All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
March 8, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I have been so eager for showtime today.
There's so much, my friends, a virtual buffet out there, a virtual smorgasbord.
And I have been eager to get started.
And so the time, the time has arrived.
Great to have you.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's Anchorman, the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
The DittoCam is on, and it'll be on for the whole program.
Before we get to the light-hearted, jocular, and serious news issues of the day, I have a technological advancement from the EIB network and Rush 24-7.
It is about our audio and video podcasts.
We podcast the entire radio program without commercials each afternoon.
You can get it automatically downloaded to your computer with our free media center software.
You can download it manually from the website if you wish.
And at the same time, that download comes automatically the video podcast, video of the next morning update, is included in the Pockage.
Well, since we started this, many people have said, how come you just don't make it available in iTunes?
Well, because iTunes only allows content that's free.
And of course, we are a business.
And so you have to be a subscriber and a member.
There's no additional charge for the podcast service, but it's only available to members.
And so having it downloadable via iTunes was not compatible with Apple's method of doing business.
Well, that didn't stop us.
That didn't stop us, ladies and gentlemen.
No, sir, Reebob.
We have been working with the powers that be at Apple, and we have reached, via technological advancement in software, the point to where Monday, and I just tested this.
We've been feverishly working on it.
I just tested it, and it is flawless, and it is so easy that you are, if you don't, if you are not a member, you're going to become one and just to be able to access the podcast this way.
What will happen when we go live with this on Monday?
We still have a few little programming tweaks to make.
And we want to put it through rigorous testing.
But this is as idiot-proof as anything I have seen on a computer.
What will happen on Monday?
If you are a subscriber at Rush 24-7, you will go to the new page that we will set up, and there's a link there.
And when you click on that link, automatically your iTunes will open, be it Mac or Windows.
iTunes will ask you for your username and your password.
You enter that, you click the box that says, remember my password, and you never have to do another thing again.
The following day or that day, later that day, the next day, every podcast will automatically download to your iTunes as long as your iTunes is open and running.
You don't have to click the link on our software every day.
Do that one time.
Tell the computer to remember your member username and your password, and voila, our podcasts, audio and video, each day will be automatically installed into your iTunes and ready for transfer to your iPod.
It's just cool.
I've been trying this.
Now, we're not going to be able to make available all of the podcasts that have been downloaded and made available since we started the program.
But you should have transferred those to your iTunes yourself by now and to your iPod to get it there.
But let's say you don't try this till Tuesday.
You will get Monday and Tuesdays next week, Monday and Tuesdays podcasts, audio and video.
And if you sign up on Wednesday, you'll get Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesdays.
So we'll work backwards up to this first start date when you sign up.
And all of your podcasts will be in your iTunes for as long as you want to keep them there.
And that's how, of course, you sync up with your iPod.
Our page will have full instructions on how to sync with your iPod if you're new to this, but it's really easy.
And we have nothing to do with that.
That's all controlled through your iPod software and your preferences when you use iTunes for it.
And I am thrilled about this.
I'm excited about this because when we first started this, everybody said, well, how come you can't put it in iTunes?
It was tough to explain.
So rather than go interminably with explanations, we worked out a way to make this possible.
And use a combination of RSS feeds and so forth.
You don't need to know how it happens because you only have to do it one time, and bam, it'll just happen every day as long as you have iTunes running.
So, yeah, it's cool.
I mean, it is really cool.
Well, no, the people at Apple were great.
I mean, they realize there's a lot of podcast content out there, and they're trying to find ways to drive traffic to the Apple Music Store.
And iTunes is the way you do that.
So, no, it's a win-win for everybody.
Win-win for everybody.
I'm really excited about it.
I'm going to continue my own rigorous testing, but it worked for me the first time.
Engineers sent me an email.
I'll tell you, three minutes before the program today, I got an email from the engineers.
Okay, the link's ready.
They told me about it last night.
Told me they were going to have it ready today last night.
So they gave me the link, tried it first.
It took 20 seconds.
It took 20 seconds and it was done.
So that'll be coming Monday and forever thereafter.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, you may remember, I don't know some of you who have been with us from the outset of this program, back in 1990.
Again, an illustration of just how on the cutting edge of societal evolution this program, and because I'm the host, is back in 1990, and I almost lost our treasured Chicago affiliate with this, WLS.
I suggested, there was a road rage was big back then.
It may be still big, but at the time there was a rash of inexplicable automobile accidents.
And so I feverishly trying to help the situation and come up with a solution or remedy.
I suggested, because I had seen this happen a number of times and I'd always thought it was rather risky.
I suggested that we, one of the first things we could do was to pass some sort of law, regulation, or ordinance that basically would not allow women to fart in their cars while they're driving.
It was a straightforward suggestion.
And it was one that, well, frankly, was way, way, way ahead of its time.
As I say, WLS in Chicago, I didn't understand why this pulled me off the air for 45 minutes.
And the program director and general manager were calling our syndication office.
This is what this program is going to be.
You can count us out.
We didn't sign up for this.
We thought we were going to get quality indignity.
What do they mean?
All I said was, if you get women to stop farting while they're driving, we're going to have a lot safer road system.
And then people, women started calling, what do you mean you've seen it happen?
I said, you can't help us.
Well, do men do it?
No, I have never seen a man farting in the car while he's driving.
Never seen it.
Well, how can you see a woman do it?
And I was incredulous.
And it wasn't until an hour and a half later, I realized people didn't know what I was saying.
They thought I was talking about gas.
And I wasn't.
I was not saying the word with a T, saying it with a D.
And it's a French word and it means to apply makeup.
Well, from the United Kingdom, a woman was caught on police video farting while driving at 32 miles per hour and has been fined 200 pounds.
Donna Maddock, 22 from Mold in North Wales, was pictured with both hands off the steering wheel farting with eye makeup.
Magistrates fined her £200 plus £55 costs after she pleaded guilty to a charge of careless driving.
She was also given six points on her license.
A spokeswoman for the North Wales Police said the incident defied belief.
No, it doesn't defy.
It happens all the time.
How do you think I came up with the idea for this?
I had to have seen it.
You know, and then everybody got all upset over cell phones and so forth.
And I was, cell phones are not the problem.
It's this.
So what is this?
This is 16 years ago.
16 years ago.
And I was ahead of the curve and it's now finally, finally become a reality, at least in the UK.
Quick timeout.
We have a geography lesson next, mental mapping and human geography lesson next.
Stand by, don't go away.
Okay, Timel Geography Lesson here, folks, and welcome back.
Having more fun already than a human being should be allowed to have.
Have any of you ever heard of the place Nasran Ingusetia?
NASRAN comma Ingusetia.
I had not heard of this.
Got a story on this doing show prep.
Major terrorist act foiled in Ingusetia.
And I said, how can anything major happen in a place I've never heard of?
A cache with huge quantities of explosives ready for use has been discovered in the village of Galashki Ingusetia.
The press service of the drug control agency in Ingusetia told the media on Tuesday, in a joint operation conducted together with the local forces of the Federal Security Service and the Interior Ministry, Ingush Drug Police discovered five containers with activated explosives for a terrorist act in the woods near Galashki.
Have you heard of any of these?
Well, I hadn't either.
But since I've been following the story about the human geography class out in Aurora, Colorado with the enlightened professor there, Jay Benish, I thought that I'd conduct a little exercise with myself because in the human geography course and the mental mapping, they ask you to be honest about what you think of places.
Well, I never heard of this place.
So the first place I had to do was, how can I give anybody my opinion of what I think of it if I don't know where it is?
So I said, but that's not the point of this course.
This course is not about any of that, so I can't go look it up.
That would be cheating.
To actually find out where it is to get the facts, according to the way this course is taught now, would be cheating and cheating myself because it's not what I'm supposed to learn.
So I started imagining, okay, Nasran Ingusita.
What does this make me think of?
What biases?
What prejudices?
What racism, sexism, bigotry, and homophobia is inspired by a place called Nasran Ingusetia.
And so I started, well, I hear terrorists, so I thought turbans.
And then I thought hijackings.
I thought bombs.
I thought, okay, turbans, that's got turbans, the turbans, beards.
Okay, where do they wear those?
So I was trying to figure out all the various places this place could be, and then whether or not I cared to find out where it was.
And after spending about a half hour at this, I realized I was going insane.
And I was engaged in something absolutely worthless and pointless.
So I did what I was taught in school.
I went to a map to find out where this place is.
And I found, it wasn't very hard to do.
It took me maybe 10 seconds using the advanced search features of Google.
And it is just north of Tbilisi, just north of Georgia.
It is in Russia.
And it's very close to Turkey and Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran.
It's right on a little cusp of land between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea.
And the media didn't even tell me this.
I had to go look it up myself.
Because of the geography class I attended, I at least knew how to read the map I was looking at, even though I never knew this place was on it before.
So I felt thank.
Well, no, it didn't change the way, in fact, probably enhanced what I felt about NASRAD when I found out where it is.
All I know is I wouldn't want to go there on a dare.
I wouldn't want to get anywhere near the place.
It's absolutely right.
All right, ports deal time.
We got through yesterday without talking about the ports deal, but we can't avoid it today.
Republican House leaders last night split with President Bush and said they would derail a Dubai-owned company's bid to take control of operation at six major U.S. ports.
Representative Jerry Lewis, California Republican House Appropriations Committee Chairman, said it is my intention to lay the foundation to block the deal.
Ron Bonjean, the spokesman for Denny Hastert, said the rest of the House Republican leadership backed Mr. Lewis, who is expected to have his committee add to a must-pass emergency spending bill an amendment to block the Dubai ports deal.
We don't believe the U.S. should allow a state-owned company to run American ports.
Okay, I told you this was going to be the case.
All of you people getting upset at me, I told you that the politics of this were going to kill it.
Didn't matter what anybody thought.
This doesn't officially kill it, but it's an election year and you've got some weenies up there.
And they see the Democrats occupying what they think is the high ground on this, and they don't want to cede the high ground to them.
Lawmakers from both parties get this.
Lawmakers in both parties say the United Arab Emirates has helped shuttle weapons components around the Middle East, has ties to Al-Qaeda, and shouldn't be trusted to operate terminals in U.S. ports.
The legislators, disputing the Bush administration's contention that the UAE has been a loyal ally in the war on terror, are citing findings by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and the September 11th Commission among their evidence.
According to the Wisconsin Project, an anti-proliferation group, United Arab Emirates officials in 2003 allowed 66 switches used in nuclear weapons to be sent to Pakistani, a guy.
In the mid-90s, they also allowed representatives of Dr. Abdul Khadir Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, to ship technology through Dubai to Iran.
None of this has gone on since 2003.
My only question about this, and this is just, you know, it's adding another nail in the coffin of the ports deal.
But France and Germany armed Saddam.
I mean, everybody in the world was on the take in the oil for food program.
Can we still trade with France and Germany?
They had dealings with Saddam, and we are at war with Iraq.
White House spokesbabe said Mr. Bush's position's not changed, but added that the White House is committed to having a sincere and open discussion.
Washington Times lead editorial today on the port security proposals.
Get this.
One of the proposals from these geniuses on Capitol Hill is to create an Office of Cargo Security Policy.
It would strip port security from other transportation security areas and calls for greater spending for DHS agencies, Department of Homeland Security agencies.
So we're going to set up a new bureaucracy.
In addition to what we've already got, we're basically going to set up, or it's a proposal to set up, to create an Office of Cargo Security policy.
Now, some people are, well, Rush, this is great news.
I mean, we should have done this immediately after the 9-11 incident.
We've got to get serious about this.
Okay.
If you think another bureaucracy is the way to deal with this, welcome to it, folks.
Ports deal is what it is, and it's going to go down as it apparently is going to go down.
It's going to be curious to see how the president deals with this, with his own party now splitting off from him faster than the Democrats are.
I have another angle on this ports deal, though.
I think this is not being talked about enough.
We've got Jack Abramoff out there, and everybody's talking about him.
What about Bill and Hillary Clinton?
You know, these two are involved in more schemes, and they get away with ignorance.
Hillary gets away with profane, feigned ignorance.
Hillary gets away.
I didn't know Bill was going to pardon those F-A-L-N terrorists.
I didn't know Bill was working with D.
It's right there on your financial disclosure for him.
And your staff was coordinating with his staff about his lobbying efforts over there.
What do you mean?
Well, I didn't know.
And nobody is raising a stink about this.
Clinton's out there lobbying for the Dubai company, advising them.
He's unregistered, did not sign up as an agent of a foreign government.
That's a violation of federal statute.
You have to do that.
Nobody cares.
It's like Tom DeLay won his primary last night, skunked his opponent.
Nobody's writing about it.
Had he lost, it would have been front-page news.
But I mean, here you've got Bill and Hillary engaging in a giant scam where she gets to pretend to be innocent and uninformed, and he gets to occupy both sides of the issue.
He's for the port deal, but he's against the port deal.
While taking money for it, they have both enriched themselves.
Here's the real story.
Who enabled this to happen?
Bill Clinton is George Bush's brother.
The Bush family has practically admitted that they've adopted Clinton.
So was Bush covering up the involvement of his brother Bill Clinton in the Dubai ports lobbying scandal?
If so, I'm trying to give you people in a drive-by media a new action line here on this story.
It's Bush's fault.
Bush covered up the illegal lobbying by his brother, Bill Clinton, because he wanted the deal to happen, and he doesn't care that Clinton got rich because the Bush family's rich and they want every member of the family to be rich, and Clinton is the new brother in the family.
That's where you ought to take this.
Blame Bush for Clinton and Hillary, and they're behind the scenes dealing on the port deal.
Back in just a sec.
Thank you, and welcome back, folks.
I am America's anchorman, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, play-by-play band of the news, all combined as one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Another story here that has an ancillary relationship to the port deal.
I'm going to love this one.
The Bush administration has decided to push ahead with a proposal to ease limits on foreign investments in U.S. airlines, despite some congressional pressure to slow down the plan or withdraw it.
The proposed regulation was opposed earlier this year by mainly Democrat lawmakers concerned about the impact on U.S. jobs and airline service if global capital options for financially struggling domestic airlines were expanded.
But in recent weeks, a few Republicans have begun to question whether the initiative is wise in light of the port deal.
Many Republicans and Democrats in Congress, as well as state and local officials who lease port facilities, are worried that giving a company owned by the UAE management control at key U.S. ports could undermine security.
And now, here comes the Bush administration wanting to allow foreign countries to invest in ailing U.S. airlines.
and that could eventually lead to them buying them out.
Not only does this deal not have a prayer, the port deal doesn't have a prayer now.
As I told you from the outset, that it wouldn't.
I said economically, it's okay.
Politically, it's dead on arrival.
Said that from the what's wrong with foreign foreign countries investing in airlines?
Because it's just a ruse, Mr. Sterdley.
Investment leads to ownership.
American airlines owned by Sheikh Mohammed Maktoum Shabiz.
Is that what you want?
You want United Airlines?
Heller, do you know that the U.S. airline industry as an industry has never had a year where they've shown a profit?
Individual airlines have, but the industry as a whole has not shown.
Well, I don't think it ever has, but if I'm wrong about that, it's very few years and a long, long time ago.
Mr. Sterdley, I know we invest in other countries, but it sounds to me like we're selling everything we've got.
It sounds like everything we've got is being put up for auction.
And it sounds to me like the things that we're putting up for auction are things that could direct.
I mean, what was it that brought down the World Trade Center aside from the people that planned it?
It was airplanes.
You realize what can happen here?
Do you realize if these people start owning these airplanes, I mean, it's over.
We're finished.
Kaput, there's, I mean, the security, it's just, it's a mess.
I can't believe Bush wants to do this.
I can't believe they.
I can't believe that.
No, I just can't believe that we would willingly, I mean, in the face of the port deal, for this to come up and the administration to hang tough and say, no, we're going to go ahead with this.
It's got me a little confused.
Norman Mineta, the Transportation Secretary, did not comment directly on the ports saga at a House appropriations hearing yesterday, but he did respond to concerns from two Republican lawmakers that the airline deal could pose similar security risks for the U.S., especially because it was airplanes that were flown into the World Trade Center on 9-11.
He also angrily denounced a three-page anonymous document circulating in Capitol Hill, believed generated by an unnamed U.S. airline, that also questions the wisdom of allowing more foreign investment in the airline industry.
They're saying that we're going to hand over the keys of the cockpit.
That's not true.
This paper is replete with inaccuracy.
So apparently there's an American airline, not American Airlines, but a U.S. airline, upset about this deal, circulating a three-page document that conjures images of Mohammed in the cockpit.
We're going to turn over the keys of the cockpit.
And, you know, Representative John Culbertson, Texas Republican, we want Americans to own American airlines.
We're trying to split hairs.
I mean, it says this is this raises all kinds of red flags.
I think this is curious at best.
Ladies and gentlemen here is here is here is Andrew in Kansas City, Missouri.
Andrew, I'm glad you called.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thanks for taking the call, Rush.
This Iranian deal, all I want to say is that the U.S. needs to be very careful about how they proceed with keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons.
Why?
Well, I mean, be careful.
You sound like Kofi Annan.
Well, sir, Kofi Collins says, ratchet down the rhetoric.
And he doesn't tell Iran to ratchet down the rhetoric.
He's telling Dick Cheney to ratchet down the rhetoric, but he never tells that Mahmood clown in Iran to ratchet down.
They're the ones rattling sabers.
I understand, sir, but Russia has been selling anti-ship missiles to the Iranians.
We just took care of that.
We have co-opted.
The Russians are out of the deal.
I've got all this coming up later in the program.
But the Russians are in with us now and going into India.
The Russians have pulled out of an arrangement with the Iranians.
What's happening here?
What's happening here is that Cheney went to AEI.
I think it was Conservative think tank.
It must have been AEI or Heritage, one of these two yesterday.
And it's not going to fly.
Dire consequences await if you go ahead and ramp up and arm up on your nuclear.
But what do you want us to do?
I love this kind of.
I would advise the United States to be very cautious.
What does that mean?
Cautious.
Well, I just think there's going to have further or more implications both at home and for our military if we don't proceed with caution.
And when I say proceed with caution, I mean we've got to think this thing through.
We've got to explore every option but war and hope that we can come to some kind of peaceful agreement because this could affect our families at home.
Really?
Okay, well, I pre, you know, all right, I'm all for caution.
Come to a peaceful agreement.
You usually do that with friends.
It's rare that that results in any kind of progress or success with enemies.
Well, you look around the world where we've been cautious, and you'll find we're still being cautious and we're still losing ground.
Look, here's a story that it ran on ABC March the 6th, which is just a couple days ago, but I've seen nothing on this.
U.S. military and intelligence officials tell ABC News that they have caught shipments of deadly new bombs at the Iran-Iraq border.
They're a very nasty piece of business capable of penetrating U.S. troops' strongest armor.
What the U.S. says links them to Iran are telltale manufacturing signatures, certain types of machine shop welds and material indicating they are built by the same bomb factory.
Explosives expert Kevin Berry said the signature is the same because they are exactly the same in production.
So it's the same make and model.
We got new threats coming out of Iran today.
We learn about this story.
They are supplying bombs.
Of course, I don't think this is a shocker.
It's not a surprise.
It's just apparently confirmable now, provable.
So as I have said countless times, you've got two ways of dealing with the problem, and they're side by side, Iraq versus Iran.
I can safely say that regardless what you think of the way we've done things in Iraq, one thing it isn't anymore is a WMD threat to that region or anywhere else.
And it isn't going to be for a long time.
Can't say that about Iran.
And we've been turning over all of the work on this Iranian business to the European Union.
And in fact, there's a story.
So you want to proceed with caution.
Here's this story from the Sydney Morning Herald from yesterday.
And the headline says that all Iranian negotiator boasts of fooling Europeans.
The man who for two years led Iran's nuclear negotiations has laid out in unprecedented detail how the regime took advantage of talks with Britain, France, and Germany to forge ahead with its secret nuclear program.
In a speech to a closed meeting of leading Islamic clerics and academics, Hassan Rouhani, who headed talks with the so-called EU3 last year, revealed how Tehran played for time, tried to dupe the West after its secret nuclear program was discovered by the Iranian opposition in 2002.
He bragged that while talks were taking place in Tehran, Iran was able to complete the installation of equipment for conversion of yellow cake, a key stage in the nuclear feudal process, at its Ishfahan plant, while convincing European diplomats that nothing was afoot.
And the European diplomats were proceeding with caution.
Very, very careful were they proceeding with caution.
They were talking to people who were buffaloing them, lying to them, and they believed them.
And they trusted them because they're the elites.
The French, the Germans, smartest people in the world.
And plus, they think nobody hates them.
Nobody would want to trick them.
And so they wouldn't lie to us.
The Iranian guy said, from the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, the Iranians are lying and deceiving you, and they've not told you everything.
The Europeans used to respond, we trust them.
This is this Iranian guy, Hassan Rouhani.
Revelation of his remarks comes at an awkward moment for the Iranian government before a meeting today of the United Nations Atomic Watchdog, which must make a fresh assessment of Iran's banned nuclear.
And that's, there's a cautious bunch, too.
So we can't trust the people that are supposed to get the true assessment of what's going on out there.
So when you say we've got to be cautious, we've let the cautious crowd deal with this, and it's taken us to where we are.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, for those of you in the caution crowd, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged the United States on Wednesday to cool its rhetoric after Vice President Dick Cheney warned Iran that it would face meaningful consequences if it persisted in defying the international community through its nuclear program.
Annan, in an interview on public television's Charlie Rose show, also predicted Tehran would use Washington's recent nuclear agreement with India to argue Western powers are relying on a double stamp.
This is so silly.
These people are worthless and they are dangerous at the same time.
And you know why?
Why?
This double standard argument just tees me off like I can't tell you.
The Indian nation is a friend.
They are an ally.
This is what friends do.
They help each other out.
There's no double, we're not going to help set up an arm a potential renegade terrorist sponsoring and terrorist leading nation.
That's not what this administration and this country is going to do.
There's no double standard whatsoever.
And I never hear Kofi telling Omahmood to tone it down.
I never hear any of that.
All I ever hear is, cool its rhetoric.
This is typical conflict resolution gibberish.
Nothing but a bunch of psycho babble.
And it doesn't work.
Typical diplomatic speak that gets us nowhere except, in the eyes of some, as the bad guy.
Here's John in Memphis.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello, sir.
Yeah, Rashid was going to respond to that call that I was just on that talked about we have to be careful about offending or getting the Iranians excited.
That guy clearly doesn't understand that this is a part of our strategic interest in the global war on terrorism.
He's afraid that this is going to affect him at home.
Well, tell you, you know, we're at war.
It affects a lot of people.
We have soldiers over there.
And the war is going to affect us at home if we don't take some action to cut off the Iranians at the knees.
Well, yeah, I think everybody understands this.
That calls, it's just the whole call very odd to me.
I think there's a new breed of seminar caller out there.
I actually do, folks.
I think if you're new to the program, a seminar caller is a liberal doing what liberals do, trying to mask who they really are, because they have this silly belief.
After 18 years of existing and proving them wrong, they have this cockeyed idea that you have to agree with the host on this program or you don't get on the air.
What they don't know is that when we get liberals, we put them at the front of the line.
So they would call her, you know, Rush, I listen to your show.
I love you, mega ditto, blah, I just have one problem with, and then they'd launch into their real agenda.
And I always said, you don't have to lie.
You can't fool me anyway.
We could recognize a seminar caller when it was on hold.
So I think they're trying to change up their approach.
That call came out of nowhere.
I hadn't even discussed Iran yet.
I hadn't even gotten to it, which is one of the reasons I took it because I had suspicions about the call.
There's something about this that doesn't look right.
Then the guy, I would encourage you, United States, caution.
Don't want to lose our families here at home, but what the hell came out of nowhere?
So I wouldn't waste time trying to respond.
The call worked because it allowed me to transition into a brilliant set of points here in this monologue and discussion of the Iranian issue, along with this absolute idiot, Kofi Annan.
I, this double standard thing, set up a double stand.
And he also said that he learned, there's a story somewhere here in the stack that Kofi learned how to be a good diplomat because he would sit under trees and negotiate with different tribes in Africa.
In fact, I may have the audio sound by the day.
We do have that.
That's audio.
Let me find it in the stack here.
Yes, let's see.
Grab cut 10 and 11.
We have time to squeeze these in.
This is, in fact, from the Charlie Rose show last night.
Charlie said, some say that what the American policy, what Cheney's saying in Washington, we can't allow, will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
That's what Cheney said today.
Bolton said it would have severe consequences.
That pretty much says to them this is not going to happen on our watch.
I would suggest that as intense efforts are going on to try and bring everyone back to the table and to see what can be done to reach an agreement and get the Iranians to contain their ambitions.
We should all try and lower their rhetoric.
Kofi, you're blind.
We've got a story in the Sydney Morning Herald.
One of the lead Iranian negotiators is in the paper bragging about how he fooled you and fooled the French and fooled the Germans, lied to your face, and you trusted him.
And now you're saying here, intense efforts are going on to try and bring everyone back to the table.
No, I won't resign.
And to see what can be done to reach an agreement.
This is exactly what's gotten us where we are, Dumkoff.
Here's the other bite.
Yeah, watch this.
This sets it up.
Don't need to set a playout.
If there is a problem, you may see them under a big tree having discussions.
If there's a problem to be solved, they will talk and talk and talk.
And if they don't find a decision today, they'll go to sleep and start the next morning to discuss it.
So they listen to each other.
They try to speak from their own experience and often try to avoid speaking out of anger or commenting or criticizing what others have said, but to speak from their own experience and to work with each other.
And in a way, you have a bit of that in the international and the UN system.
Right.
So you sit under trees and you talk and you go to sleep, you get up, sit under trees again.
Where have I heard this business of sitting under trees?
The world's going to destroy itself with nuclear blasts before Kofi Annan finishes his next paragraph.
Gosh, the guy speaks slow, but he hangs around under trees and talks to tribes, and they negotiate, and they go to bed, and they get up and keep talking under trees.
And I know I've heard this sitting under trees business somewhere before.
I'll bring a lot of those things to my farmhouse in Vermont during August.
I'll be reading that.
The beauty of doing that, I won't have to be there in the suit and tie.
I can sit there in my jeans and a t-shirt under my favorite apple tree and read the things there.
That's where I heard it.
Senator Depends, Pat Leakey-Lahey, discussing how he was going to go prepare to shoot down the nomination of, was this Alito or was it Roberts?
Was it Alito?
It was July 20th, 2006.
No, that would...
Doesn't matter.
He was gunning for both of them.
Sit tight, folks.
Lots more.
It was Roberts.
I thought so.
Even when I'm wrong, I think I'm right.
▲
Export Selection