you began to see it. You began to see the media and all of those hand clapping and cheering on they've been doing, started backtracking, started getting a little nervous about things because this isn't playing the way they had hoped it was going to play. From the Patrick Fitzgerald indictment on, this just has not gone the way they thought it would. Gas prices have not stayed up. All of these things that they had counted on are fizzling right before their very eyes, and they can't help but write about it today in the Washington Post.

Jim VandeHei and Shalaigh Murray: "Democrats Fear Backlash at Polls for Anti-War Remarks." So the Democrats are withdrawing. Now, this is not what John Murtha had in mind, but they are withdrawing. They're retreating from their position. They had this closed door meeting this morning to figure out, "Gee, what do we believe?" which is really not a meeting about what do we believe. It's a meeting about: All right, what do we do now? What do we say now? "Strong antiwar comments in recent days by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean have opened anew a party rift over Iraq, with some lawmakers warning that the leaders' rhetorical blasts could harm efforts to win control of Congress next year." Now, it's important for you leftist kooks to hear this, because this is what you want to hear. In fact, I had some people send me some e-mails last night. "Rush, you gotta go to this site and this site and this site because these kooks love Kerry's fire back at you. They think this is a sign that Kerry is finally getting tough; this is the kind of talk we need. We don't need any yellow-bellied linguini-spined Democrats. We need people to take it to them."

Draft dodging, doughnut-eater got them excited? That exemplifies the problem. They have no plan. They have no idea. Folks, they can't go anywhere with this. The idea that they have for victory is simply criticism of the opposition in a puerile and infantile way. They have no positive agenda to advance. They have nothing that they believe in that they advance, or that they're willing to advance, and the idea that Kerry's response to Mehlman and me is something to get them all fired up is exactly what's going to take them down the tubes because they're going to feel the pressure more and more to respond to these people. It's just like I pointed out earlier, the Democrat strategy is undermining their putative nominee, which is Hillary, because you've got Reed and Pelosi and Kerry and Murtha who have gone off the edge of the earth on the left-hand side of it, and left Hillary exposed and she's behind. Now she's the one having to fend off the kooks. She's the one being protested wherever she goes. "Several Democrats joined President Bush yesterday in rebuking Howard Dean's declaration to WOAI radio," EIB affiliate San Antonio, that, quote, "the idea we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong.'"

This is why Democrats cannot be trusted with the national security of this country. What do you mean we can't win? We're the United States of America! We don't lose, unless we sabotage ourselves. Nobody can beat us. Nobody ever has beat us. We do not lose! But here's Howard Dean and half the Democratic Party and all of the fringe base wanting us to lose. They're invested in defeat -- for who knows what cockamamie reasons. They either think we're guilty; we're evil; we deserve it; we are terrorizing. We are scaring people around the world with our might. We deserve to be cut down. We deserve to be brought down to size. We deserve to be shown how the other people in the world feel when we're around. We deserve it! We deserve it! We deserve it! They have no concept of American exceptionalism. They don't believe in the greatness of this country. They don't believe in the potential. They don't believe in the great history. They believe in nothing that's great about this country. They only see the negatives because these people are essentially self-loathing. They don't like themselves. They are unhappy; they are miserable, and because they live in the most prosperous country in the world and are, more than anything, abject failures, rather than blame themselves, they blame everybody else. They blame prosperity and those who have achieved it. They blame power.

They blame strength because they have none. So it's a self-loathing bunch that has taken over the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The whole concept of American exceptionalism is something that they, A: If consider, reject out of hand but more than likely it probably doesn't even strike them that there's anything exceptional about this country because they're so obsessed with the negatives. We pollute, we destroy, we kill, we maim. All of these things that make them up; they are never happy. They are never joyful. They never smile. They don't want to be joyful. They feel guilty if they feel joy. They feel guilty if they mile. They feel guilty if they're happy. They are perpetually miserable and I cannot imagine what it's like to wake up and be them each and every day. But now they have infected the top ranks of the elected Democratic Party in Washington to the point now that the kooks of these attitudes I just described are forcing this kind of behavior and this kind of language out of the leaders, and this has caused an emergency meeting in Washington to take place. The president's out there, today, quoting Joe Lieberman. The Democrats are going to hate that. They don't understand why Lieberman would do this, because they can't conceive of doing the right thing.

The right thing to them is destroying Bush and getting out of Iraq and bringing the troops home, and weakening this country's future. That's "the right thing." The right thing is always oriented around them. Everything's about them. There's so much time on their hands. They have all this time to think about their own feelings and how miserable they are and how unhappy they are and what it would take to make them happy. They're incapable of having lives that are fulfilling and worthwhile, simply by virtue of the choices they make. No success would make them happy. Well, I say that prematurely. They haven't had any, so how would they know? But all these Democrats joining with President Bush yesterday -- and you can see this causing some nervous twitches last night on cable TV, all these Democrats rebuking Howard Dean's declaration that we can't win. "The critics said that comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party's weak on military matters and divert attention from the president's growing political problems on the war and other issues." Yes, and the right word is "reinforce." "The critics said the comment could reinforce popular perceptions that the party's weak," because that is the perception. It's an accurate perception. The Democrats have made it so, and comments like Dean's just remind everybody. "Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer of Maryland, second ranking House Democrat leader, have told colleagues Pelosi's recent endorsement of a speedy withdrawal could backfire on the party, and same alarm was sounded by Obama Babama, senator from Illinois, yesterday in the Chicago Tribune." All is not well in paradise, folks.

CALLER: How you doing, Rush? Yeah, what you're doing is misrepresenting what he said. He did not say our soldiers were terrorists. He said they were "terrorizing," and there's a difference between the two. Terrorizing is, like, kicking doors down, dragging parents out in front of the kids. That's terrorizing the kids. Terrorists blow people up, kill people, not terrorize them.

RUSH: I've heard Democrats accuse us of doing that, too, innocent women and children and so forth. Everybody knows what he meant when he said that. You don't use that word indiscriminately in the war on terror, Robert.

RUSH: You don't do that. When you run around and accuse American troops of "terrorizing" women and children, it has a specific meaning. If you put it all in context with everything the Democrats have been saying about the military, about our troops -- if you put it in context with Kerry back in 1971, when he came back and accused Vietnam veterans of atrocities he never saw, he never witnessed, and goes in front of the Senate in 1971 -- we know who the guy is. We know who he is, and we know what comes out of his mouth and what it means even before he does.

CALLER: Yeah. I agree with you that he shouldn't be using those words because then you have people like you who just run with those words and turn it around.

RUSH: See, this is where you guys are missing the point. I love the fact you're focused on me. It is a great career achievement that I get under your skin and Kerry's skin and Hillary and Bill's and all the rest of them. But here you are saying he shouldn't use the word terrorizing Iraqi women and kids because I am going to react to it. How about because it's wrong? How about because it is wrong and it's demoralizing and it's a flat out lie? How about that being the reason he shouldn't say it, instead of what his critics are going to say? You are just giving me all kinds of credit. "Oh, no! You're giving Limbaugh all this ammo." Why am I having ammo? I can't make chicken salad out of chicken bleep. It's true! That's why it's bad ammo for me. He stepped in it, and it's made to order for me to hit a grand slam with for every day from now until the 2008 presidential primaries when he's thrown out of them, and he's going to say more things like this because he's an arrogant elitist snob who thinks that everything he says is brilliant and nuanced and above reproach and criticism. Robert, I know these guys. But your comment just now that he shouldn't have said it because it gives people like me ammo is just a perfect little encapsulation of why you guys are perceived the way you are.

You don't have a morality about this war. You don't have the ability to choose sides and see that your own country is the good guys. You look at this comment, "Oh, damn! He said what I wanted to hear, but I wish he wouldn't have said it that way because now he's given Limbaugh ammo." Well, if I've got ammo, it must mean I can hit it out of the park. It must mean I can destroy what he said, and I thank you for your honesty and candor in this. Until you guys shape up and understand which side of this battle you're on, you're going to continue to take yourself closer and closer and closer to the edge. You know, you're going to go to the beach. You think you're at the beach. You're in quicksand. Let's go back to this Washington Post story. Some of this is funny with the party. With the party "divided over the specifics of Iraq policy..." Divided over the specifics? They're divided over the fact that we're in Iraq. They're divided over the fact that there is no Iraq policy on the Democrat side. They don't have a policy, except one: "Cut and run! Get out. We quit. We surrender." That's their answer, from the chairman of their party on down. You hear it from Harry Reid. You hear it from Kerry. You hear it from Pelosi. You hear it from John Murtha, and if Hillary... I don't know what she's going to do because she's left exposed now. The kooks are left to attack her.

There is an Iraq policy, but they don't dare be honest with us, just like they don't dare be honest about tax increases and they don't dare be honest about how big the government they want to grow. They don't dare be honest about what they really think about abortion or partial-birth abortion. They don't dare be honest about anything. That's why they have all these closed-door meetings to figure out, "Okay, how can we say this stuff and it will get through to the American people, but we can bypass people like Limbaugh and keep from giving Limbaugh ammo?" Why don't you just try being pro-country, one day, and see what it might do for you? Oh, they can't even take that risk! Look at what's happening to Lieberman on the Democrat side. Look what's happening to the one guy in their party. They're ignoring him. The press is ignoring him. The only time his name is mentioned is when Bush mentions him in a speech. The Democrats grit their teeth and cringe, because they think Lieberman is undermining them. The idea that Lieberman may have an entirely different view of their country and his country than they do doesn't even strike them.

"So while the party is divided over the specifics of Iraq policy, most Democratic legislators are slowly coalescing around a political plan according to lawmakers and party operatives. This would involve setting a broad time frame for drawing down troops, starting with National Guard and Reserve units, internationalizing the reconstruction and blaming Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory." Wait a minute! I thought he lied about weapons of mass destruction! I thought he lied about the prewar intelligence. Now all of a sudden you're going to say he misled the country into a war without a victory plan? Is that Kerry's, "All we want is a timetable for success"? I guess the focus groups on "lying" about weapons of mass destruction isn't working out there, hmm? I guess the idea that Bush cooked the prewar intelligence isn't playing out there in flyover country, is it? I wonder why? Could it be all of the sound bites and all of the quotes that we have produced from Democrats from 1998 on, from Bill Clinton on down, or up, depending on how you look at it, saying the exact same thing that George W. Bush said in 2000? And when the Democrats were saying these things in 1998, Bush was drinking Lone Star longnecks by the barbecue pit down in Crawford. He wasn't planning on ousting Saddam Hussein.

It is intellectually vacant and vapid to say that Bush lied because everything Bush said was previously uttered by Democrats still in office today: Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. They all said the exact same things, and yet, folks, this ought to be the easiest skunk in the world of politics for us. Rather than being all concerned, "Oh, my goodness, look at what the Democrats are getting away with." They're not getting away with it. It is absolutely silly to maintain the president lied when you can go back and show that the very things the president said were uttered by Democrats. It's intellectually vapid, as I say, or vapid. Mind-boggling, and they're not getting away with that. So apparently now the changed tune: blame Bush for misleading the country into a war without a victory plan. That's not going to fly, either. But all this excitement that they had over Bush lied, apparently not working and, of course, the Fitzgerald indictment of Libby, that didn't take them where they wanted to go. No wonder they're in panic. Washington Post says, "The aim..." Now, get this. Get this. Those of you in the military, those of you who are family members of the military, get this next paragraph in the Washington Post story: "The aim of Democrats is to provide the party enough maneuvering room to allow them to adjust their positions as conditions in Iraq change and fix public attention mostly on Bush's policies rather than the details of a Democrat alternative."

If that doesn't spell it out as to who these people are, they are still today looking at the Iraq war and calculating, what can they do and what can they say that will help them? How can they manipulate whatever changing conditions there are in Iraq so that they benefit? Note what they don't say. They don't consider, as part of their plan, how they can get on board so that when we win they can take credit. Notice the concept of our victory doesn't even figure into their calculations. They're hoping for steadily deteriorating circumstances, and they want their party leaders to agree to advance to a wide berth of flexibility so that they can put whatever position they want day to day out there with their willing, slavish, intellectually vapid accomplices in the mainstream press, amplifying the empty rhetoric they come up with. So the whole aim here, the whole aim of Democrat Party policy in the war on terror, is to provide the Democratic Party enough maneuvering room to allow Democrats to adjust their position as conditions in Iraq change. So they don't even want to have to come up with a position. They don't even want to have to come out with a position. They don't want to come up with a plan.

They want to come up with a scheme that will allow them to take whatever plan is necessary day to day. "Senate Minority Leader Dingy Harry Reid embodies this cautious approach." Don't you love the Washington Post's choice of words? "Embodies this cautious approach." There's nothing cautious about this. This is defensive. It is defeatist. It is selfish. It is megalomaniacal. It is not at all focused on what is good for this country, but totally focused on what is good for them. Now, that may be okay in Social Security and may be on okay in Medicare reform and it may be okay in some of these silly little social concerns that we argue about, but when it comes to the national security of this country, I'm sorry, the majority of the American people are not going to be sympathetic to a bunch of power-mad little bulldogs that have not been in power since 1980, factoring how they can take the whole circumstance to get themselves back in power. The American people are simply not going to put up with that kind of nuanced, advanced, superior elitist thinking -- and yet that is what the Democrats wanted to be published in the Washington Post today.

"Harry Reid embodies this cautious approach. He has resisted adopting a concrete Iraq policy. He's persuaded most Democrat senators to vote for a recent Senate resolution calling 2006 a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty." Not even allowing for individual thought. No, they gotta come up with a single game plan for every member of the Senate. "We must be cautious. We must allow ourselves flexibility. We must allow ourselves room to move based on any surprises that come out of there." But the point of it all is, folks, that in the midst of the war on terror, in the midst of an issue that involves national security, on December 7th, the 64th anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day, the Democratic Party, the United States of America, allows it and wants it to be published that their primary focus on policy is how they can take whatever is happening in Iraq and bend it and shape it to their benefit without having the guts to get involved and roll up their sleeves and actually participate in this. Draft dodging doughnut-eater? Really? Try yellow-bellied sap suckers. That's what I would say if I were of their mentality and then I'd throw sand on them from the sandbox.

RUSH: There's even more in this gold mine that is this Washington Post story today. "Democratic Representatives Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher, both of California, plan to push House Democrats to adopt a similar position as [Dingy] Harry's, one of cautious approach," where they don't have to take a position where they can be flexible day to day, take whatever position they need to take that will help them. "Despite Pelosi's claims that she echoes the views of most members in her caucus, plenty of Democrats are cringing at her new high profile on the Iraq withdrawal. Not only did she back a position that polls show most Americans don't support. She also did this when Bush is trying to move off the defensive by accusing Democrats of supporting a de facto surrender." So they're mad at her on her timing. They're mad at her on her substance, but what is the substance? We learn throughout this story that the Democrats rely totally on polls. The Dingy Harry position, by the way, is based on a TIME Magazine poll that says 60% of the American people want us out of Iraq, don't like the fact that we're there, blah, blah, blah. So the Democrats are simply reacting to polls. The problem is, the polls have to be skewed because they're being put together by their own accomplices in the mainstream press. But the bottom line is, when it comes to national security, when it comes to the defense of the country, what are these polls worth?

Bush doesn't listen to them. Bush doesn't back down from his beliefs because of the polls. He's not wishy-washy. He's not (slurping sound) moistening the finger out there like Barney Frank does, stick it up in the wind see which way it's blowing and get in front of it. Has his principles, has his beliefs. Democrats can't compete on that at any time and anyplace. One House Democrat said, "Well, you know, we've not blown our chance at winning back the House, but we have jeopardized it." Yeah, this is all about them. "Oh, yeah, we're going to win back the house, Bush is falling, polls are in our favor. Oh, we've got it won already," and then Dean went out there. "Democratic candidates said their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders about Bush's handling of the war as criticism of US troops who were fighting in Iraq. 'I absolutely disagree with Dean,' said Patrick Murphy, Democrat running for the suburban Philadelphia House seat now occupied by Michael Fitzpatrick, a Republican." I absolutely disagree with him? He's the chairman of your party! He's the chairman of the Democrat National Committee. "But the Democrats say their biggest concern is that voters will misconstrue comments by party leaders as criticism of US troops who are..." What in the world are we supposed to say when John Kerry says US troops are going into Iraqi hopes under cover of darkness and "terrorizing" women and children?

Would you Democrats tell us how we are misconstruing this? When they talk about what goes on at Abu Ghraib or Club G'itmo, as Dick Durbin does, or Senator Kennedy does, how are we misconstruing what the Democrats are saying? We're not misconstruing anything, we're not misunderstanding it. You are Democrats, you are liberals, and you are telling us exactly what you think. You say you support the troops, and then you come out and undermine them. You are invested in defeat. How in the world can you say that you're being misconstrued in your comments about the troops? You've made them out to be torturers. You've made them out to be barbarians. You've made them out to be terrorizers of women and children. They're blowing up innocent school children. How in the name of God is that misconstruing anything? You know, the problem with you Democrats is 50 years you got away with saying whatever you wanted without anybody questioning you. Now all of a sudden you get questioned on your idiocy and you can't deal with it. "How can they dare say that about us? How do they dare react to us?" Same thing that happened to Kerry on Sunday. Says whatever he wants, he's so far above everybody else nobody even has the right to question what he says. Somebody questions what he says and he comes back with a sixth-grade-equivalent insult. Is that the best you can do? Yes, and it has been for about 25 years, and you've shown no signs of improvement. We're all happy about it.

Conservative? Liberal? Who the hells cares if our country falls to Islamofascists because we have propagandists endangering our troops and success of this w

Maybe you moral equivalence "pox on both their houses" psuedo-intellectuals better wake up to reality. There is ONE collection of Politicians actively committing treason. I know it REALLY drives you nuts to actually have to take a stand on a moral principal, but the time of standing on the side lines ranting about how both sides are so rotten is OVER. One side is fighting this war, one side wants to surrender. It is time you people make up your mind which side you are on. There is NO standing on the sidelines pointing fingers at everyone any more. The time of choosing to be goats or lambs is upon you. Choose.

I heard a sound clip today from Murtha saying that OBL SAID HIMSELF..that he 'attacked us because we had troops in Saudia Arabia'.

This truly shows 'Murthas' ignorance. I just happened to go look back at OBL early statements today..and guess what I found? IRAQ has been one of his 'gripes' since 1998.

Here:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Here is the relevant passage from Al Qaeda's lips in 1998:

"The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."

There is another snipet from an OBL 'fatwa' in 2002 concerning Iraq(before we ever went in). It is in my bookmarks somewhere(grin) and I will post it later when I find it. Point is...the democrats are dangerous(we all know that) and the only way to wake up America is to remind them of the words that have come out of the Islamists/Jihadist mouths over the years. IRAQ has always been one of their so called 'beefs' before Saudia Arabia ever was!! Murtha is a fool and he is leading a pack of fools. If our country 'chooses' them to lead us..WE ARE DOOMED!!

"Why does Rush call Harry Reid "Dingy Harry?""

Good question! Back when Reid was a non-entity in the senate..the #2 "man", he basically kept out of the limelight but when he won the vaulted position of minority leader after lit Tommie lost his election, he started spouting off. Reid quickly revealed his true liberal colors. Rush, who immediately realized that Reid is among the dimmest of bulbs, had to create a nickname for Reid. Since "Dirty Harry" was already taken by Clint, thus "Dingy Harry" was born. Besides, Dirty Harry was smart....Reid is clearly not playing with a full deck of cards.

LOL...GO RUSH! I am just loving him this week, especially this week.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.