RUSH: Here it is. It was Tuesday, April 3rd, ladies and gentlemen, and this is what I said on this program about Pelosi: ‘[A]nd if she had the guts, if she had the chance she’d go to Iran and meet with Ahmadinejad and do the same thing, and she may well do it before the 2008 election. I wouldn’t put it past her.’ I told you people! I know these people like every square inch of my glorious, shrinking-quickly naked body. I saw this news last night, ‘Nancy Pelosi to Iran,’ and I said, ‘I gotta remember,’ and I only remembered it this morning.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Let’s go to the Pelosi and Dingy Harry sound bites. This is yesterday afternoon on Capitol Hill, a press conference, Dingy Harry speaking.
REID: The president is inviting us down to the White House with preconditions. That’s not the way things should operate — and he’s gotta listen to us, because we are speaking for the American people. He isn’t.
RUSH: And there you have it! They are ‘speaking for the American people,’ and Bush isn’t. Bush has only been elected by the American people. Dingy Harry has not been, nor has Nancy Pelosi. But, see, this is all part of their gambit here to suggest that the November elections were about getting rid of Bush and getting rid of the war in Iraq and getting us out of the war on terror, and letting Democrats have free rein over what they want to do. Ben Feller, an AP writer, says: ‘When President Bush invited Democratic leaders for a sit-down on Iraq, it seemed to offer the opportunity for a breakthrough in their bitter differences over the war. For about five seconds. Then the White House spent the rest of Tuesday explaining what the meeting would not be. It is not a chance to compromise, the administration insists. Bush isn’t budging from what kind of war-spending bill he can accept.
‘It is not a time for Bush to lecture lawmakers, the White House said, although he might reiterate why the Democrats’ proposals to set troop-withdrawal timelines are foolish and irresponsible. And whatever you do, don’t call it a negotiation.’ That’s what the White House said. ‘Bush read the Republicans’ loss of Congress last year as a message that voters want both parties to work together. But his move on Tuesday was the latest sign that his tactics remain the same: We’ll cooperate just fine as long as you see it my way.’ (laughing) It is amazing. Now, the White House may be playing it hardball this way and I hope they are, but the idea that the Democrats are not engaging in that kind of behavior on virtually everything in the House and in the Senate is literally laughable! But of course here we have a Drive-By Media story. This is not news analysis. This is an actual ‘story,’ supposedly! Yeah, ‘Ben Feller covers the White House for the Associated Press.’ So, anyway, Dingy Harry says they’re not going to go up there with any of these preconditions. It’s not the way things should operate. Pelosi rejected the invitation as well.
PELOSI: What the president invited us to do was come to his office so that we could accept, without any discussion, the bill that he wants. That’s not worthy of the concerns of the American people, and I join with Senator Reid in rejecting an invitation of that kind.
RUSH: All right, all good and well, but I’m still struck by the statements of Carl Levin this past Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Well, we always fund the troops! No, we’re gonna fund the troops. No question about it. We always have. We always will! We will fund the troops. These guys are up there acting like there’s still a chance for their bill to pass. You talk about disunity or not being on the same page? It is clear here that Pelosi and Reid are not on the same page as Carl Levin. So, anyway, it’s more poker that is being played here, and ultimately the president is going to win this. Yesterday afternoon, same press conference. This is what Nancy Pelosi said about her trip to Syria.
PELOSI: When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered. Our message to President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president’s message, very unified. We went — we left our differences at home. We spoke about where we were unified as a country.
RUSH: Really? Really! How in the world do you suggest that when you say that the Israelis are ready to talk peace despite what’s going on with Hezbollah and Hamas? How do you say that when the prime minister of Israel, Mr. Olmert, has to come out and deny what you’ve said? Now, Gerd Schroeder today at American Thinker has a good question: ‘Where are the transcripts of this meeting between Pelosi and Assad? Pelosi yesterday claims she said nothing to contradict the foreign policy of the president, but she offered no details of that. And I for one would like to hear for myself, especially after hearing a member of the House committee on foreign affairs, Tom Lantos, claim last week that they have a Democrat foreign policy that’s different from the president’s and they’re setting about now to establish that. How can both the speaker and the chairman both be telling the truth?
‘If the Democrats in Congress have the right to demand the transcripts of Vice President Cheney’s Energy Working Group,’ and if Henry Waxman can ask for e-mails from the RNC and all over the place, and Condoleezza Rice and so forth, ‘then surely we have a moral right to know what was said between the Speaker and President Assad, and judge for ourselves where the truth lies. It is interesting to note that there is no audio of the meeting that we see looped endlessly on TV. But it is clear,’ Gerd Schroeder writes here, ‘through the body language of President Assad that he seems to be clearly lecturing Pelosi] about something, while she appears to be dimly smiling and nodding. What is the discussion about? Will we ever know?’ But there aren’t any transcripts, and she’s offering no details. We’re just supposed to accept it at face value that she was over there on a message of unity, taking the president’s message to Bashar Assad, despite the fact that Tom Lantos said, ‘No, that’s not what we’re doing! We were over there advancing our own Democrat foreign policy.’
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Back to the audio sound bites. Nancy Pelosi, ‘Speaker of State,’ and Tom Lantos, ‘Deputy Speaker of State,’ are heading out all over the world here trying to establish their own foreign policy. Here is Nancy Pelosi responding to Dick Cheney on this program, calling her behavior in Syria ‘bad behavior.’ An unidentified reporter said, ‘What about the discussion and the vice president’s criticism of you going to Syria?’
PELOSI: The vice president — I think he accused me of bad behavior, sounding sort of father figure-ish and probably stay home. We don’t accept that — those instructions.
LANTOS: Maybe in zee kitchen!
PELOSI: (Laughing.) But it was quite a remarkable thing. I think it’s an indication of the poverty of ideas, uh, of this administration to bring peace to the region.
RUSH: Wait a second! Wait just a second. (That was Tom Lantos, by the way, that chimed in there with ‘Maybe in the kitchen.’) What do you mean ‘poverty of ideas’? Go back to cut 12. There’s a ‘poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region,’ but we just heard her say this…
PELOSI: When we went to Syria, there was no division, no difference in the message that the president has been sending forth and the message that we delivered. Our message to President Assad was a very direct one, very consistent with the president’s message, very unified. We went — we left our differences at home. We spoke about where we were unified as a country.
RUSH: Well, I’m confused, then. How can this be? If she’s going to say that she thinks Cheney’s comment about her behavior being bad was ‘an indication of the poverty of ideas of this administration to bring peace to the region,’ she just got through saying that she left our differences at home. ‘We spoke about where we were unified as a country.’ Poverty of ideas? So she was out expressing the poverty of ideas that she says don’t exist or is the fact of the case in this administration. Let’s not forget, this San Francisco Chronicle story is from April the 2nd. It was Monday. ‘Lantos, referring to recent congressional votes dictating a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq agreed that Democrats were pursuing an approach to counter the Bush administration. He said, ‘We have an alternative Democrat foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States.” Well, hell’s bells, somebody’s lying here! Somebody is lying a couple of times, because here’s Pelosi saying they went over there and they were unified and they left their differences aside and very consistent with the president’s message, and then Lantos says, ‘Oh, no, no! We’re setting up our own Democrat foreign policy. It’s an alternative Democrat foreign policy. That’s what they’re doing over there.’ Then Pelosi says that Cheney’s criticism of her is ‘an indication of the poverty of ideas in this administration.’ So somebody lies. There are two lies in this, which is not surprising. Now, here’s the bit about going to Iran. An unidentified reporter: ‘Do you see the possibility of maybe taking a trip to Iran?’ Well, now, I wonder who put that idea in this reporter’s questioned mind?
LANTOS: I would be ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning, because however objectionable and, um…unfair and inaccurate many of Ahmadinejad’s statements are, it is important we have a dialogue with him.
RUSH: God!
LANTOS: So speaking for myself, I’m ready to go, and think the speaker, I think she might be.
RUSH: This is frightening. This is the entire culture of appeasement, knowing full-well — This is a Holocaust survivor, by the way, Tom Lantos — the anti-Semitism of Ahmadinajad. You know, all Ahmadinejad would have to do is go lie to these people. They’re going over there and they’re hoping to hear, ‘No, no, no, no! I didn’t say that! I didn’t mean that. We want peace with the West,’ and then they’ll come back and say, ‘We want peace and they want peace,’ and say, ‘We can have peace! Elect Democrats.’ They will believe any lie told to them by a dictator and even after the dictator proves he’s been lying they will still trust the first lie, and say, ‘We worked with this man. We understand this guy! We reached him.’ I know these people, folks, better than anybody out there does — and they are dangerous, and I’m not talking about Ahmadinejad, because we know what he is. The Democrats are dangerous in their naïveté, and this is nothing new. They have been this way for countless decades. Pelosi finally added this.
PELOSI: A person of Mr. Lantos’ stature and personal experience, is saying that I as a Holocaust survivor and
RUSH: Cliché after cliché after cliché. ‘Well, let’s have dialogue.’ Are there any recent news stories, folks, where ‘dialogue’ is solving the problem? (Laughing.) Is there one? Can you give me an example of any recent success by dialogue? Is there something big in the news lately where dialogue’s helping? It’s important. It’s the importance of dialogue, that’s it! We gotta be talking, because the theory is if we’re talking, nobody can do anything. Nobody will take any action, if we’re talking. Except if you’re doing the talking and you’re being duped! (sigh) They’re being set up. I know, ‘Why don’t a significant number of Americans see this?’ We’re working on it, folks. They won’t go to the White House. They won’t go to the White House and talk. They will not appear on the Fox News Channel. They will not appear on the Fox News Channel and talk. They won’t have ‘dialogue’ with Fox reporters. They will not have ‘dialogue’ with the president, but they can’t wait to go meet with a murderous thug, Islamofascist, state sponsor of terrorists and terrorism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!
That’s your Democrats today — and, you know what? The vast majority of Democrats support them in this. They hate Bush, you gotta understand. Bush is the enemy! Bush is even being blamed now for the Imus flap. Yes! Our old buddy Jonathan Alter last night on MSNBC said it’s Bush’s problem! Bush has set the climate here! It’s Bush. Yeah, I kid you not. I’ve got the sound bite but I’m not going to play it because I’m tired of talking about that but I just wanted to pass it on. It’s Bush’s fault.
Ah, that’s such wonderful diplospeak! So if Ahmadinejad issued the same invitation and told them at the same time, ‘We got the same preconditions. We’re not gonna alter what we believe here. You’re not going to come over here and tell us that we’re not going to have the same attitude about Israel, and you’re not gonna talk us out of our nuke program,’ she’d still go, and Lantos would still go. I have a better place for Pelosi to go. The Speaker of State is threatening to go off to Iran on what she cleverly calls ‘a fact-finding trip,’ but I’ve got a better idea for this woman. The most useful fact-finding trip that the Speaker of State could go on would be a fact-finding trip to the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service. Check out the
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I’m still sitting here blowing my mind over the contradictory, incoherent statements of Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lantos. I can’t let this go. Let’s review this again. Lantos says, ‘We are establishing an alternative, Democrat foreign policy. That’s why we went to Syria.’ Pelosi says (paraphrased), ‘We stopped at the water’s edge. We did not take a different message. We presented a unity position to President Assad the same as the president’s.’ Then when asked about the comment from Cheney that she engaged in ‘bad behavior,’ she said, ‘Well, you know, that is just indication of the poverty of ideas this administration has when it comes to peace in the region.’ Well, this is completely incoherent! A ‘poverty of ideas’ that she said she agrees with and talked to Assad about while Lantos assured everybody the Democrats are doing their own ‘alternative foreign policy.’ Now, here’s the question. If Nancy Pelosi is giving Bashar Assad the same message as the president, then why go at all? What’s the reason? Why do you have to go, if you’re just going to relay what the president has been saying?
But the hypocrisy and the confusion, ladies and gentlemen, are even deeper. They claim they have a constitutional right to influence foreign policy, and then they downplay whether they are, in fact, influencing foreign policy, except for Lantos, but Pelosi’s all over the board on this. ‘No, we took the president’s message. There’s a poverty of ideas about peace in the region here.’ So the hypocrisy and the confusion and the incoherence, that’s something, but it’s even deeper because all the while they’re claiming they have a constitutional right to influence foreign policy,
They went over there pure and simple… I’m going to tell you what this was. Pelosi and Lantos went over to Syria for one purpose, and that was to undermine United States foreign policy. That’s why they went, and that is what they did, and now they are responding to criticism by claiming they really went over there to celebrate all the religious holidays, to carry the president’s message and so forth. But she is lying about it, and Lantos let the cat out of the bag because he admitted that they were there establishing an alternative Democrat foreign policy, which means he admits that the Democrats are attempting to undermine established US foreign policy. Now, here’s what we need, folks. We need an investigation. We need a public hearing. I’m not a fool here. I know that there’s not
We need some accountability here. We have it with state department officials when they go overseas. There is accountability. They have to go up to the Congress and testify as to what happened. Condoleezza Rice has to go up there periodically. The CIA director has to come up. Other administration officials have to go to Congress time and time again and report what’s going on and what they’re doing. It’s called ‘oversight.’ They’re
I sit here and I read every day where Henry Waxman is firing off letters demanding e-mails from some other Republican or Republican agency, and I sit here and smoke starts coming out of both of my ears. It’s time for these people to be put under the gun. You know, Democrats are angry all the time. They’re outraged all the time, and I think (I’m getting more and more comfortable here psychoanalyzing these people) anger on the Democrat side has become a
Nevertheless, the fact is this rage and this anger that they exhibit, has become virtuous. It’s almost become a mating call from one Democrat to another — and that’s how they send out the signal that they’re on the same team, and it’s about how they’re propagating issues and ideas and so forth. It’s anger and it’s rage, and it’s become virtuous, and of course Republicans are not angry. They never act mad about anything! The Democrats are angry 24/7. Pick a name. Pick a Democrat. They’re always mad. Even Dingy Harry is mad all the time! Tom Daschle was mad. He was ‘concerned,’ all the time. Pelosi’s mad all the time. Ted Kennedy’s mad all the time. The blogs? They go beyond mad. They are insane! A lot of nighttime cable network commentators are insane. They’re not just mad. They’re enraged, insane. They have lost their minds — and as such they’re attracting like-minded sickos, but that rage propels them. Henry Waxman’s mad, and Henry Waxman
I’d stand up and I’d go before cameras and microphones and I would say so, but (sigh) you’ve gotta have guts to do that, and I guess it’s in short supply. Regardless, it’s time to put these people under the gun, the Pelosis, the Lantoses and so forth, because they’re getting away with not only incoherence, they’re undermining US foreign policy, and they’re not being made to account for it. They’re offering no facts, no details of their meetings. They’re papering it over with all of this cliché mumbo jumbo, all this New Age jive that people swoon over. ‘Awwwe, they’re talking! They’re having dialogue,’ but their statements about what they were doing and what they did are incoherent and using famous Democrat strategy, philosophy. Why, those statements are so incoherent, what they’re doing is so incoherent, it makes no sense. That requires an investigation, because the seriousness of the charge is, of course, more relevant than the nature of the evidence — and in this case we got plenty of nature of evidence. We got people lying. Lantos, Pelosi, somebody! You roll the dice, it’ll come up all of them are because they’re lib Democrats.