All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:03
March 8, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the host on this program are right.
Even when I think I'm wrong, I'm right.
It usually ends up that way.
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything else out there.
Anybody's saying views expressed by the host of this program, documented to be almost always right, 98.5% of the time.
It's really a lot of fun today being with you.
It's a thrill of delight every day.
800-282-2882, if you'd like to be on the program, if you're just joining us, ladies and gentlemen, the Bush administration has decided to push ahead with a proposal to ease limits on foreign investment.
We're not talking ownership yet.
It's just foreign investment in U.S. airlines, despite some congressional pressure to slow down the plan because everybody's all worked up now about the ports deal.
Apparently, there's a U.S. airline unhappy about this circulating a three-page memo outlining the horror stories that will result if we allow this legislation to go forward, which would basically allow foreigners to invest in United States airlines.
And this three-page document out there apparently tries to essentially create this image of Mohammed in the cockpit.
Because Norman Manetta, the transportation secretary, said, they're saying we're going to hand over the keys to the cockpit.
That's not true.
This paper is replete with inaccuracies.
Now, this doesn't have a prayer.
Everybody knows this doesn't have a, not with the ports deal coming down the way it is.
The Republicans have, in their own little test vote on this, have voted it.
Now, we're not going to allow it.
Now, I know Bush said he's going to veto it.
I know he said he was going to veto it, but I'm just, I've told you from the outset, politically, I didn't think this thing was ever going to fly.
I don't find anything particular.
Actually, that's not true.
Ever since I learned of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's involvement in this and Clinton attempting, I'm not kidding about it, attempting to finagle financial enrichment by some of his friends like Madeline Albright and Bill Cohen, some of these other people.
Let me tell you, I'll tell you who's been driving the ports deal has not been George Bush.
He didn't even know about it.
The president doesn't get into these, you know, the, you know how many tens of thousands of contracts the U.S. government lets and signs and negotiates with people over the course of a year or a month?
Presidents can't get down to that level.
I believe Bush when he said he didn't know anything about it, but he's going to support his administration and the bureaucracy that recommended it.
When you look at who's been driving it, it's been Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton's been lobbying for this deal.
He's not even a registered foreign agent, a registered agent of a foreign power or a foreign company.
And he's got Hillary out there saying she didn't know anything about it, yet it's all on her financial disclosure forms.
Clinton's been paid at least, and this is all we know, 600 grand for two speeches, but we don't know if he's been paid anything else.
We don't know if he's got a percentage of the deal.
Nobody knows because he hasn't had to register and nobody cares.
Nobody apparently in the drive-by media wants to follow that story up.
Nobody wants to follow up the fact that Hillary staff and Bill's staff have been working this deal, all the while Hillary gets a free ride saying she didn't know anything about it.
She gets to go out there.
Clintons, as usual, get to have both sides of the issue.
Clinton's for it, except with certain audiences.
And Hillary's against it.
And Hillary has, and look at, if her husband got paid $600,000, the family benefited from the arrangement that her husband had with Dubai and with this Dubai Ports World outfit.
Yeah, that's what's, you know, the Libs are all over the ballpark on this, and they're trying to say that this proves Bush doesn't care about security.
The Libs can't win this on the security side, which is one of the things that troubles me about the squeamishness on the Republicans.
Have to do is ask the Libs three things about the port deal.
Okay um, I assume now, since the ports are such a big concern, that you will approve of uh provisions of the Patriot Act being used to protect security, and I assume that you'll have no problem whatsoever with the National Security Agency engaging in uh uh, foreign intelligence to determine if somebody is actually trying to infiltrate or blow up a port.
I guess you'll have no problem with that.
You think they're going to change their opinion and their minds?
On all the hell's bells folks, there's no way we can smoke them on this.
But my my, my big red flag is, who's pushing this and why?
I, as i've told, I don't think it's a big security problem and I don't want to.
I don't want to rehash what took me a week to explain to you, because that's not the point here, but i've always thought politically, this thing never had a prayer um, and now i'm even more suspicious.
This airline deal coming along, and now I mean it's been out there for a while, but we're just learning about it now.
Do you honestly think this administration?
There are people beginning to talk they've lost touch.
Where the reason?
We supported Bush in the White House?
Because we thought there was a well-oiled political machine in there and that everything would end up okay.
But now people are starting to have their doubts about that.
It looks like there is no political machine, looks like it's not operating at all and if it is, it doesn't know what it's doing.
Well, not so fast, ladies and gentlemen.
Give you a possibility here.
Just give you a little possibility.
Perhaps somebody in the White House knew precisely that by proposing and letting it be learned that we were considering allowing foreign investment in our airlines.
Know full well it ain't gonna happen, not in this climate.
Congress isn't gonna sign off on this at the same time that they're raising hell about the port deal.
But what does it do?
It accomplishes this.
It alerts everyone that the airlines are in trouble.
Now they've been in trouble for a long time.
But this is really bad.
If it's gotten to the point that we need foreign investments to keep our airliners in the air, that's pretty bad.
So i'm just giving you a possibility.
They know this is never going to fly, but we've got a problem with the airline industry.
This could be, this could be a Rovian scheme to get Congress to come up with the money to bail out the airlines, the ones that are in big trouble, as an alternative because it's not like you want to stop flying, right?
I mean, you don't want the airlines to just go out of business, you got to keep them up there, but you just don't want foreign ownership not in this era, not in this climate got to bail them out.
Wouldn't be surprised if something like this happens down the road, if the, if we learn this is the case.
Let me also say something about why all of this is going on.
I know so many of you are concerned.
Why, why?
Why doesn't an American company buy the ports, the terminals?
Why can't American banks invest in the airlines?
Why can't?
Why can't it?
Why do we have to go this and that?
And yet what?
There is a there's a reason here.
It's not the total reason, but i'm going to tell you what.
What you're looking at here.
You are looking at one of the results of our government borrowing money to pay its bills.
We are simply spending way too much money.
We are spending and, by the way, i've got a great article here in Investors Business Daily and I want to share this with you now.
It's a column actually.
I look at one of their editorials.
It's about the president wanting a line item veto.
Is a line item veto better than nothing?
Probably.
Is it enough to bring spending under control?
Not by a long shot.
Now, everybody is focusing on pork.
Everybody's focusing on earmarks.
We've got to stop those earmarks.
We've got to get jets.
That's not the problem, folks.
And it never has been the problem in terms of spending.
It's a problem ethically.
It's a problem with the whole perception of the people and their representatives.
Problem is entitlements.
According to an estimate by the CBO, spending on the big three entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, will go from 41% of the federal budget in 2000 to 65% of the federal budget in 2040.
Overall federal spending rising from 18.4% to 23.8% of GDP.
Serious reform of these programs, including cuts in tax-paid benefits, would slow their growth to reasonable levels, but neither the president nor Congress is talking about such actions now.
Both the president, both the Congress are so wedded to entitlements because that's how they get elected.
And that's how they stay in power.
And that's how they get through crises and controversies.
And I tell you, it's the problem.
So we're spending so much more than we take in.
We're having to have foreign countries invest.
You're worried about foreign investment.
You know how much of the Treasury debt the SHICOMs own?
You're worried about the ports deal.
People say, well, what if the SHICOMs demand?
What if they default?
Or what if they call it in?
They won't because they're too heavily invested here.
Economics works that way, but it's still a situation you'd rather not be in.
That's why there's so much investment in various aspects of this nation.
And these ports, you can say, but Rush, how does this affect the port deal?
Dubai is not investing in the U.S. government.
Take a look at who actually runs these ports.
It's not this company.
Every one of these ports in question is run by a government entity, be it a port authority of New York and New Jersey, or be it whatever it is in Baltimore, whatever it is in Philadelphia.
It's not the sole reason.
But if you want to try to get a handle on why there is so much need for foreign investment and why there is so much going on, it's A, we're a big market and it's a great opportunity for people to invest here.
It's a wise thing for them to do.
It's not a bad thing or they wouldn't be doing it.
But our need for it is simply because we don't have any money.
We are running a spending procedure here that is just insane, all this borrowing and securing investment to pay off the entitlements, to pay off people who are basically freeloading off the rest of us in one way or another.
And I include Social Security in that because we've reached a point, soon will be, where recipients are getting back far more than they ever contributed and put in and demanding even more.
I've been talking and warning about this for more than 20 years.
And I'll tell you what, here's another thing too.
Tax reform, we're getting close to the day where we're not going to be able to do it.
And here's why.
If you go to my website and you look at who pays taxes, and it's a chart that we leave up there every day, it never gets taken down.
We are so close to reaching the 50-50 point where half the nation's income earners don't pay any federal income tax.
And once we surpass that 50-50 point, and once it is a minority of income earners paying federal income taxes, you can kiss tax reform goodbye because the majority who is not paying taxes will never go along with it.
Zilch, zero, not a never.
Hey, quick timeout.
We will be back.
We will continue in mere moments.
Hi, welcome back.
Here's one thing.
We had a discussion on the Iranians and their nuke program, and I had mentioned to you that the Russians had pulled out of it, and I wanted to find the story for you.
Russia yesterday closed ranks with the U.S. and its European allies over Iran's suspect nuclear programs, abandoning a plan. to allow Tehran to conduct some uranium enrichment programs on its own soil.
In the face of adamant U.S. opposition, visiting Russian foreign ministry Sergei Levrov did not even raise Moscow's compromise idea in meetings yesterday with President Bush and Condoleezza Rice.
There is no compromise new Russian proposal, Mr. Lavrov said after his hastily arranged meeting with Condoleezza Rice.
The U.S. and leading European Union powers are demanding that Iran stop its secret nuclear weapons programs and are pushing for the U.N. Security Council to take action against Tehran.
So it is all this and that's at the center of this is the deal that we did with the Indians with India.
The deal we did with India because they're a friendly nation.
I'm going to get mad again if I start thinking about Kofi Annan and Charlie Rose talking about a double standard.
We're supposed to work with the Iranians on a nuclear program, you dupe.
Kofi Annan is insane.
He's literally insane.
Been reduced to talking to tribes under trees and telling us that's how he learned how to be a diplomat, how he ended up heading up the United Nations.
Here's Will in San Jose, California.
Hi, Will.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Yeah, I've been hearing you for the past couple years, and it seems like no matter what, okay, no matter what, you seem to be able to justify every single thing the president does or the White House does, whatever.
I notice you always blame it on Democrats, blame it on liberals, whatever you want to call them.
When they have no control over the executive branch, no control over the Senate, no control over the Congress.
I mean, who's in power right now?
It is the Republicans.
I don't understand how when they get opposition to whatever concerns they may have about a certain issue, how you can come back and justify it every time.
Drink the poison cash.
Hold it a second.
Hold it a second.
Hold it just a second.
We don't do speeches on this program.
I want to go back to the first thing of what you said.
You said you've been hearing me for the past couple years, and no matter what, I seem to be able to justify every single thing the president or White House does.
Yes, everything.
You're telling me that.
Everybody's wasteful.
So I support the White.
This is a waste of time.
It is a literal waste of time.
I don't support the White House on everything that they do.
And it's irrelevant whether I do or not, in terms of my discussion of liberals.
My discussion of liberals is spot on.
It is right on the money.
I know you guys like the back of my hand.
He hung up.
I knew it.
You know, it's a waste of time.
We put liberals at the front of the line, and in 15 seconds, the guy's already got us off on a false premise.
I have to sit here and try to correct him on the premise.
Oh, geez.
By the way, an interesting item, ladies and gentlemen.
You know, the sentencing trial for Zakarius Musawi is going on.
And do you know there have been, and in the regular trial, there was something really fascinating that was learned about this?
It seems that at least two and maybe three or more of the hijackers were all calling a single phone number.
The phone number was to a al-Qaeda programmer, planner, financier in the United Arab Emirates.
This guy was the one who helped arrange their travel, who helped indoctrinate them on U.S. society, instructed them on driver's licenses, arranged for money to be wired into their personal accounts while they were pretending to be immigrants here.
Now, forget the UAE angle, because that's not my focus.
My focus is we didn't know this.
Oh, take it, we did know it.
Wait a second.
We didn't know it.
We learned it in the trial.
We didn't know it at the time.
We learned this because Masawi and his computer and the testimony and so forth, this is what's been pieced together after he was arrested.
He's known as the 20th hijacker.
Now, what of the story I've just told you just reaches out and clutches your throat?
Okay, here are the actual 9-11 hijackers making phone calls from this country to an al-Qaeda guy in the United Arab Emirates.
And forget the Emirates angle of it for a moment.
NSA, this is exactly the kind of thing that the NSA domestic spying, that the foreign intelligence gathering operation is all about.
It's exactly that kind of thing that the program that the Democrats are trying to kill, or in fact, Arlen Specter's trying to kill it now.
Arlen Specter is in a contest with McCain here.
Hoover, who can be the more inexplicable?
But regardless, this is the exact kind of thing that was Abel Danger was doing.
Abel Danger was trying to piece together this kind of information.
So the Masawi trial, the Masawi trial also illustrated a whole bunch of other things.
The Masawi trial illustrated that there were elements in our government that knew of al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in places.
When is this happening?
In mid-90s, the Clinton administration.
What the Masawi trial is telling us is two things at least.
And that is the Clinton administration did diddly squat about terrorism, and they continue to focus on it as a legal issue, which is what the Democrats want to continue to do today.
They are simply trying to sabotage the effort to wage war against this enemy by attacking a Patriot Act, which they weren't able to stop, proving they're impotent.
The AP has a story on that that's outrageous, by the way, calling it a narrow victory.
President won by 180 votes.
But no, no, I'm not getting sidetracked.
The fact of the matter is the NSA plan is exactly in place to do what should have been done back in 2099 when these people were out there planning their operations and making phone calls from the United States to a foreign country, to a terrorist in a foreign country.
And it was to a guy, and they know his name, and they even know the phone number.
It was in the United Arab Emirates.
Back in a moment.
Have you people seen where Hillary Clinton, with the help of Harold Ickes and George Soros, has declared war on the mayor of Cooksville?
And you want to talk about civil wars?
There's soon going to be a civil war going on in the Democratic Party over their donor database.
This is a fascinating story.
I will get to it in mere moments, but I want to get back to the phones here first.
One other thing about this Masawi trial.
This is an Associated Press story.
I'll normally screw them.
But this little paragraph here, anybody could have gotten right.
The defense, Masawi, 20th hijacker, his defense also wants to show that the United States government knew far more about brewing al-Qaeda plots than even Masawi knew.
And in that vein, pressed Mr. Antisev on what the FBI was doing to follow up on warning signals before the attacks.
Mr. Antisev at first asserted, I don't think anybody was looking at using aircraft as weapons, but he acknowledged under questioning that the FBI had been aware before the attacks of al-Qaeda plans to fly airliners into the Eiffel Tower and into a cathedral in Strasbourg, France.
We've known about this in 95.
We first heard about this in the Philippines.
They're going to blow up 12 airliners en route to the United States.
We heard about this.
We knew all about it.
The Clinton administration didn't do anything about it.
They didn't want to tackle hard issues because they didn't want that approval number to come down.
Plus, there was this thing that, you know, Lewinsky problem and the impeachment that they had to deal with.
But, you know, so the Masawi's defense is, hey, government knew more about this than even I did.
And now these phone calls to that United Arab Emirates al-Qaeda member and so forth, as I say, they have the number.
Barbara in Norwalk, Connecticut, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's great to have you with us.
Thank you for taking my call.
In my mind, you are the most valuable conservative voice on the radio.
And therefore, when you took your position, and I don't need to go into any of the details because I've heard everything you've said about it, and I don't want to have you rehash on the radio, but your position on Dubai and the ports and the United Arab Emirates as being an ally, I really took it in and I thought about it and I thought this makes a lot of sense.
And now I feel that from comments you've made today, and I want to know, you've become from being a person, a principal on this issue, and seeing now pragmatically it's just not going to work, and also because the Clintons were involved and it sullied the United Emirates situation, that therefore there was really no value to it at all.
And it kind of bothered me that I saw this sea change.
Well, let me explain something.
Those are some excellent questions, and I'm happy for the opportunity to answer as I campaign to maintain my audience here.
In the first place, if I've not made it clear today, I will say it again.
I find nothing wrong with Dubai Ports World owning these six or nine terminals, whatever it is.
I have no problem with it.
I don't think it's a security problem.
I do believe with a global economy, foreign investment, allies, all that I believe.
At the outset, on day one and two of this, though, of two or three weeks ago, I always was honest and thought the politics of this are going to kill it.
And shortly after that, the eruption occurred, the president's out there defiantly saying, I'm going to veto this.
And that just stoked the fires even more.
I have since then, I have been, and this is, it's comical to me, the ongoing theory to explain why I am the only talk show host with my point of view is because I am sucking up to Bush, that I am in the tank for Bush.
Even Peter King accused me on my own New York radio station of being in the tank for Bush and blaming me for single-handedly lessening the opposition to this.
Now, the reason why this is funny, I've been doing this for 18 years, and in the last five years of the Bush administration, I have had plenty of things to say in disagreement.
I haven't told you people.
I've had emissaries from Washington come down here to try to get my mind right on immigration.
And I haven't changed my mind on it at all.
I'm not going to supply names, but you'd know them.
Now, the bottom line to all this is, is that the new factor for me that I learned last week was the Clinton involvement in this.
Now, that doesn't disqualify Dubai.
It doesn't disqualify them.
It doesn't change my assessment of the security risk.
I have not changed my assessment of what it was that was behind the original opposition that people had to this before they understood any of the deal and the detail.
And I totally understand it.
I can understand why people had that initial visceral gut reaction.
I don't know why I didn't.
I think it's because I just, I see conventional wisdom and I run the other way.
I just, I have never been a conformist and a member of the PAC, nor have I ever said something on this program just because I thought it would help me, or that's what I thought you in the audience wanted to hear.
The Clinton angle in this that's interesting to me is that if this were a Republican and we had learned that a Republican, ex-president or ex-Secretary of State, was out there earning maybe seven figures from Dubai, was secretly lobbying for the deal, trying to get his associates from Madeline Albright to a few others in on the financial aspect of the deal, and that his wife,
a U.S. senator, was out there getting away with saying she didn't know anything about it while she's opposing it.
To me, that's something else about this that needs to be examined.
The drive-by media is not going to look at it.
But we find out here that who's really been driving this is not George W. Bush.
And everybody in the Republican Party is out there saying, well, Bush has lost his mind.
We can't count on Bush.
Well, he was leading in the war on terror.
Now he wants to make a deal with a country that sponsored terrorism or allowed them to run around in the streets over there.
Bush said he didn't know any about it.
He got beat up for admitting that.
But who has been behind the scenes pushing this thing, all the while his wife is as opposed to it as anybody, introducing legislation to ban X, Y, and Z while they are personally enriching themselves with payments from Dubai?
That is a separate story to me that I think needs to be learned.
It needs to be broadcast.
It needs to be spread around so people know about it.
Because Clinton himself is even being allowed both sides of the issue.
He's allowed, I'm talking about by critics.
There's no scrutiny of his behavior in this at all.
He's out there promoting the deal.
He's advising the Dubai people, hey, give them 45 days.
You go in there and say 45 days and examine us even further.
And guess what?
The Dubai people did that.
And that's the period we're in now where these hearings are going on and there's more investigation and the security risks that are posed by the deal.
And then Clinton, after coming out, I love these Dubai people.
I think I've been over there.
They're fine people.
I've been over there growing fast as Iraq.
But then he'll come back over.
I do think we have a security problem.
It's unreal.
The guy is for it and he's against it.
His wife's totally against it.
They're making tons of money at the same time.
He's registering or not registering as an agent representing a foreign country or a government as a lobbyist, and yet he's out there lobbying.
I mean, that to me is a separate entity here, and it does change the politics of it for me in a sense that you can say Bush is the one pushing it, but Bush hasn't been lobbying it.
Bill Clinton has.
Does that answer help you?
It does help because, as I said, you're a man of principle.
And that's why when I heard you today, I thought, why does he sound fuzzy on this?
Why does he sound like, well, this really was not a good idea?
Because the idea of having some real ally as such in the United Emirates, as far as the poor disc people over there, it sounded important to me because this is what people don't understand is how important the Middle East is and how important it is what we're doing there.
And this is all linked to it.
So that's why what you said originally made sense.
And I don't want these other conservative people to talk on the radio and say, oh, now Rush, you know, Russia's folded and he's on our side.
And I'm glad you had a chance to express yourself because I think the Clinton thing really sullies it.
The Al-Bright connection.
All that stuff really sullies the matter.
Well, I'm just going to tell you, if people who are opposed to this on the security side, which I'm not, but if, and I know most people are, then you better start asking yourself, why doesn't Bill Clinton care about national security and stop asking about Bush?
The only good thing I could think of that comes out of all this with the plain deal in this is that everyone is now focused on national security, which we couldn't say about the Democrats until now.
Well, but the Democrats are not focused on it.
That's another thing.
I think this is a very persuasive argument.
The Democrats now claim that they are in the game on national security, and they have found the enemy, and it's the United Arab Emirates.
Time to ask them, okay, you now admit we've got a port security problem, even though not a single act of terrorism in this country has come at, through, or at a port.
We've got a security problem at the ports, and you guys are the first to spot it, and we applaud you.
Welcome home, Democrats.
I guess this means that since it's such a big security problem, you are going to allow provisions of the Patriot Act.
You're going to support them now in order to secure the ports.
And I assume you're going to back off on your opposition, the National Security Agency's program on foreign intelligence gathering.
I guess you're going to allow that now because the ports are so vulnerable.
And they're not going to change their minds on this.
This is purely political for them.
They just don't.
They don't think they're going to make any change really in there if they're going to be the same people they've always been.
Well, yes.
Because their position is that Bush is bad.
They're opposing Bush on everything.
And because Bush is behind the ports deal, they think they can get to the high ground by talking about national security.
They've been worried for the longest time that they're perceived as weak on it, because they are.
And so they think this is going to...
But remember, the Democrats are smoking mirrors.
The Democrats wear masks and camouflage.
That's why I'm saying if somebody's got to put it to them, okay, you found the enemy, we got an enemy, and we're vulnerable at the ports, then what measures are you going to take?
It makes them really stand up and explain exactly what their position is, what they never do.
No, that's why they're backing off of this already, and that's why they're saying, you know, we're getting tired of being called xenophobes and racists.
Bush made us that because he's been using the club of fear for four years in this country, ginning up hatred against Arabs.
They're trying to make it out to be Bush's problem.
Theirs is a purely political, opportunistic position, which can be and will be exposed as this heads on down the track.
The Republicans are a different.
The Republicans are just scared.
It's an election year.
They got polls out there saying they're going to lose X seats in the House, X seats in the Senate, might lose the House.
And so instead of reacting in a way that was, well, we're just not going to do that, they're acting defensive, and they see an opportunity to distance themselves from an unpopular president, 34%, 41% approval, whatever number you want to use.
It's not good.
They don't like that.
And now they think that this deal's been so muddled that they have no confidence in the White House to run the Republican Party in a political way, in a political machine.
They have no confidence in the RNC.
And so they're running for the tallgrass, bailing out on the president as fast as they can because they think that's their best shot at being reelected.
Their principles are fuzzy now because of that.
No, no, their principle is I must get re-elected.
Yeah.
Learn that.
Thank you very much for your explanation.
Okay, Barbara, I'm glad you called and asked for clarification.
I generally think of myself as the finest communicator produced by humanity, but your call illustrates I needed to take a second stab at it.
I thank you for that.
Well, thank you very much.
All right.
Bye-bye, folks.
Back in just a second.
Your guiding light through times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, foreign ownership, foreign investment, torture, humiliation, and even the good times.
El Rushball, the EIB network, to Dearborn, Michigan in Beirut.
Hello, Beirut.
Hello, Rush.
Meghadido from Iran.
Thank you, sir.
Megan, ditto's from, you're Iranian.
Yes, sir, and I love you.
You have set me free from liberalism.
I love you.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
I love you, too.
I'm glad you're in the audience.
Good to be here.
I just want to make it quick.
Iranian government is fearful of Israel.
We need to allow Israel to take out the facilities in Iran.
Iran is so close, Russia, it is scary and is terrifying.
Israel is the answer because they're not bound by United States political dilemma.
How long have you been in the United States?
I've been here off and on since 1979, sir.
And, oh, 1979 is a key year.
Your impression is that the Iranians can do this easier and better than the United States, and that the Iranians fear the Israelis more than they do the United States?
Yes, sir.
They feel Israelis.
We fear them all our life.
I don't do anymore now because I'm no longer an Iranian citizen.
I'm an American citizen, and I love Israeli people.
And you fear them more because there's less bureaucracy and red tape for them to take action at what would have to go through here in order for action to be taken.
Exactly, sir.
You are 99.5% correct now.
And you were right about the government of Iran being very deceptive, and they know that the United States right now is divided politically, and they will say whatever they want, but the minute Israel would take action, you will see.
Yeah, I actually think that, you know, the Iranians have a lot invested in Iraq, too.
They don't want it to become a full-fledged, functioning democracy.
And they also would love to keep us occupied there, which is why I think they are the pipeline for a lot of the so-called insurgent activities and so forth.
It's interesting that you have this point, though, because there's a story today from Reuters.
It's out of Berlin.
If the UN Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said today.
He is Shaul Mufaz.
And he was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program.
My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right, give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel.
We have to defend ourselves, and we will.
So the Israeli defense minister is saying, if you little elitist pointy heads up there at the UN screw this up, we have no choice, and we will do it.
This is confirming Behrouz's point, I think.
And nobody's surprised by this either.
This is who the Israelis are.
Don't forget the Iranians are out there bragging how they got away with lying and fooling the Brits, the French, and the Germans during the diplomatic talks, the EU3, they were called, over the last six to nine months about all this, that the diplomats from the EU3 totally believed whatever the Iranians told them about.
No, we're not going to build up.
No, these are just power plants.
No, he's out there bragging about this.
The story's in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Thanks, Beirut, for the phone call.
Quick timeout and an even quicker return.
Okay, we got 70-year-olds doing chapadictomy surgeries, anadictomy surgeries.
We've got guys having sex with sheep and horses and so forth.
We got another one here.
A deputy fire chief out in Arizona is charged with having sex with a sheep.
He was caught by the owner of the sheep, and he admitted, Yeah, you caught me.
I tried to bleep your sheep.
And that's only one of the wacko stories we have today for you.
▲
Export Selection