All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
July 12, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Oh, hey, hi.
How are you?
Good.
Good morning, good afternoon, and uh good evening for all the various time zones around the world.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Tom Sullivan's in for Rush as he vacations.
I'll be here today.
And uh back again tomorrow.
This is a um Well, this is a great opportunity.
It's always an honor to fill in for Rush, but you know why, you know why it works so well is because um whenever I go on vacation, he fills in for me.
Oh, no, that doesn't work.
Well, maybe, yeah, I don't think so.
Welcome to the program.
We have uh for you today.
Um I've been watch I know it's a little bit off the the headlines today, but it's still brewing, and I find it absolutely fascinating about um about dear leader.
Yes, Kim Jong il and and all the diplomatic stuff that's going on over in China and Russia and all these various places, everybody is wringing their hands and talking about what are they going to do and uh and so there's just uh I'm really really surprised because there are some edit some opinion pieces,
some editorials from some places that you would not expect them to be talking this way, like the Los Angeles Times and even the old gray lady herself, uh the New York Times will get into um the fact that they're t the they're all saying the same thing.
All this diplomatic wringing of the hands is uh is a joke.
It's not going to lead to anything.
So I want to and I want to give you some background.
We have we have some some other times in history that will show you that this is absolutely bizarre that we have this uh we're working through the UN.
The United Nations is once again establishing itself as a totally ineffective organization.
Totally they're just they're just a corrupt organization to make money for the people that are there and everybody else.
It's just um I I I cannot believe how people are so baffled.
We've got that.
We've got um Novak uh uh Robert Novak has come out today now when he's written a column about the whole business about how he uh uh how Carl Rowe was a source in outing uh Valerie Plame, so we've got a little bit more on that.
And uh speaking of lying, there's a great um there's a great poll that was done by the Associated Press and Ipsos, and they they asked people, they said, Hey, what do you think?
What do you think about li have you ever told a lie?
Yeah, have you ever um you know the George Washington thing on the cherry tree?
No, no, I mean you you were taught that as a child, right about the cherry tree.
And uh I will never tell a lie, and so people say, Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
We can't, yeah.
I mean, I don't tell lies, and nobody should tell lies.
In fact, never but at the same time, the same people that were pulled said, well, sometimes it's okay.
So I want so I'm I want to go through um uh w the sometimes when it's okay.
According No, it's it's absolutely uh hilarious because it's as Bill Cosby says, the best comedy is when we talk about ourselves and the way we react to things about lying is uh is a perfect example of it.
And because I am really a financial person uh in the disguise of a talk show host.
Uh I brought with me um a number of things.
Uh the report that came out yesterday about the federal deficit, about how it is ha how it has improved, uh how this story has been buried, how even for those who have even made a mention of the story about the deficit getting a lot better,
have said, well, the reason why the the maybe the uh the the has gotten so much better is because some of the administration's critics say they buried uh well they actually inflated the numbers a year ago in order to make it look good now.
And you gotta stop and think about that for a second because if that's true, then why is it that the story was buried and you know darn well that the Bush administration knows that the media is not gonna give them credit for anything nothing.
So they're not gonna so you know darn well that that's not even close to reality.
There can't be any the the Bush administration, regardless of what you think of them, isn't is is smart enough to figure out the fact that they're not going to get credit for anything, and they knew that a year ago when the estimates were four hundred and some billion dollars of red ink and it came in under three hundred billion, but we still have problems.
So I want to go through all of that as we go through the program today, too.
And in the second hour, actually, you know, this was uh from uh uh from filling in on this program over the years, a uh professor of history at uh the University of Dayton, Larry Schweikert, uh sent me a book and a note because he was listening to me in Ohio on this program.
And uh I just got a book from him literally a couple of days ago.
He had no idea I was going to be filling in on this program this week, uh, but he sent it to me called America's Victories, Why the U.S. wins wars and will win the war on terror.
So um we've got uh Professor Larry Swikert coming on the program in the second hour to talk about it's it's a fascinating concept about why is it?
And this drives those on the left absolutely nutty is uh the whole business about war and the history of our country in war and how we approach it and why we win wars.
It's uh so anyway, Larry Sweikert's going to be along in the uh in the second hour.
But speaking of how we approach these things, and and there's been quite a bit of publicity this week about what's going on.
What's going on with J with George W?
What's with W?
He's sitting there all of a sudden the cowboy uh uh diplomacy is is over, and we're into the um and through the distinguished uh diplomats discussing things.
And and even the New York Times and LA Times and uh across the board saying, what are they doing?
There's nothing that's going to come from the UN, and this diplomacy business is uh well, it hasn't worked in the past.
So I don't know if you can lend your two cents worth, but everybody's trying to figure out why is it that the cowboy hat is off and the diplomatic hat is on the Bush administration regarding everything, but primarily with regarding uh North Korea.
So it really is a good question.
Now I I I don't do this very often, but but just in the last couple of weeks, I've been going back and reading a book that I read before.
But it's been a few years since I read it.
And it's called The Dark Side of Camelot, and it's written by Seymour Hirsch.
Yeah, the big New Yorker guy.
It's it's about Kennedy, Kennedy administration, Kennedy's father, Joe Kennedy, all the stuff about the Kennedys.
And you know how they always keep coming back.
Stick with me here, I'm not off on a different tangent.
I'm gonna bring this all around.
In any case, Hurst is this really, really good job with this book.
I really like what he did about going back and documenting uh all the things that were going on.
Well, in in World War II, and we forget this because we hear about Brokaw's book, The Greatest Generation, the seniors that are now there that were World War II people, uh, lived through World War II and what a great generation it is.
But we never hear about the fact that there were anti-war people, just like there are today.
And one of the big anti-war people in the Roosevelt administration was Joe Kennedy, who happened to be for a while ambassador to Great Britain.
And he was sitting there going, No, no, we can't go to war.
We can't go to war.
Well, there'll be soldiers will be killed, and we can't, and why would we want to get involved in somebody else's problems anyway?
And it's the same exact rhetoric, it's word for word of what you're hearing today.
What we're hearing today.
And so uh he was all for diplomacy and talking, and he tried to set up meetings with Hitler, and he made it very clear, and this, by the way, bothers me a lot because there's a lot of you from the Jewish community that keep voting democratic, and yet here's Joe Kennedy.
I know it was a long time ago, but here's Joe Kennedy saying that he understood the Jewish problem that Hitler had.
I mean, he was a big Hitler sympathizer saying, just would you If we just left him alone.
Well, later, Joe Kennedy is dead, and Rose, the wife, Jack of John Kennedy's mother, is being interviewed.
And she says, well, she was trying to cover for for her husband's lunacy.
And she says, well, nobody could uh could really uh knew how criminally insane Adolf Hitler was.
Well, yes, we did know.
A lot of people knew.
And a lot of people knew that about Saddam Hussein, and a lot of people know it about Kim Jong il, and yet they keep pretending that you can sit down with these people and have some sort of legitimate conversation.
You can't discuss things with people that are not rational.
Adolf Hitler was not rational, and yet Joe Kennedy was trying to talk to him about the problems.
See if we could work something out.
Let's have negotiations.
And we're doing the same thing right now with Kim Jong il, and you've got people I've heard I heard Newt Gingrich the other day saying you know, go in and take out what they've got.
Be aggressive, be preemptive.
But I'm afraid that the the cowboy diplomacy is is out for a lot of reasons, and this is why I'm asking you one of them is you may think I'm a conspiracy kook here, but one of them is is primarily because of the fact that uh the president and his administration uh doesn't want to deal with any more of the criticism from the people who say, you can't go out there and do preemptive things.
Look what you did.
You got this Iraq situation, it's a quagmire after all.
And they keep criticizing and he says, I'm not gonna go do that again.
So we're now stuck diplomatic di diplomatically because of that.
Or is it because Condoleezza Rice is getting ready to uh maybe throw her hat into the ring for oh eight uh and we want to look diplomatic from the Secretary of State's office?
It's it makes no sense to me.
You've got people, uh you've got uh the the probably the next prime minister of Japan saying uh preemptive.
You've got Gingrich saying preemptive, you've got the LA Times and New York Times saying these talks are gonna go nowhere.
So you can chime in and uh you figure it out because I don't I don't have it figured out.
The phone number is 800.
Uh again, you cannot, as Rose Kennedy said, why nobody knew that he was criminally insane.
Well, I think that's where we are.
800 28282 is the phone number.
800 28282.
My name is Tom Sullivan.
This is the Rush Limbaugh Radio Program.
Welcome back.
Uh Tom Sullivan in for Rush.
I'll be here uh warning, morning, back uh again tomorrow.
And uh who's gonna be who's gonna be Paul Paul Bull W. Smith on Friday, yeah.
Out of uh WJR, the big station in Detroit.
Well, we've got uh oh, I've also got a bone to pick with uh with Israel.
Well my why not?
Uh they they're they have their hands full right now.
This you've in the news today we've got Hezbollah has uh captured two Israeli soldiers.
They came across the border, they grabbed the soldiers, took them back, and we're all you know, they're already working on the uh the soldier, the 19-year-old soldier that was captured back on June twenty-fifth uh and is in Gaza and uh Hamas as them, as has that soldier.
So they're going back and forth and all this, and the history we could go through, and the the bone to pick I have is I'm sitting there going, see, I'm thinking to myself, Israel now they know how to do things.
They don't sit around and wring their hands.
I mean, they're already they've got the jets going, they're m r running missiles, they're they're firing away, they're they're they're not sitting back.
They are taking action.
But then as I was going through uh associated press article uh this morning about the history of all of this, uh my eyes lit up.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
It says Israel has carried out several prisoner swaps with Hezbollah to obtain freedom for captured Israelis in the past.
And Hezbollah has um well see here's here's the here's the deal.
Just a slight bit of history.
Israel occupied a small strip of Southern Lebanon between Lebanon and Israel as kind of a buffer.
And they did that for 18 years up until the year 2000.
And then a bunch of uh weak needs, Israelites said uh, well, we should oh my goodness, what are we doing with that?
We we need to pull back and not be there.
We don't need that buffer.
So Israel pulled back and Hezbollah immediately took control of that buffer zone right along the border with Israel.
And Hezbollah has repeatedly said they plan to kidnap Israeli soldiers to trade them for Arab prisoners.
So it's not like this is any big surprise, but Israel got weak.
Some of the people from Israel said, Oh, we shouldn't be doing that, and so they got weak, and now here you are, right back with another with another problem.
The minute you show weakness to the enemy, and Israel knows this.
The minute you show weakness, they take advantage of you.
So the problem I've got is I'm thinking, well, they're tough until I started reading this.
Israel's carried out several prisoner swaps in the past.
Uh an Israeli civilian and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers were exchanged for 436 Arab prisoners back in January of 04.
So much for the uh peace along the border.
And here's the deal.
Hezbollah says, okay, you've got this civilian that belongs to you, and you've got these three dead soldiers, and we want 436 of our guys.
And Israel did it.
And then go back to 1985.
There were three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon in 1982 and uh in 1985, Hezbollah says, We will give you your three Israeli soldiers three years after they were captured, I don't know what kind of shape they were in, in exchange for we give you three, we want 1,150 of uh our guys.
And Israel said, okay.
So if your Hezbollah, you're looking at this and going, well, it worked pretty well before a couple different times, let's do it again.
And this is what you get when you do these things.
You cannot negotiate with the enemy.
You cannot do that.
And so here we are at the bargaining table, trying to get to the bargaining table so we can have discussions with this madman from from North Korea.
I think we've gone mad.
Sam in uh Sarasota, Florida, hi, you're on the Rush Limbaugh show with Tom Sullivan.
Hey, Tom, great to talk to you.
I'm so glad for your commentary when Russia's there because I don't have to change the radio station of my car on those days.
Ah, thank you.
Thank you.
I was just thinking about uh how ludicrous it is that um would take the hat off the cowboy, you know, once a cowboy, always a cowboy, but he's not doing anything differently than he's done in the past in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Uh he went to the United Nations, made a speech there, uh, reviewed all the resolutions with them, got a security council uh resolution passed.
And uh in this particular case, he's trying to do the same thing, working diplomacy as is best possible.
But uh I think when the president feels as though it's necessary to do what he has to do, he'll do what he has to do.
I think they're just taking an opportunity to call him a wild cowboy uh at the early part of his presidency, and now to try to emasculate him and tell him that he's lost his hat and doesn't have the nerve anymore.
I uh my biggest concern, and I'll tell you, you know why um you know why John Kerry and especially Al Gore lost the presidential race was because they were trying to reinvent themselves and they never knew who they were.
They were always trying to say, which is one of the politicians' easiest uh swords to fall on is uh try to say to make everybody happy.
And Bush hasn't done that.
But I'm wondering I I just I'm scratching my head, and then in today right off the Reuters uh today comes uh Texas plane talk is what uh is what George Bush does very well.
And let me Ask you something.
When when you people that you know, friends of yours, people that you like, generally it's because of the fact that you know they're being straight with you.
Do you like people that you know are BSing you?
Absolutely not.
No.
So nobody else does either.
And that's why there's a big article uh today about the fact that uh the president is off to Germany, and he and the new uh German Chancellor Angela Merkel are getting along just fine, and he likes her, and she's invited him and his wife uh to the uh to her house and uh very personable and he likes Putin and all the I'm telling you,
it is um th they say they the they're worry about the the diplomacy cowboy style, but then they're saying, but gee, it really seems to work pretty well.
And I ask you, which do you like?
You like plain speaking people or somebody that stands around in some sort of diplomatic speak.
I like the plain speaking type myself.
We'll be back.
So as I was uh as I was saying, welcome back to the program, Tom Sullivan signing in for rush today and tomorrow.
Paul W. Smith will be here on Friday and rush back on Monday.
So when it comes I mean, look at the there was a news conference on Monday, and the president told the reporters, he says, you know, I make it clear where I stand.
People say, wow, that creates tension.
But privately it doesn't.
That's what you've got to know.
I work hard to make sure that I've got good personal relationships with these leaders so we can solve problems.
And and again, I go back to whether you agree or disagree with somebody, you you tend to like somebody that if you know where they're coming from, and that's the beauty of people that are straight talkers.
The straight talkers are the people that are are going to uh let you know where they stand so that you don't have to try and second guess or figure out what kind of hidden agenda they have.
And so, on one hand, president gets uh, you know, the what which was it, Timer Newsweek had that that cowboy hat and then saying, well, cowboy diplomacy is over, all of a sudden we're using the UN, we're using all these uh these diplomats to do all this work.
Uh and yet the article from Reuters Today says, Oh, behind the scenes he's a straight talker.
He lays out his position with little ambiguity.
Yeah, occasionally it ruffles feathers, but people like people that are straight talkers.
I don't care if you if you are working down at the local gas station or whether you're running uh a country.
People like pe well, first of all, which is one of my truisms from business, people do business with people.
I know they get to these tables and they've got their flags and they've got their country's name, but people do business with people.
And if people like you because you're a straight talker, they don't have to agree with you, but they can still like you and give you respect.
And so here we've got uh Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, saying, Why don't you uh you and Laura come by come by my house?
And uh in in the old uh East German section where she grew up.
Let me bring you there.
And and so there's there's uh you don't you don't get invited to people's homes if they don't like you.
They may meet you in their office, but they're not going to invite you to their home.
So here we are with uh this uh Christopher Hill who is with the State Department, and he's our ambassador that's running all over the the country, all over the world, uh trying to work something up with North Korea.
So I've kind of mixed here the situation going on with Israel and Hezbollah and the president going off to his uh summit with the G eight folks this weekend, and uh Kim Jong-il.
But it all comes from the same common denominator is you you've got to be decisive and handring and talking won't get you anywhere.
Terry in uh Bella Vista, Arkansas.
Hi, Terry, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Yeah, hi, Tom.
Uh do some follow-up here on the uh what I would call it the button-down uh diplomacy, it'll be more classical in one sense, yeah.
Going by the book, uh therefore uh Bush et al.
can show to the American people or the American public uh as to what has to be done on this thing and eventually hopefully to show how little the UN uh does things to people so uh as far as them uh the uh that is the UN following through so you think this is you think this is just a uh a uh a rehashed version of what he did before Iraq is that he's basically setting the UN up to say either do something or get out of the way?
Well, this is true because the media is going to spin it one way or the other.
And if he does the diplomacy route, and basically the Americans, I think, have forgotten about, you know, what happened prior to 9-11, was it Iraq going in there?
By doing it, setting them up on this thing, then we're back to basics again.
And if the U.N. screws around with it, well, too bad.
New York Times editorial says, to be made on this and the related North Korean nuclear issue it will not be through Security Council resolutions or sanctions from the old gray lady herself LA Times says but does anyone really expect more than just fine words from the UN Security Council.
Nobody respects them.
Speaking of respect, so I don't know.
I'm uh I I I don't get it either Terry.
Hey John in uh Sacramento hello John you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Tom hi there um I had a comment to make about about the North Korean issue.
Uh this is how I look at it I think it's it's slightly more complex and in in this way.
Uh number one I say in the East uh Asian nations they're not perceived as as terrorist nations like Islamic nations so I think there's a different tact there that has to be that has to be taken for number so number two wait a minute let me s let me stop you on one.
OK, because good old Kim Jong Il is more than happy to sell this technology of nuke bombs to other people.
I mean, I understand your point.
It's not it's not the same sort of of tribal joining together Islamo fascist sort of tribal effort to try to get the enemy.
But it but there's the same sort of terrorist underlying principle of what worries us is the fact that we may be able to contain him.
But what if they start selling themselves?
this stuff off?
Yeah absolutely I mean that that is absolutely a reality and I think that reality needs to be hammered home.
I just don't see it as being in in the forefront yet.
So just as far as the approach that's that's kind of how I was looking at that but absolutely he's definitely a threat in in every way that Saddam was your second what's your second point?
The second point is that um you know with north with North Korea right on the border there with China, you know we we've seen China and Russia they seem to be collaborating behind the scenes.
There's a lot of solidarity there.
And so um we remember I and while I was waiting I remembered the situation with our intelligence plane that crashed in China and how dicey that got and that almost got ramped up into a big deal and it took a lot of savvy to in dealing with the Chinese to get them to let our boys come home you know and so that was right right at the onset I think Bush had his first taste of the Chinese mentality and their and their the you know as a barometer where they are at with their relations with America.
So that that Chinese plane situation almost became a big deal.
You've got the Chinese and the Russians at the UN kind of kind of standing shoulder to shoulder and so you know there there's that element there if you have these two major superpowers that you know in at a moment's notice they could start uh you know huffing and puffing and so again there's a there's a different approach there and then the third go ahead.
And the last point is that I believe Bush is being actually very cowboy.
You know, he's not one-dimensional.
You know, a cowboy knows when to talk straight and when to look you in the eye and when to, you know, maybe even get up in your face if you have to.
But a cowboy also, I think, knows when to shut up and stand back and kind of let your opponent walk into his own noose.
You know, you can't want to walk him into it.
So I think there's that element of one point.
just giving them rope to hang themselves huh yeah exactly so there's all these elements coming into play and and I like what the gentleman's Markinson said about the UN they continue to prove themselves as being ineffective and you have to play that card out too and and just again that point has to be hammered home because they and the media is not gonna not gonna bring it home to you uh to the to the public I think the public are seeing it you know when you got the UN representative blaming Fox News for for their bad rap I'm sorry that it doesn't wash I miss that but I that sounds pretty funny.
That's uh oh and then he blamed Rush too I'm being told so um well I'll tell you I'll tell listen I'll tell you what I I think it's pretty clear.
I'm no I'm no UN or s or uh State Department diplomat, but everybody keeps talking about the fact that, well, China, you know, boy, China is really the one that has a lot to do here, and China's the one that can take care of all of this.
And well, if that's true, then why hasn't China done something?
And the reason why China hasn't done something is I think that Kim Jong-il is their straw puppet.
I think he that China gets to sit there and tweak everybody by having Kim Jong-il do their dirty work.
He's the one, he's the front guy who is uh is is working this uh uh making everybody upset around the world, but China's sitting back and going, oh good, let's see what they'll do.
Let's uh go ahead.
Go ahead, Kim, and and run those missiles up in the air, and let's see what they do.
It's uh it's a strategy that's worked in many, many different uh uh places, whether it's sports or business, you you put something out, you have somebody else do something and see what the opposition does to react to it or prepare for it.
And I think there's more and more of the uh editorials and the experts and everybody else are pointing and saying China is the key behind this whole thing, and so what we really need to do is make sure that China's taught.
No, what you're missing is that China is behind the whole thing.
I think it's abundantly clear.
We'll be back.
Phone number to join the program 800 282-2882, and we'll have a history professor, Larry Swikert, uh, from uh University of Dayton on with the with the America's Victories, a history of it and war in this country right after the top of the hour as well.
So stick around.
The Tom Rush Lundbach program continues.
My name is Tom Sullivan.
Welcome back.
Tom Sullivan in for Rush.
I'll be back uh tomorrow as well.
We've got um all this diplomatic speak and everybody wringing their hands and what to do, how to do the diplomacy, and we've got a bunch of people that are sitting there saying, uh, well, let's use force.
Uh Walter was it was it Mondale said that?
Uh Newt Gingrich said that.
The the guy who's expected to be the next Japanese prime minister said that.
And uh everybody all upset about the fact that he's saying Japan, oh, they're all there's an anti-war group over there.
You can't go around saying things like that.
And uh there's a there's a um a columnist, uh Los Angeles Times columnist Niall Ferguson, who almost got it right.
He's closer than anybody I think to this issue about dear leader, which he likes to be called.
And he says, He says, I understand why why it's hard to take this guy seriously.
He's got his Elvis hairstyle, his outsize specs, his khaki pajamas, and he's got the dear leader thing that he likes to be called.
He looks like an escape from a lunatic asylum.
So says Niall Ferguson.
I couldn't agree more, but so he says, Well, how'd we get into this big mess?
We starts going through this whole history of uh this is in uh when was this?
Yesterday's LA Times.
He goes through this whole history about that whole part of the world.
And he talked about the breakup of the Soviet Union and everything else, but he says um it might be thought that China gains little from having a madman as a neighbor and a dependent, because China do without China, North Korea is I mean, they're broke anyway.
So truly, North China is is the dad, the daddy.
Who's your daddy?
It's China.
That's who it is.
And so that's why I'm sitting here going, it's China behind all of this.
They own North Korea.
And they've got this crazy guy that they can they can use.
It's like the goofball in school that you that you use for some reason.
It's it's almost embarrassing to watch.
It's almost mean.
So anyway, I said until now, Nile Niall Ferguson says, uh, until now, this has suited Beijing well to have this madman as a neighbor interdependent.
It's been a useful proxy, allowing China to probe the vulnerability of South Korea and Japan, and also to assert the big role of China having parody with the U.S. and trying to work out the big matters in Asia.
So where Nile gets it right, then he goes on and says, Well, this may not last because they by why the Chinese Premier warned North Korea not to shoot those missiles off, and they did it anyway.
So China, dear leader, you may not have endeared yourself to Papa over in Beijing.
And I say, Ron O, you have there, he's literally doing what he's been told to do.
I firmly believe that.
Firmly believe it.
Rick and Bethlehem P.A. Hello, Rick, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hey, I appreciate you having me on.
Uh I think it's a little disingenuous for the uh subs of the the Clinton administration to uh come on and uh uh rattled George Bush's saber now, and now all of a sudden they're becoming hawkish.
Um I think it comes down to a difference in first ladies.
Um back in uh Clinton era, Clinton would send Madeline Albright out to uh devour the uh buffets of the world and hope to eat people into submission, and um while he stayed back in the Oval Office and and wested interns.
And if if uh Laura Bush had been the first lady back then, she would have kicked his butt up and down Pennsylvania Avenue instead of blaming everybody else for the uh the impotency of the uh the Clinton administration.
So there's no question, I see.
There's no I don't know about the first lady, Ty, but I do agree with you on Madeline Albright was uh that was part of it was we handed them the technology because we wanted to talk to them.
And again, it goes back to that comment that Rose Kennedy made.
Why nobody no I can hardly wait for Madeline Albright to say nobody knew he was criminally insane.
Isn't it obvious?
Even the LA Times is calling him a lunatic of escapee from a lunatic asylum.
I mean, this is real, real obvious what we're dealing with here.
And so anyway, I uh I don't know, I don't know if I follow the the connection of the dots from the first ladies, but I do follow the the Madeline Albright comment.
Thanks, Rick.
John and um in Crofton, Maryland.
Hi, John, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program.
How are you doing, Tom?
You you did a great uh monologue, uh, except uh I think you might have compared Kim Jong-il with uh uh with Adolf Hitler, and uh I think we have to really look at this guy uh for what he is.
I mean, he's just a puppet, uh just as uh Castro was a puppet during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And if you compare the situation in Cuba from start, you know, from then till now, the beginning of Castro's coming to power now, and the uh uh and the uh power uh uh King Jong Il and his father have in uh in North Korea, and the fact that we have troops at Guantanamo in Cuba and also, you know, on the border for over fifty years, fifty-six years and uh in Korea, and they're both kind of starving, and they're both uh uh business.
Yeah, the people the people are suffering.
People are suffering while the leader gains, yeah, yeah.
Very good analogy.
Uh we dealt we didn't bother dealing with Castro.
We dealt with the boss with Khrushchev to negotiate that Cuban missile crisis.
And I would suggest that the negotiations really should center on uh Red China talking to them.
They're the ones that are keeping uh Kim Jong Yil in power by giving him food, and uh and for some stupid reason I think the South Koreans are st uh sending him food.
We can starve this guy out using medieval tactics.
I mean, when you went and you tried to capture a castle, you starved him out.
Yep and this guy can be starved out, and I don't think we should be scared because he saw shot off of six missiles short range, and they didn't do anything, they just fell into the China uh Japan see.
And the one that was supposed to go to Hawaii, well, it was only in the air about a half a minute.
Uh and we don't even know really what his technology is.
But I think if we deal with uh the Red Chinese, uh we'll get farther and probably get a better uh deal out of this, especially since China is so dependent on Walmart and uh you know, and they cost so many U.S. dollars.
I gotta I've got to take a break here, but uh when I come back, I'll I'll react to your comment because there are some very specific things that we can do and who depends upon whom.
And I think your analogy with Castro is right on.
John, thanks for the call.
This is uh I'm Tom Sullivan.
This is the Rush Lindbaugh Radio Program.
All right, when we come back after the top of the hour, Larry Swichter, Professor Larry Swikert from the University of Dayton's gonna be on.
He wrote a book called Um America's Victories, Why the US Wins Wars, and USA Today said there's a whole bunch of anti-Bush books coming this summer.
This is the only optimistic one out there, so we'll find out why.
We found it.
We'll talk about it next hour.
And also in reference to the last caller.
I'm i uh we would have to sacrifice, but other generations of Americans have sacrificed in time of war.
But if we could cut off imports from China, it would break their back in an instant.
Now we would have to do without some things for a while till we made America back to a manufacturing facility, but it would work.
▲
Export Selection