All Episodes
Previous Next
July 26, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
July 26, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know when I'm hoarse, it just it has an effect on my mind.
I get caught up.
I can't say, and I do the riffs I want to do, and it maybe I'm not hoarse.
Maybe it's my cochlear implants making me sound hoarse to myself.
You know, it changes day to day.
It's subject to so many vagaries.
Anyway, greetings and welcome back, folks.
It's fat.
What?
How long is it?
What?
No, I'm not going to hold off on a lifestyle stack, Sternly.
Sternly, now it's going to be a game trying to get me off the lifestyle stack.
Yesterday was Hillary.
He tried Hillary again to get me off the lifestyle stack, but this fits perfectly in the lifestyle stack.
What you sent me on Hillary?
Oh, anyway, we're glad you're back.
Hi to those of you watching on the Ditto Cam at RushLimblaw.com.
You're simply listening to the best talk show there is.
Leading talk show, more listeners than anybody else, largest audience, longest period of time.
Excellent role model for all media members and in fact the youth of America as well.
Do well following the precepts and guidance elucidated from this program.
800-282-2882, if you want to be on the program.
You know, we do show prep here every day, and I've been collecting this lifestyle stuff for a week.
And I haven't gotten to it because the Hezbo's and the Israelis are going at it, and that's pretty serious.
And there's very serious news and largely important events going on out there.
And I know that you have expectations.
But folks, you've got to take a break from it for some time.
I mean, you don't, you just, you can get too much.
And I don't want your emotional reservoir on this stuff to run dry.
This is stuff, the war on terror and all this is not something that I can afford you getting bored about and tired of hearing about.
So I'm going to get into some of the lifestyle stuff now.
If you want to talk about all of this, and if you're on hold and have been, fine.
When we go to the phones, if you want to talk about the Israelis and the Hezbollah war in Lebanon or whatever, that's fine.
During the break at the top of the hour, when Snerdley was trying to talk me out of doing the lifestyle stack, he said, have you seen the Hillary bust?
Now, when somebody asks you if you have seen the Hillary bust, you know, it's a delicate answer.
What could it mean?
It could mean one of two things.
And when Snerdley's asking the question, it could have many more subtle meanings.
Have you seen the Hillary bust?
So the safe answer was the true one.
No.
I've not seen either one.
So he says, well, you haven't?
I said, nope.
So he sent me a link to National Review Online.
I just sent the link up to Coco at the website because I want Coco to post this link because I can't describe this to you.
I'll read to you what it is.
And I have a picture.
There is a Hillary bust, and it's in the Museum of Sex, or it will be in the Museum of Sex on August 9th.
And the Museum of Sex has put out a press release announcing this great sculpture.
A presidential bust.
There's another meaning.
Presidential bust, which is what hers would be.
And a presidential bust of Hillary Clinton is set to be unveiled at the Museum of Sex on August 9th, 2006 at 10 a.m.
The Museum of Sex, by the way, is in New York.
Accentuating her sexual power and bolstered by the presidential seal, the presidential bust of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman president of the United States of America, will be officially opened for public viewing on August 9th for a limited six-week run.
Now, obviously, she's not been elected president yet, so this is a premature bust.
And when people start doing this kind of stuff, they end up getting bit severely by this, like when the Democrats start talking about Speaker to be Pelosi and so forth.
The artist here is Daniel Edwards, and he describes this new sculpture as capturing Clinton with her head held high, a youthful spirit, and a face matured by wisdom.
Presented in a low-cut gown.
From this picture, it doesn't look like she's wearing anything, snirdly.
That's the first thing.
It looked like the guy's even carved in veins.
But I guess that's just the way the picture.
At any rate, with her head held high, a youthful spirit and a face matured by wisdom.
Presented in a low-cut gown, her cleavage is on display prominently portraying sexual power, which some people still consider to be too threatening.
Edwards, the artist's inspiration.
Are you bored by this, Brian?
Edwards' inspiration for the piece was derived from actress Sharon Stone's controversial quote earlier in the year about challenges that would most likely be encountered should the junior senator from New York run on the 08 ticket.
Said the brilliant political analyst Sharon Stone, I think Hillary Clinton's fantastic, but I think it's too soon for her to run.
This may sound odd, but a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs.
Hillary still has sexual power, and I don't think people will accept that.
It's just too threatening.
Well, Daniel Gluck, the executive director of the Museum of Sex, said displaying a sculpture to encourage discourse about the sexual power debate surrounding the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency is very much in line with our mission as a museum.
Folks, I can't describe this to you.
It is, I mean, I can try, but you just have to see this.
It is the ugliest sculpture of anything I've ever seen.
There's nothing sexual about this.
Dawn, have you seen it?
Is there, am I wrong?
Is there anything sexual about the woman in this sculpture looks like she's 104?
It looks like Hillary as a cadaver.
Now, the picture is shot looking up, not head-on, so that might distort it.
But I can't go any further than this, folks.
And this does not like, I mean, it doesn't look like there's a gown in this picture.
So I have told Coco to put it up.
He has not responded yet.
Keep checking rushlimbaugh.com, that link to this.
National Review Online has posted it on the corner.
But I don't have the link to that.
Well, I do, but I don't have it in my head to read to you.
The easiest way is just for you to get it off of our website.
The story from Kansas City Independence, Missouri, the assault trial of a man accused of shoving a cell phone down a woman's throat has begun.
Prosecutors say that 24-year-old Marlon Brando Gill was angry and jealous when he forced the phone into Melinda Abel's throat last December.
But defense attorneys insist the 25-year-old victim swallowed the phone intentionally to prevent Marlon Brando Gill from finding out who she'd been calling.
Gill is charged with felony first-degree assault.
Doctor at Kansas City Hospital's emergency room used a tool called a pincher to remove the phone from her throat.
She testified yesterday she couldn't remember how the phone got in her throat, saying she drank too much that night.
Court records show that her blood alcohol content was three times the legal limit.
I can't visualize how this is even possible.
I mean, I think I'm pretty much aware of the latest cell phones out there, but how do you get a cell phone in the throat and then get it stuck there and stay alive long enough for the hospital to use the pincher to get it out of there?
Well, I guess.
I guess the same way you get a light bulb up your, up your anus.
We had that story.
That guy was in Pakistan right, ended up with a light bulb up his anus.
Nobody, he couldn't figure out how it happened couldn't, couldn't remember how it happened.
I'll tell you.
I think there's some kinky sex going on out there.
This is this is, you know, light bulbs up the anus, and now you got cell phones down the throat, supposedly rammed down by some guy named Marlon Brando Gill.
I mean, there's something odd about this going on.
I'm still looking at this picture, this bust of of Hillary Clinton folks.
We, by the way, we got the link now ready to go at Rushlimbaugh.com.
It links to National Review online and I don't know about their server situation, but if you don't get in, you know, because we tend to crash servers out there all across the Fruited Plane, be patient, it's worth the wait.
And I'm just telling you, if they actually go ahead and put this bust on display at the Museum Of Sex, they are going to cause mass impotence among all the people in those six-week period that walks in there to look at this, and I can't believe that that is the mission of the Museum Of Sex MIKE in Lakewood, New Jersey.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
I appreciate your patience, mega Ditto's Rush, and thanks for taking my call.
You bet I just wanted to make a point that I don't hear emphasized enough, and that is that Hezbollah is not seeing their sole purpose and the essence of their existence is the destruction of Israel, and asking for a ceasefire or peace with them is almost like telling Microsoft to get out of the software business.
True, absolutely right.
And do you think that these Star Wars barcane diplomats of the UN understand that?
Absolutely not, absolutely.
They do.
They do they, and that's why they don't want Hezbollah out of business.
They want Israel out of business.
They want Israel out of the Middle East.
The United Nations is the repository of modern Anti-Semitism in the world today, and you know you raise a great point.
I like that analogy.
Coming up with some sort of a ceasefire sustainable ceasefire is like as asking the Hezbos to go out of business.
Now, Condi understands this and George W. Bush understands this, and a lot of Americans will understand this.
We also know, as a follow, that the Hezbos are not going to agree to go out of business.
Hitler would not have agreed to go out of business.
Toko would have not agreed to go out of business.
Tojo none of our enemies would have agreed.
Kim Jong-il is not going to agree to go out of business.
Mahmoud Ahmadinezad is not going to agree to go out of business.
So how do you deal with it?
You, you can't.
That's a perfect way of illustrating there's no such thing as a sustainable ceasefire when Hezbollah's mission is the destruction of Israel.
There's only one way to deal with this.
I keep shouting this from the mountaintops, but it's the Limbaugh Doctrine.
And if there's a so-called sustainable ceasefire that comes out of this, it will only be after the Hezbo's have been shellacked.
It'll only be after the Hezbollahs have been put out of business and not by virtue of agreeing to go out of business.
Rich, out there on Long Island, great to have you with us.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Rush, how are you?
Fine, sir.
Thank you.
Okay.
The Associated Press, from what I read, is reporting the opposite version of what's being told to people.
They're saying that this skirmish occurred in Lebanon.
I'm not following you.
Okay.
You're talking about the kidnapping of the two soldiers?
Right.
It was inside of Lebanon.
It was not Hezbollah going into Israel.
You know, Israel sent some commandos into Lebanon, and ultimately, this skirmish occurred where a tank was destroyed, a couple soldiers got killed, and then two got killed.
Oh, yes.
So let me guess.
You think that Israel has been planning this for the longest time.
Well, Rush, you know that wars taking years to plan.
You're going to tell me that two soldiers got kidnapped, and all of a sudden they have all this machinery ready, all these tanks, and this whole war strategy is all set and ready to go within a matter of a couple of days.
You know as well as I do that war is taking years to plan.
Of course I know that.
The Israelis are at war every day of their lives.
The Israelis have war planning every day.
They never know who's going to attack.
Not on a scale like this.
Yes, they do.
They haven't had a problem.
That's the only way they've survived.
It's the only way they've survived.
But look, we're getting sidetracked here because you want to say that the Israelis actually were hoping for this and then they were planning it for the longest time.
There was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this week, Rich, that basically said the same thing, that the Israelis have been working on this for a full year.
Well, this is a plan for conquest of the greater Middle East overall.
And Hezbollah needs to be eliminated and pushed out of the way to further isolate Syria in order to take control of Iran.
You know that, and I know that.
This is a plan.
Hold it a second.
Hold it.
Let the hosts get in a word edgewise here.
What?
The scenario that you just described, are you opposed to that?
Absolutely, yes.
You would be opposed to the Hezbo's and the Iranians being neutralized.
You think the Israelis want to take control of Iran?
No, I think the neocons do.
They want to take control of the Middle East, is what they want to do.
Oh, the neocons.
You mean like Bill Crystal and Charles Krautham?
There you go.
You've read the Project for the New American Century, right?
Right.
You've read that, right?
I've heard the Project The American Century.
Yeah, it's Christian.
You read it?
No, I haven't read it.
Okay.
Well, it clearly states about taking control of the Middle East and natural resources and things like that.
Yeah, well, all well and good, but I don't think the Israelis are run by the Project for the American Century.
Well, the Neocons support Israel.
Well, so do I, and I'm not a neocon.
You better be real careful on this because neocons is a code word for Jew.
Conservative Jew is just a code word for that.
It's a way for people to express their anti-Semitism.
And you've got to be, I'm going to try to protect you here, Rich.
You've got to be real careful about this.
I want to stick to the substance of what you said.
You may as well have said it's a Karl Rofe plot because it's a conspiracy now.
And it's very interesting how Rove and Crystal and Krauthammer have control over the Hezbos to make them go ahead and do the kidnapping.
It's amazing how all this happens.
I think you're being a little short-sighted here.
It's right out in front of your face, and the explanation here is so simple that it can't be that.
No, no, it has to be something sinister behind the scenes that we don't know anything about, run by powerful forces, that neocons.
That's not the case at all.
In fact, this San Francisco Chronicle story, which laid out the year-long planning of the Israelis, was denied by everybody in Israel.
But of course, you're not going to believe them.
How about the fact that the Hezbos have been building underground tunnels in southern Lebanon and have been arming caches of weapons in them and have been building bunkers hundreds of feet below civilian homes in southern Lebanon?
In fact, a story out of Jerusalem today.
Israel claimed victory in the Hezbo's southern capital yesterday after a battle in Lebanon that uncovered Iranian-made weapons.
The neocons made sure that Ahmadinezad sent some weapons over there to the Hezbos so that world support would unite around Israel.
I'm sure Rove is part of this too.
That's right.
Israel claimed victory in the Hezbo's southern capital yesterday after a battle in Lebanon that uncovered Iranian-made weapons and electronic equipment and left 150 guerrillas dead.
For those of you in Rio Linda, these are guerrilla fighters, not the apes.
Israeli forces found war rooms equipped with Iranian surveillance and eavesdropping gear, the main Hezbo's stronghold just inside the border.
The town is completely controlled by us, an Israeli colonel said.
Caches of weapons were also found in this town.
Mahmoud Kamati, the deputy chief of the Hezbo's political arm, refused to acknowledge the group was firing Iranian-made missiles into Israel.
We don't deny or confirm.
We believe where the weapons came from is irrelevant, he said, adding that the Hezbollahs have weapons made in France and Russia and China and the United States.
I have no doubt that they do.
Anyway, this is not a conspiracy, and this is not about taking over Iran or having Israel take over Iran.
You're really trying to be too smart by half here.
This is what it is.
This is a 30 to 40 year war over a little country's right to exist, pure and simple, by a bunch of nomadic 14th and 15th century oddballs who have now become armed with serious weapons, who are willing to blow up their own children in order to further their absolutely perverse and perverted and depraved ideology, which they are hiding behind a so-called religion,
which means you can't criticize them.
The religions are out of bounds, the articles of faith.
You can't criticize somebody's religious beliefs.
These people are phony baloney from the get-go, and it's time finally to deal with them.
And if we get rid of Iran, I would throw a party.
I tell you what, the more I think about that bust, that Hillary bust at the sex museum in New York, when she sees that, she has got to get that thing destroyed.
She's got to take the $6,000 she's spending on her hairdo and buy this bust or do something if that'll even cover.
I don't know how much this artist wants for it, but I mean, she cannot allow this thing to go on display.
Certainly not at a museum of sex.
But I mean, I wouldn't think anywhere.
This is excellent news here, folks.
Federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to bar ATT from giving the government telephone records without warrants, saying that it would require disclosures that would adversely affect our national security.
Judge Matthew Kennelly said that disclosing whether ATT had given such records to the super secret NSA in its hunt for terrorists would violate the government's right to keep secrets.
He said the court is persuaded that requiring ATT to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities.
This was a 40-page opinion.
Kennelly ruled in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Illinois on behalf of author Studs Turkle and others who claimed their rights had been violated by disclosure of the phone records to the NSA.
ACLU legal director Harvey Grossman issued a statement saying the group respectfully disagrees.
So basically the lawsuit to keep ATT from giving phone records to the NSA was dismissed.
Finally, you know, when you, anytime you start a story, you read a story and the first words are, a federal judge today, oh, hold on tight.
Oh no, what now?
This was a pleasure to read.
More and more obese people are unable to get full medical care because they're either too big to fit into scanners like MRIs and so forth, or their fat is too dense for x-rays or sound waves to penetrate.
This, according to radiologists yesterday, with 64% of the U.S. population either overweight or obese, the problem is worsening, but it represents a business opportunity for equipment makers and hospitals, said Dr. Raul Uppett, a radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital.
We've noticed over the past couple of years that obesity was playing a role in our ability to see these images, clearly, Uppett said in a telephone interview.
Radiologists have their own term for it when writing reports.
These images are limited due to body habitus.
Uppett's team looked for the phrase in radiology reports from 89 to 2003.
These included standard x-rays, computer-assisted x-rays known as CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, as MRIs, and positron emission tomography.
That's a PET scan.
These scans are used to look for tumors, blood clots, broken limbs, and cell phones that have been jammed down the throats of women by angry men named Marlon Brando Gill in Kansas City, Missouri.
Overall, about 15.15% of over 5 million reports were habitus limited, meaning patients were simply too fat for any information to be gleaned.
You know what this is.
I mean, it may be an invitation for the manufacturers.
How many of you have been to an MRI tube?
I mean, they're ridiculously small.
You've been in an MRI?
Well, they're ridiculously small.
I mean, the biggest problem people have in them is claustrophobia.
They're really, really, really tiny.
They've got some MRI machines now that don't have a tube, but they do in a way because the tube closes in on you after you take your position.
The first MRI is the tube that they just rolled you in there, and they're loud in there.
When that magnet gets going, they give you earmuffs, earplugs, and this sort of thing.
I can't get an MRI now because of my cochlear implant has a magnet inside my skull to keep the headpiece attached here.
So all I can do is a CT scan.
Those are not a problem.
X-rays are not a problem.
But those MRIs, and they're really valuable.
But man, people are just scared to death of them.
And depending on what you've got, most of the time it's what I call total immersion in the tube, and especially if they put you in headfirst.
Now, this was not a problem for me.
I'm not claustrophobic, but everybody said, before you get one of these things, you better be prepared because it's tight in there and so forth.
And you just keep your eyes closed.
They give you headphones and music if you want to listen to it.
Inapplicable to me.
But it's still, it's tight.
So there is room to improve that.
But this could also be the medical community saying, don't blame us if the patient dies.
We couldn't get a complete picture because the person was such a pig.
Mark and Amarillo, welcome.
EIB Network.
Hello.
Yeah, hi.
Rush, I disagree.
You know, you wanted a, first of all, let me put it like this.
I'm not a liberal.
I'm far from it.
I'm probably further to the right on you on most things.
9-12, we would have owned all the oil fields in the Middle East if I had my way, if I was the president.
But I'm going to tell you right now, you wanted the biggest cheerleaders to go into Iraq.
Okay.
Now, and so was the man you carried water for is George Bush.
All right.
Instead of looking at, if you guys had known your history, you'd have realized that Iraq has a problem between three different types of people, the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds.
Really?
I didn't know that.
Saddam Hussein, as bad as he was, was keeping order among them.
Right.
Yeah, by wiping out 300,000 of them whenever he needed to.
That may or not be.
But he was kind of like the Shah before in Iran, who we also, who Jimmy Carter, who, by the way, George Bush reminds me more and more of, pulled a rug from under.
Now, if we had not realized that by going into Iraq, and by the way, I support our troops now because we have to stay there now, because now the door is open.
All this is moot then.
We can't go back.
You can say it was a mistake or whatever, but even if you find people who admit it was a mistake, you can't get out of there now.
No, but I do say this.
Okay?
Only by being a far more savage nation can this country survive and defeat the Islamist enemy.
He wants to listen to himself on the radio.
We'll let him.
Except that's it.
Who's next on this program?
Ray in Orlando.
Welcome to the EIB Network, sir.
Hello.
Okay, thank you, Rush.
Rush, I have a comment and a concern about I want to go back to the Reagan administration and why President Reagan never responded to the deaths of all of those Marines that were killed.
And in that barracks, when they were blown up and all those Marines were killed, I mean, I loved President Reagan.
This is one part of his administration I never understood why he never did any type of response.
Because in my mind's eye, to a large degree, we were kind of responsible for empowering Hezbollah, just like we were Mohammed Adid over in Mogadishu, because of the fact of our lack of response, especially when we lost 240 soldiers.
And I just don't understand why now there's not even a, even it's not mentioned to the degree of saying, well, these Hezbollah people murdered our soldiers as well.
And there just seems to be a path given to that whole event.
And why was that?
Well, in the first place, you're right.
These are the people that killed 281 Marines.
And I have heard some people mention it.
I mean, even now, I think it's part of the whole dialogue that is being uttered by people to justify our position vis-a-vis the Israelis on this.
This was 1981.
I think it was 81 when it was Reagan's first year in office.
Or was it his second term?
Do you remember what year it was, Ray?
I think it was 83, was it not?
83, 83.
Well, I can't give you the answer as to why the administration slunk out of there.
I would just have to guess.
And it'd be ridiculous to do so.
But I will agree with you that whatever the reason was, it didn't look good.
And to whatever extent, there have been a lot of mistakes we've, we have been very tolerant and patient with terrorism over the years.
We went 20 years without responding to terrorist attacks, even against our own people, not just the Marine barracks, but the Cobar Towers and a number of embassy bombings, the World Trade Center 1993.
We didn't do anything about that.
But all of that led us to where we are now.
And I think, you know, free people and democratic people are slow to arouse on things like this.
This is not the stuff that we really like doing.
But at some point, the straw that breaks the camel's back shows up.
And then the mess has to be dealt with.
And this is a 20-year mess, maybe even a little bit longer.
And the fact is that an attempt is being made to deal with it now.
The most serious attempt this country has ever mounted.
And it's still got problems.
I mean, I think we're still too minimalist in some of the things we're doing.
And I think that we still have too much political correctness guiding us.
And we know half the country, well, half the country, the Democratic Party is steadfastly opposed to any part of this policy right now, be it for political reasons or whatever.
But the fact is they're still opposed to it.
So we don't have a united front on this, which makes it even harder.
But this is the first concerted effort that is being made to actually deal with this because it's gotten to a point now where we have to.
All right.
Well, thank you, Rush.
You bet.
I'm not trying to skate it.
I just, you know, I don't remember what the Reagan administration's explanation was for slinking out of there.
I do remember a lot of people were disappointed by it and thought that it didn't jibe with what they knew of Reagan.
And I mean, I think Ray is right.
It had the same appearance as our slinking out of Mogadishu after Mohammed Farah Adid killed 12 of our Rangers, dragged one of them through the streets.
In a battle, we won.
In a battle, we won, we pulled out of there.
And that's, you know, Osama bin Laden has said that that is one of the things that inspired him.
But all of these things in the past, and North Korea having nukes, I mean, all these things, the Iranians doing what they're doing, going back to the Shah, Jimmy Carter, and giving us that regime, all these things have not been dealt with.
They've been dealt with diplomatically, been dealt with with people like Madeleine Albright and Jamie Gorellik and so forth.
And they were just put off.
The problems were just delayed.
They were just put over almost aside because previous administrations just didn't want to deal with it because it would ruin their legacies.
It would be too hard.
It might drive their poll numbers down.
But we've reached the breaking point now.
And I think that's what we hear.
We hear Kandaleez Rice say we're not going back status quo.
And the Israelis have just said, oops, you know what?
We're going to be here several more weeks.
It's going to take us a little longer than we thought.
United States.
Keep up.
So there is no time limit that's been placed on Israel.
And I think they're actually starting to have some success with this now.
At any rate, I'm a little long here in this segment, but I appreciate the call, Ray.
We'll be back and continue in just a sec.
I know.
I've been reading an email.
I've been doing research.
Everybody's lost confidence here in my ability to execute the programming format.
They're all waving at me in there.
Go, go, go.
It's your turn.
I've been doing some research.
This business is about Reagan.
It was 1983, October 23rd, 83, the bombing of the barracks.
And I wanted to find out more about this, even though it has relevance as an item of interest, but it's in the past as all of these things are, and they've led us to this moment.
And this moment is what's real.
The fact of the matter is, for all of you who want to go back and blame Reagan, or if you want to go back and blame even Clinton, or go back and blame Carter.
I mean, we can do that, and we all do.
We've all made foreign policy mistakes.
FDR gave Eastern Europe to Stalin.
I mean, tell me that wasn't a mistake.
But here's the difference.
And this is what you people out there need to keep in mind.
Unless, or unlike all of the mistakes that the rest of the world makes, we correct ours.
And we are in a major corrective mode now.
Now, where I was when you were screaming at me in there, I went to Wikipedia.
President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheikh Abdullah barracks in Lebanon, which housed the Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbo fighters.
But Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger aborted the mission, reportedly because of his concerns that it would harm U.S. relations with other Arab nations.
Now, I understand, and I don't know that this is widely known, and I'm not, I understand that Weinberger was opposed to putting the Marines at that airbase because he said they'd be sitting ducks.
But the State Department insisted they be placed there as a show of force in Lebanon.
I also don't know if back then, if the Reagan administration knew 100% certain that it was the Hezbo's who had launched the attack.
I think they probably suspected it, but they might not have had 100% certitude.
There's no question about it now, though.
Here is Jim in Daytona Beach, Florida.
Jim, welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Rush, it's a pleasure to be on.
Thank you.
My understanding and my recollection, I've just listened to what you said in the previous caller.
My recollection, though, is that Reagan put the Marines into Beirut as peacekeepers during a civil war, and that the idea that we would respond would have been totally foreign to the policy that we had going.
I mean, I'm sure that if they are going to be attacked, they had the authority to respond to anyone that was specifically attacking them.
But to take retribution and going after Hezbollah or going after any of the groups involved in the government there or in the Civil War would have defeated the purpose of having Marines there as peacekeepers.
So I think Reagan completely did what his policy called for.
Well, as the Wikipedia blurb indicates, Weinberger was opposed to it because he thought they would be sitting ducks.
The State Department said, no, no, put them in there because it'll be a show of force.
What I vaguely remember, we had some sort of destroyer or battleship off the coast of Lebanon out in the Mediterranean.
And after the barracks were blown up and the 280 Marines, 281 Marines were slaughtered, I remember what caused all the hubbub was that battleship retreating.
Yeah, I do remember the battleship shooting over Beirut somewhere into some camps of some type, if I remember correctly.
Right, but it still retreated after that.
It didn't stay.
But again, there's also the possibility they weren't sure who had done this.
And they weren't going to launch a counter-strike unless they were absolutely certain.
Obviously, it's obviously certain now who it was, but we're still, we make mistakes, we fix them, we're correcting them.
And this one is a major correction underway.
Look at it as the terrorism bubble for you market types.
All right, my friends, another exciting excursion into Broadcast Excellence in the can.
And on the way to the warehouse, housing artifacts for the Limbaugh Broadcast Museum.
Can't wait for tomorrow.
It'll be big, whatever it is.
And we'll be right here to guide you through it.
▲
Export Selection