On the August 21 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh stated that even though President Bush pledged he would purportedly “never” criticize the patriotism of his political opponents, Limbaugh would continue to “challenge the patriotism of people who disagree” with Bush and his plan for Iraq “because the people that disagree with him want to lose.” Limbaugh added: “It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat. A wacko judge in Michigan [presumably a reference to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who recently ruled that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional]: actively seeking our defeat. Jimmy Carter: actively seeking our defeat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat. So should [Connecticut Democratic Senate candidate] Ned Lamont [whose name Limbaugh pronounced like lament].”

Limbaugh's remarks came in response to a press conference Bush had given earlier that morning. When asked if he believed that the Democrats advocating for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “emboldened Al Qaeda types,” as Vice President Dick Cheney similarly stated recently, Bush responded by saying: “I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me.” Although the issue of patriotism was never raised by anyone else during the press conference, Bush continued to explain that the issue of Iraq “has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.” Limbaugh “respectfully” disagreed with Bush's statements, asking: “How come we can't question the patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy? Why can't we question their patriotism?” Limbaugh then stated that "[w]e most certainly can. We most certainly should. Damn straight, we should. I'm tired of pussyfooting around this so that we don't hurt anybody's feelings and challenge their patriotism."

From the August 21 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Let's just get to the meat and potatoes of this press conference. This is about Iraq, and this is the president saying that he has no intention of leaving before the job is done. And we're not leaving Iraq while he is president. The answer comes from a question -- an unidentified reporter: “You mentioned the campaigns earlier. Do you agree with those in your party, including the vice president, who said or implied that Democratic voters emboldened Al Qaeda types by choosing Ned Lamont over [incumbent Sen.] Joe Lieberman and then it's a message that how Americans vote will send messages to terrorists abroad?”

BUSH [clip]: Leaving before the job would be done would send a message that America really is no longer engaged nor cares about the form of governments in the Middle East. Leaving before the job was done would be to send a signal to our troops that the sacrifices they made were not worth it. Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster, and that's what we're saying. I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me. This has nothing to do with patriotism. It has everything to do with understanding the world in which we live.

LIMBAUGH: I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to lose. And I want ask you people a question. What is patriotic about losing? How come we can't question the patriotism of people who are actively engaged in sabotaging victory over this enemy? Why can't we question their patriotism? We most certainly can. We most certainly should. Damn straight, we should. I'm tired of pussyfooting around this so that we don't hurt anybody's feelings and challenge their patriotism. We've said for all these years, “I'm not challenging your patriotism. I'm just challenging your judgment.” Well, hell's bells. It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat. A wacko judge in Michigan: actively seeking our defeat. Jimmy Carter: actively seeking our defeat. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore may as well be seeking our defeat. So should Ned Lamont.

Why can't we simply say what is patriotic about seeking our defeat? Seems to me we should be saying that. Their judgment is skewed; their judgment is crazy. The president says, “Understanding the world in which we live.” Who knows whether they understand the world in which we live? We can't afford to take time to figure that out. We don't have the time to worry about whether they understand them; just like we don't have time to figure out why they hate us. We don't have time to figure that out. That's irrelevant to the mission -- if you want to use that word -- or to the cause. So, let it ring out from the mountain tops here at the EIB Limbaugh Institute. We do question their patriotism. If they want us to lose -- what the hell is it about patriotism that makes us want to lose? What is patriotic about wanting to lose against this enemy? Somebody explain that to me, and if you can, then I might revise and extend my remarks.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: Why can't we question the patriotism of people who actively seek a loss? They want to cut and run? What is that? It's a loss. They want to pull out. They don't want to continue the war on terror. They're running a whole presidential campaign in '08 based on it, a midterm campaign in '06 based on it. Why can't we question their patriotism as well as questioning their judgment? Here's the -- the president continued with these remarks.

BUSH [clip]: It's like the other day, I was critical of those who heralded the federal judge's opinion about the terrorist surveillance program. I thought it was a terrible opinion. Those who heralded the decision not to give law enforcement the tools necessary to protect the American people, they simply don't see the world the way we do.

LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape. Is that right? Do they not see the world the way we do? Or do they see the world the way we do, but they see Bush as worse than those guys? Does their Bush-hatred cause them to have descended into the first stages of literal, utter madness? Is Bush so much the enemy that they do not see the world the way we do? Or do they see it the way we do, but they'll fix it later on? I don't know the answer to this. All I know is: They're actively sabotaging our effort to defeat this enemy. And whether they see the world we do or not is irrelevant to me.