All Episodes
Previous Next
March 20, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:28
March 20, 2006, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So I just got a smart alecky little email from somebody saying, hey, Rush, anything about the ports deal in the news today?
As a matter of fact, there is.
And you're not going to like the news in it.
So I may tell it to you.
Anyway, greetings, my friends.
Here we are back on the one and only Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
I am Rush Limbo, serving humanity simply by showing up the telephone number 800-282-2882.
The email address is Rush at EIBnet.com.
Let me just do this.
If you people are going to send me smart, alecky notes about the ports deal, then I'm just going to give it right back to you.
I was prepared to let the ports deal just drift away today, no pun intended.
But it's amazing.
It's another analysis story from AP that doesn't have any spin.
It's just pretty well done.
The furor over efforts by an Arab, Arab company.
It's by U.S.
This is more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Port Operations has focused attention on a little noticed economic fact of life, and that is America is increasingly foreign-owned.
Well, it's not news to me.
Tried to make everything in here I mentioned during the ports deal during a three-week discussion that we had on it.
Here's some facts for you.
The U.S. must borrow more than $2 billion per day from foreigners to finance its huge trade deficit.
2005, for example, there was a record trade deficit of $805 billion in the current account.
That's the broadest measure of trade.
Now, you can look at it on one side that it's good news.
The world wants to invest here.
The world wants to spend their dollars here.
In one sense, it's not that bad a thing.
No deficit is ever a good thing.
But the fact that the deficit results from so much investment in this country is something to note.
From the Ritzy Essex House Hotel in Manhattan, owned by the Dubai.
Dubai Investment Group.
Did you know that Church's Chicken and Caribou Coffee are owned by another company serving Arab investors?
Church's chicken, you're going to church's chicken and you are supporting Arabs.
Foreigners are buying bigger and bigger chunks of the country.
The U.S. has to borrow more than $2 billion per day, as I say.
Foreigners sell their televisions here, their cars and their oil to us, and they hold the dollars in return.
Those dollars are invested in stocks and bonds and other assets, including real estate and factories.
Foreigners already own half of the U.S. government's publicly traded debt.
As of January, some $2.19 trillion in Treasury securities were in the hands of central banks, including China and Japan, plus a few private investors abroad.
European nations accounted for $977 billion, or two-thirds, of the $1.5 trillion of direct foreign investment into this country.
This is according to figures compiled by our own Commerce Department.
By contrast, Arab countries in the Middle East accounted for $9.3 billion, led by $4.7 billion in investment from Saudi Arabia.
The UAE, the Emirates, and that's where Dubai is, was second among Middle East Arab countries with $1.8 billion in investments, according to the data.
Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies.
Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories, and water treatment facilities in the United States.
Folks that can poison us anytime they want.
They own it.
People don't understand how integrated the U.S. economy has become with the global economy, how dependent we have become on other nations, said Clyde Prestowitz.
Some names just stand out and you like them.
And that's, I love that name, Clyde Prestowitz.
Name says possibilities.
He's president of the Washington think tank called the Economic Strategy Institute.
He says, some analysts believe that such realities are getting lost as politicians try to respond to growing anxiety about trade deficits, the loss of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs.
Here we go.
Here we go.
The loss of nearly 3 million manufacturers.
I just told you, it's the best job market in five years for graduates.
Unemployment, sometimes it's just, it just feels like a losing battle to get a truth out there.
But I'll just continue this.
Todd Malin, the head of the Organization for International Investment, says we have to be very careful we don't overreact in the legislative process and enact economic policy masquerading as national security policy.
There you go.
And we're on the verge of this because, and this is exactly where a bunch of elected officials in an election year have no courage and no fortitude whatsoever.
But what troubles you about church's chicken being owned by Arabs?
Well, I don't.
Oh, wait a minute, wait a minute.
I hadn't thought of that.
You know, you're at, Mr. Sterling is absolutely right.
I thought, you know, Arab investors owning church's chicken would be rather harmless when you get right down to it.
But there is bird flu out there, and everybody's worried about it.
And if terrorists, Arabs, own chicken places, chicken is a bird.
Bird flu, you can connect the dots.
It may be time to deal with this.
It may be time to go in there and get Kentucky Fried Chicken and say, buy out all church's chicken joints so we know that we will be safe.
The Washington Times has a story, Acts.
This is from over the weekend on Saturday.
Senate Democrats have mapped a political battle plan for the March congressional races, recess, I'm sorry, that calls on lawmakers to stage press events with active duty military personnel, veterans, and emergency responders, to bash President Bush on virtually every one of his national security policies.
The plan was devised by Dingy Harry and people in his office.
It's contained in a six-page memo distributed to Democratic senators on Thursday at a closed-door meeting at the Capitol and provided to the Washington Times by a congressional staffer.
It's titled Real Security.
I have that document.
I am holding it here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers.
And I'll just summarize for you.
Here is what the plan urges lawmakers to do when they're on their March recess, when they leave Washington and go back home to press the flesh with the dependent class and the entitlement class that they've created out there.
Hold a town meeting with state officials and a local National Guard unit at their armory to discuss the security impact of long deployments.
Ask National Guard members to offer input on how security and disaster response at home is compromised by long deployments.
Trying to relive the glory days of the Katrina aftermath.
Next suggestion is hold a town hall meeting with troops at a local military installation.
When selecting a location at the military installation for the event, make sure to select a space that allows easy press access and clearly conveys the message in the shot.
Planes, vehicles, equipment, and signage in the background enhance the pictures coming out of your event.
Well, how can they do this with everything in Iraq?
All of our planes, all of our tanks, all of our...
Work with veterans organizations to find recently returned Iraq and Afghanistan veterans willing to discuss the mental effects they or their fellow veterans have experienced.
Oh, I have borne witness to this.
I have seen this one in action.
It's commonly used.
They're going to try to go out and get psychologically damaged veterans and bring them out there on stage and blame Bush for it and blame the war for it.
And it's just a giant sympathy play.
Tour a factory in your state that manufactures military equipment like Humvees or body armor and hold a press availability afterwards with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans on the importance of protective equipment.
Visit the home of a military family that has purchased body armor on their own for a family member serving in Iraq or Afghanistan and hold an open press conversion on the issue.
Ask the family if they'd be willing to hold the open press conversion town hall meeting in their yard, on their front porch, or even in their homes.
So this election cycle, and we've known this, the Democrats are going to run against Bush.
Bush is not on the ballot.
They're going to try to nationalize these, well, these are Senate races, but they're going to try to get this all focused except for, well, it actually is.
it's all on the military.
The Democrats are going to try to make them, they tried this.
They tried putting John Kerry back in battle fatigues in the 2004 race, and we see what happened.
They tried it with Paul Hackett, and we see what happened.
They have been out there doing everything they can to stop any effort to identify terrorists who might be plotting action in this country by calling it a domestic spying program.
They've made it clear they can't be trusted on national security.
Now they want to bring up a bunch of people who in effect and have a bunch of events, the sole purpose of which is to degrade and impugn the United States military while attempting to make people think they support it, that they care.
We care about veterans.
We care about the war.
We care about this.
But the whole process that they're going to engage in will result in these people being impugned.
They want to use a bunch of people as props.
They want a bunch of people with military uniforms to say what they don't have the guts to say.
And it'll backfire on them, sure as I'm sitting here, because they look out across the country and they see a country that doesn't exist.
They do not have their finger on the pulse of this country.
They think they do.
They think that every American or a majority of Americans hates Bush and hates the military and hates the war in Iraq as much as they do.
And they will find out that that is not the case.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
All right, I have a little global warming update for you folks.
Spring officially arrives this afternoon in about four and a half minutes, at 1.26 Eastern time.
That's when the sun will be directly over the equator.
So with spring officially arriving, and basically now it's, yep, four minutes.
It's 29 degrees wind chill in New York City at this hour.
The windchill Chicago is 31.
In Al Gore's home state of Tennessee, the windchill is 33.
It is 46 degrees in Los Angeles.
It is 47 degrees in Phoenix.
And I even have eyewitness reports of ice caps forming in Omaha on top of the snow drifts.
First day of spring.
It's your global warming update.
Now, a little added information here on Dingy Harry's six-point plan to run against Bush and the war and some of the events that you might be seeing when the members leave for their recess later this month.
Apparently last week, Dingy Harry told reporters that it might be true that American voters don't know where Democrats stand right now, but they will know by November.
That may be a little too late for undecided voters, which is why both House and Senate Democrats on the Congressional Campaign Committee insist that they have a positive message.
They keep insisting that they do.
On Thursday, both Democrat campaign committees began touting their election year plans and policies.
Democrats in the Senate intend to go the route of fine gold, pressing anti-war rhetoric at every turn.
On the House side, Rah Emmanuel of the DCCC says that his candidate is going to be attacking rubber stamp Republicans, which is fine and dandy because the Republicans in the House and Senate are anything but rubber stamping the president right now.
But Emmanuel thinks so much of the title of the name, Rubber Stamp Republicans, his staff says he's trademarked the name, Rubber Stamp Congress.
Might even see it on coffee mugs and t-shirts across the country.
Emmanuel briefed reporters on the plans last week, called Republicans rudderless and divided.
He refused to discuss his own party's confusion and division, for example, on the fine gold censure and his caucus' plans to dump its leadership in January of 2007.
A Democratic congressional campaign staffer said, we don't have to specify policy ideas or positions.
We don't have to do that.
Rahm is taking a bigger picture approach to our candidates.
We'll give them themes to play off of, but we think the best candidates will take those themes, create local issues and initiatives that catch the attention of the specific voting bloc that they're trying to attract.
So this staffer was asked, what about running against the war?
Staffer said, well, that goes without saying we're going to do that unless they're in a district that tends to run counter to that notion.
Oh, really?
So you have an anti-war principle, but you're going to abandon it in places where the majority of voters don't favor it.
All right, so much, as the prowler in the American spectator says here, so much for tough stands.
I'm just, folks, I'm mentioning all this to you because every time this stuff comes up, there is a sense, I get a sense of palpable fear out there among some of you at how the Democrats will always succeed with this because their friends in the media will get it done for them and blah, blah, blah.
And I just haven't seen any evidence yet.
They've been able to pull any of this off.
We got the Patriot Act redone.
The tax cuts are being worked on.
There's some domestic stuff that's problematic.
But the Democrat, and by the way, there's a new word.
The Democrats, Dianne Feinstein's used it, and we've picked it up now.
Incompetent.
That is the description, the one-word description of the Bush administration.
They are incompetent.
He's incompetent.
The whole administration's incompetent.
And they're going to be running on that too.
That we're being led by a bunch of incompetent boobs.
Well, the fact of the matter is that what the Democrats in the Senate especially are trying to convince their rabid supporters of is that they're not incompetent when they are.
They're the ones who are truly incompetent.
They propose a censure message, and they all run for the tallgrass.
Nobody there except two wackos to join fine gold in it.
And they're all out on the television show.
Well, I don't think that that's the thing we ought to be doing now.
I don't mean they're not serious about it.
They don't have the guts to carry it off right now because they know they can't pull it off.
Like somebody said in Madden Pelosi, how do we do a censure movement without an investigation?
We've got to have an investigation first.
That means impeachment.
That's what they're angling for.
That's what the whole desire, the primary, the primary desire, the thing that's really fueling them in this 06 election is their desire to begin impeachment proceedings against the president.
Richard and Williamsburg, Virginia, I'm glad you waited.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
I had a question for you.
The mainstream media reports that things are very bad in Iraq because X number of bombs go off, but they never talk about what's going on in terms of the civil society.
Your program does.
Other programs do.
And it seems that civil society has been restored.
The schools are open.
The electricity is running.
The water's flowing.
The oil is flowing.
I'm wondering if that's true, that maybe Bush is wrong.
And as opposed to we will stand down when the Iraqis stand up.
I'm wondering if we need to push them a little bit.
Maybe if we stand down, they'll stand up.
The best way to answer this for you or to discuss this with you is to ask you a question.
It's not a trick question.
I just generally, I'm not trying to maneuver you into something here.
I want to know what you really think.
What do you think?
Or what do you hope?
No, no, no.
Let me finish the question.
What do you think the objective in Iraq really is?
Well, what I'm hoping the objective in Iraq really is, is to produce a democracy that will be stable, i.e. one that will not be subject to outside invasion, and that will be able to conduct its own affairs internally and externally.
Okay.
That's pretty much what the president has said that he believes can happen.
The president says he believes that establishing a democratic beachhead is the first step necessary to creating more of them in that region, and that in the process, over time, those regimes that become democratic will be less inclined to produce terrorists and try to spread evil around the world.
They'll be more focused on their own happiness and their prosperity and their economies and so forth, which will then in turn threaten neighboring nations and be problematic and focus their attention there.
Now, there's developed since middle of last week, there has developed in the conservative intelligentsia, there has developed an interesting argument over this.
And Rich Lowry of the National Review, who's a friend of mine, got this all started.
He wrote a column last Thursday and he labeled people who have that belief as to hell with them hawks because apparently there's a wide divergence of opinion.
Now, Iraq's a failure.
Some conservatives think we ought to get out.
Mission has failed.
We didn't succeed.
Others say that we have to hang in and to hell with what anybody thinks.
We've got to hang in there.
We've got to make sure that this democratic regime gets established and so forth and so on.
There has, as a result of this, some other conservative, the people that have been called to hell with them hawks have replied back to Lowry.
There's no anger here.
There's a genuine spirited debate.
And I will tell you about it.
We come back because it goes directly to the question I asked you, Richard.
Thank you.
Welcome back.
El Rushball, Half My Brain.
Tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Jeb Babbin, who contributing editor and writer of the American Spectator Online, has written a piece responding to Rich Lowry in the National Review last Thursday.
And let me describe for you the people that Lowry referred to in the conservative movement as to hell with them hawks.
He's aiming at the conservatives who grow more skeptical of the president's strategy, which is what you, Richard and Williamsburg, just identified when you defined, as you understand it, what the purpose, what the objective in Iraq is.
And that is to establish a democratic beachhead, essentially, and let things grow from there.
And there's a bunch of conservatives who've broken off from it.
I think that's a silly notion.
It's a silly notion that Muslims, you know, you can't go into a Muslim country and turn it into a democracy.
Muslims can do it, but outsiders can't.
And if they won't, and if they don't get serious about it, then the policy is doomed to failure.
But that shouldn't mean that we pull and run and get out of Iraq.
So Lowry is upset.
Some conservatives are upset that people on the conservative side are beginning to break away from the president's strategy here.
And so it took a little shot at him.
Jeb Babbin today in the American Spectator Online responds for the To Hell With Them Hawks crowd.
And by the way, don't misunderstand, this is a healthy debate, and there's not animosity here, and there's not name calling on or calling going back and forth, but it is an interesting debate.
And the reason, Richard, that I ask you, what do you think is the purpose in Iraq?
What are we there for?
This is how the To Hell With Them Hawks would define their belief in our purpose in Iraq.
We mean to win this war by destroying the regimes that provide terrorists with weapons, funds, people, and sanctuary.
We mean to defeat the radical Islamist ideology, because that's what it is.
It's not a religion, as we defeated the Soviet communist ideology.
I and those who agree with me aren't to hell with them hawks.
We are endgame conservatives, writes Mr. Babbin.
We understand that Islamic terrorism cannot threaten us significantly without the support of nations.
We are impatient with Mr. Bush's neo-Wilsonianism because it allows the enemy and its apologists to control the pace and the direction of the war.
We are unwilling to allow the prosecution of this war against the terrorist nations to be delayed for however long it takes for Iraqis to sort themselves out.
Now, to translate that for you, why the hell are we not doing something to Syria right now?
And why the hell are we not doing something more serious with Iran?
The endgame conservatives want, and I've been wondering where this has been, where are the conservatives going to be that demand that we hit these people even harder?
Because what we most certainly are seeking here is a military victory.
We're trying to vanquish these regimes and these nations that sponsor all of this.
Now, the Iraq objective that the president's lined out is good, but to delay everything else until it happens is to possibly threaten the ability to do everything else.
And it's just like the first piece I shared with you in the first hour.
A gentleman in the UK Times says it may not be possible now to go after Syria or Iran or anybody else in this region because of how this Iraq mess has been spun.
And the similarities are eerie.
Here we have the run-up to Iraq with all of the thought, the talk, and the threats that Saddam was working on, weapons of mass destruction, trying to get nuclear and so forth.
And it wasn't just the CIA.
It wasn't just the British intelligence.
The whole world thought this.
The United Nations thought it.
There were countless resolutions.
But Saddam apparently had some stuff, but not nearly what everybody thought.
He had made the world believe he had it.
He was trying to be the biggest Arab in the region, puffing and puffing at the United States, getting them to back down.
It would make him the biggest guy over there.
And finally, we called his bluff after a time and found out, his own generals found out on the eve of the war, he didn't have the arsenal that everybody thought he had.
So now, strangely enough, here we come to Iran, and people are beginning to see, and it's not just us.
The United Nations is talking about that.
The Russians are talking about it, this rising threat of a future nuclear bomb that the Iranians will soon have.
All right.
So if somebody says, well, we've got to do something about it, well, what are we going to do about it?
And if somebody brings up military intervention, the first thing that's going to happen is a Democratic Party and a meeting, oh, yeah, so it's Iraq all over again.
And that very thing is probably going to handcuff any ability to do anything.
And the end-game conservatives are frustrated and fed up at this.
It's not that they disagree with the notion of a democratic Iraq, but the idea that we can't do anything else in that region until we get this Iraq situation straightened out is what frustrates them.
And that's why they're breaking away from the president and his policy on it, not because they disagree specifically with the policy so much.
We are unwilling to allow the prosecution of this war against the terrorist nations to be delayed for however long it takes for Iraqis to sort themselves out.
It's impossible for them to do so while neighboring nations, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, actively interfere.
In-game conservatives don't want to get caught in the web of failed nostrums of Vietnam.
We won't wait for Islam to be reformed or to win the hearts and minds of the mullahs in Tehran.
We don't consider Islam reformable or unreformable, but we understand that it is unreformable by non-Muslims.
And we understand that the only way to spur Muslims to accomplish that reservation reformation is to break the hold that radical Islam has over a growing number of nations.
And so that's where the fissure has developed here.
And so when, I'm spent so much time on this because it's a good question.
The callers, Richard and Williamsburg's question, basically was, well, if things are going so well in Iraq, why don't you just pull out?
Well, that's why, what is your definition of victory?
And we have differing definitions here that have sprung up because there is a waning of support for the president's policy based on things that I just mentioned to you.
I don't want to repeat them.
So, yeah, things are going better than they're being reported in Iraq, but it's not to the point that anything is near where we can claim victory and begin to pull out on the basis of victory.
And so it's you can have a bunch of things going on at one time.
You know what?
You can have this scenario, just a hypothetical scenario.
You can have us losing the war at the moment and have it still make every bit of sense to stay there.
The problem with naysayers and liberals and Democrats in general is that they want us to lose.
They expect us to lose.
They're invested in defeat.
So at the first sign of it or the first spin of defeat, they want to claim defeat and pull out on that basis.
Sort of like being on the losing end of a football score in the first quarter.
Ah, game's over.
We lost.
Even though lives aren't lost in the football field, nobody's out there shooting each other.
But the point is, the analogy holds.
So we can still be losing and have every reason in the world to stay.
I'm sure there were times in World War II that, oh, it wasn't going well.
It wasn't.
D-Day was a bloodbath.
And there were people, had there been media back then as there is today, who knows if we would have prevailed.
Some very smart people think that we wouldn't have, that the anti-war movement, had it existed then with the sympathetic media, would have been able to gin up plenty of anti-war support that would have caused political considerations to be made in a military operation.
And that's what's happening here.
Well, D-Day was considered a failure on that day, Given the number of people that we lost, and despite all the heroism, D-Day of that particular day was concerned, oh, gee, look, we got clocks cleaned here.
The Battle of the Bulge.
You're talking about bloody.
But nevertheless, folks, depending on how you define the endgame here, I understand where the endgame conservatives are coming from.
I actually like both sides of the strategy here.
I like what Jed Beben has written to define endgame conservatives, and I also like the president's objective of spreading prosperity and freedom and democracy to as many people in the world as possible.
I do think that makes all kind of sense, but the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
And the endgame conservatives are concerned that their objectives are not even on the table right now.
But it is a great point.
If you're trying to establish a democratic regime, say, in Iraq that's being continually undermined, infiltrated, and upset by insurgents from neighboring countries, doesn't it make sense to take care of the problems that your project in Iraq is facing from these neighboring countries at the same time?
The endgame conservatives don't think that the president's policy will succeed unless those other things happen at the same time.
Back with more right after this.
I might also point out, ladies and gentlemen, that things have been going pretty well in Germany and Japan since World War II, and we haven't pulled out of either of those countries yet.
We are still there.
James in Washington, D.C. I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome.
Rush, how are you today?
Fine, thank you.
A little horse.
I've been screaming a lot at people lately, but other than that, I'm fine.
Well, as long as it's the left.
I need some help here.
I'm a solid conservative.
I've voted party line tickets for as long as I've been able to vote, but I'm having some problems lately.
You know, I bought into the vision.
You know, I saw Iraq as a threat a few years ago.
I now look at the situation, and I think in hindsight, it was a strategic mistake in the war.
However, unlike...
Wait, wait, which was the strategic mistake?
I think going in was a strategic mistake.
I think, you know, obviously hindsight's 2020.
They didn't have the weapons.
But look, we're in the situation we are now, and I think we have to win, regardless of, you know, looking in the rearview mirror and being able to assess all that.
I'm very pleased that Saddam is gone, but I feel like we're very much overstretched right now.
We don't have the capability to go after Iran and Syria in a serious way.
True, we've taken out a tyrant and a dictator, but we've really stirred up the hornet's nest.
And I do think it's short-sighted to say that we don't have the ability and that we're stretched thin.
There are countless ways of doing things that don't involve, at least getting started and sending messages, don't involve countless ground troops with plotting invasions and this sort of thing.
The problem that some people have is that it doesn't appear we're doing anything about it with those neighboring countries.
And it's awfully strange.
To hear people say, and I think your attitude is reflective of the impact that five years of a never-ending barrage by the mainstream press and the Democratic Party can have on someone.
It's clearly had it on you.
You actually believe that the United States can't win a war.
No.
You have a fear that we, the United States of America, are stretched too thin.
And I don't think anything's, I don't think there's anything, I don't think there's a whole lot of truth to that.
You know, where there's a will, there's a way.
This is what everybody's talking about.
Where's the will?
I have the will, sir.
And no, and I'm completely willing.
I think I bemoan the fact that there is no more Kennedy Truman wing of the Democratic Party that is willing to bear any burden and take on the grand vision.
And I feel that, you know, half the country is against it.
I'm willing to look all past that.
And I'm willing.
You know, I'm only 35 years old.
I'm willing to look at this as the great challenge of the generation.
However, I do see it in hindsight.
I can say I think we made a strategic error.
But regardless of that, we have to move forward and win it.
Now, with Iran and Syria, I don't want a lot of public statements.
I want them sending in the covert teams.
And I think it's probably already going on already.
I think we probably have special forces in both of those countries.
You know, and that's sort of the preferable way, from my view, to run this war.
Not by sending out the vice president in front of APIC or APAC in Washington last week and rattling the sword with Iran.
And so that's where I sort of break with the president, and I wish that there was a more, I hate to use this word, but a more sophisticated diplomacy.
Well, now wait a second.
Wait a second.
Now you're making me think that you're a seminar caller.
If you're not a seminar caller, you don't want your host thinking you are one.
And when I hear you say that we don't have a sophisticated enough diplomacy, I mean, the red flags are going up.
I tell you what, that's exactly the kind of thing got us into this mess was a bunch of blown, screwy, time-wasting, worthless diplomacy by supposedly the most sophisticated people in the world, the French and the Germans and these muttonheads at the United Nations.
Diplomacy is not how you win wars, sophisticated or otherwise.
And a sophisticated diplomacy, how do you be sophisticated diplomacy with a bunch of murdering thugs?
Sophisticated diplomacy with old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
With the mullahs in Iran?
You know what?
They see any kind of diplomacy, sophisticated or otherwise, as an opportunity to lie, to run end runs around everybody and get what they want while we're supposedly talking.
People like Richard Holbrook have never won a war.
They're not going to win a war.
They're not going to solve disputes.
You can look at the history of the world.
Diplomacy is for after one side's had its ass kicked and the diplomats tell them what the future for them is going to be.
That's the diplomacy that you use after you have defeated the enemy.
You don't use diplomacy to defeat them.
You only use diplomacy to make yourself think that you're smarter than everybody else in the world while you're being taken for a fool.
Back in a second.
I see where NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabu has announced he's going to resign.
He will resign in July, and he's 65 years old.
And this has been rumored.
And you know who wants that job?
You know who has been saying she wants that job and that would be her dream job is Condoleezza Rice.
But I just, I can't imagine, even if the NFL would love to have her, the timing's just not right.
I cannot see her pulling out to go to the National Football League.
Plus, I would think it'd probably be easier dealing with the Iraqis and the Iranians and Terrell Owens.
Are you all excited?
Yeah, Dallas Cowboys.
You know what I like about this?
What I like about T.O. going to the Cowboys is he's in the Eagles division.
He's in the NFC East.
And he gets to play the Eagles twice, twice a year now.
Gets to play head games with McNabb and Andy Reid and a whole bunch.
He'll have the full authority of his coach and owner to play those head games with the Eagles.
But you've got to imagine, you know, the Eagles Clubhouse rallied to T.O. because when you boil it down, these guys all want more money.
And T.O. and his situation indicated that the Eagles are pretty tight-fisted with the dollars compared to other teams in the league.
T.O. is going to get more money after his antics got him kicked off the Eagles and in limbo for a couple months.
He's going to get more money his first year with Dallas than he would have gotten had he stayed with Philadelphia.
He improved his financial situation.
If you're Terrell Owens, you got to be thinking, everything I did paid off.
Everything I did worked out.
I got more money.
I got kicked off a team I didn't want to be a part of anymore.
Yeah, it had some embarrassing moments, but when money is your objective, T.O., he got it.
And he has to ram it to the Eagles that way, too, in addition to playing against them twice every season.
Quick timeout.
▲
Export Selection