I am Rush Limbaugh, your host, a highly trained broadcast specialist, Doctor of Democracy, America's real anchor man, serving humanity on a program that meets and surpasses all audience expectations daily.
If you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I've just been made aware of the fact, I missed this, this fraudulent photographer, this Najee Al-Sami Al-Mani al-Haliki or whatever his name is, that Reuters has dumped for doctoring and photoshopping a bunch of disaster pictures out of Beirut and southern Lebanon, had a picture published on the front page of the New York Times yesterday.
After he did.
After Reuters, this is before Reuters dropped him.
I don't know if the New York Times was even aware of it, but just to show you how perverse this stuff is.
Now, I don't know if the picture that was published in the front page of the New York Times yesterday was doctored or not, but the same disgraced photographer, you can say, having been dumped by Reuters, has not been dumped by the New York Times.
They know quality when they see it.
All right, before we get to this book by Lee Hamilton and Thomas Kane, some lifestyle news, ladies and gentlemen.
First from San Francisco.
The nation's pediatricians, that would be kid doctors for those of you in Rio Linda.
The nation's pediatricians are warning parents today against putting children in shopping carts.
Parents are strongly encouraged to seek alternatives, says the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reports that shopping carts were involved in injuries to more than 24,000 children last year.
That means that shopping carts are wounding more children than ammunition and guns are injuring and wounding people in Iraq.
Ladies and gentlemen, just to put it in perspective in context, mostly this happens, by the way, when the child falls out of the shopping cart or when the shopping cart tips over.
But parents who have tried to pick up a couple of things at the store while keeping their children from toppling the displays or playing hide and seek in the clothing racks may find the warning hard to accommodate.
Cheryl Inamoto of Pacifica, as she loaded her trunk at a Walmart in Oakland, while admonishing her three-year-old son to sit nicely, please, said, so what are you supposed to do with your kids when you take them into the grocery store at a place that has shopping carts?
Inamoto said, the hell with this.
I think it boils down to parental responsibility.
Why tell me I can't put my kid in a shopping cart?
If I'm going to pay attention to do it right, what are you telling me I can't do it for?
Well, Dr. Gary Smith, the lead author of the pediatrician statement, said that 90% of shopping cart injuries happen with a parent right there.
The best parent doesn't realize how quickly it can happen or how serious the injuries can be, said Dr. Gary Smith, director of the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.
Smith started researching shopping cart injuries after a child in his hospital nearly died from a head injury from a shopping cart fall.
Smith learned that his hospital was seeing one or two such cases every week.
Of the 24,200 children treated last year in U.S. emergency rooms for shopping cart-related injuries, 74% suffered head and neck injuries.
85% of the children were under five, and 4% were injured seriously enough to be admitted to the hospital, according to the Academy.
Well, folks, this is serious stuff.
These shopping carts, you know, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
I mean, the homeless have in the past stolen these things from in front of grocery stores, and they use them to carry around all their worthly goods and possessions.
And then we've had homeless advocacy groups get mad at grocery stores who want the carts returned because they cost a lot of money, and it's a cost down the drain.
They have to raise prices in the store.
We have had homeless advocates over the course of the past 15 years even suggest that giving a shopping cart to the homeless person is an article of faith and great compassion.
And we've had stories about the homeless have trouble lifting the shopping carts over the curb.
Some of them just keep banging the shopping cart into the curb, thinking it'll make it over the curb itself and damaging the wheels.
I mean, I can remember all kinds of stories about the homeless in shopping carts.
And they were a good thing.
I was frankly always amazed that human beings who claim to have a bigger heart than I, who have more compassion than I, love, love, love, actually would say that giving another human being a shopping cart was an act of compassion.
People like me would look at a homeless person.
What can we do to end this circumstance?
The great compassionate left would say, give that man a shopping cart, you cold-hearted SOB.
But now we learn the truth.
Shopping carts kill, shopping carts wound, shopping carts injure, even when adults are nearby.
The injuries obviously outpacing injuries in Iraq, not deaths, but injuries.
Also from Columbus, Ohio.
We know that smoking can kill, but can it send somebody to death row?
That's the gist of an appeal by lawyers for a man on Ohio's death row.
The lawyers are arguing that jurors became antsy when the judge wouldn't let them take smoking breaks during deliberations.
Lawyers say the dead made them overly eager to finish the case.
After six hours of deliberations, they convicted Philip Elmore of murder and other charges in his ex-girlfriend's death.
A week later, the jury came back and in three hours recommended the death penalty.
The panel was under orders from the judge not to light up during either round of deliberations.
Prosecutors call it a novel approach by the defense, but they believe Elmore's conviction and sentence will stand.
I like, you know, sometimes, you know, lawyers, take them or leave them, but I kind of like this one.
Those jurors, hell, they just want it out of there.
So they railroaded our client to death row.
See how this turns out.
As you remember, ladies and gentlemen, this was the first place outside of San Francisco where we chronicled what is becoming relatively common surgery dubbed by me the addictomy procedure.
It was made famous by California's, actually San Francisco, I think, election supervisor employee or head of some department head in the city was to be fired.
And she appealed this because she needed her health benefit package, as offered by the city, to fund an addadictomy procedure to her girlfriend, the live-in girlfriend.
And the firing came in the midst of the process of the addadictomy.
Apparently, the addictomy operation is not something you want to get done in one day.
It takes a period of time.
I don't know how long.
And it ended up the city say, okay, okay, well, we kept her on or did something.
Her health benefits, I think, were maintained so that her girlfriend could indeed get the addictomy procedure.
Well, we have an update here from Olympia, Washington.
Medicaid officials.
Medicaid, that's the United States government, you people.
Medicaid officials plan to rewrite regulations to make it clear that the state of Washington will no longer cover sex change operations such as the addadictomy or the choppa dicophamy.
But before the new regulations are in place, the state will likely have to pay more for surgeries.
In a pair of rulings issued last month, a state of Washington appeals board ordered Medicaid to pay for two people to travel out of state to undergo either an addictomy or a choppa dicophamy.
The state estimates involving these procedures, also known as sex reassignment, sir.
That's not what it was called.
Sex reassignment, that was not what it was called.
There was another day.
Anyway, it will cost $50,000 to $60,000 every operation.
So Medicaid's no way.
No way we're going to do this.
So apparently this procedure, while hunky-dory and cool and all that in San Francisco, not cool in Washington, at least as far as federal funds are concerned.
Finally, a German scientist has been testing an anti-stupidity pill with encouraging results on mice and fruit flies.
This, according to the newspaper BILD, it said that Hans Hilger Ropers, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics in Berlin, has tested a pill that thwarts hyperactivity in certain brain nerve cells, helping stabilize short-term memory and improve attentiveness.
Yeah, with mice and fruit flies, we're able to eliminate the loss of short-term memory.
Now, how in the world are you going to measure the memory of a fruit fly?
How do you measure the short-term memory of a cat?
How do you communicate with a fruit fly?
I mean, what?
What is what?
I don't know what they were.
I think they're all instinct.
Remember what?
What are mice?
At any rate, I just want you people to know that aside from Rio Linda, I have no interest in this.
None of you in this audience would ever need this pill, if they, if they ever.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine you talk about a parent watching a kid fall off a shopping cart?
We have a problem there.
Can you imagine taking your kid to the doctor and the doctor says your kid's stupid.
Well no, your your kid, we have an anti-stupid pill.
And the parents say oh wow yes, please prescribe that I.
They have run around in the life with stigma attached to my family that my kids needed a stupid pill.
Anyway, brief timeout will be turned right after this with much more broadcast excellence.
Stay with us.
Well, the Israelis have shot down a Hezbo drone that was packed with explosives.
Uh, the Israelis have bombarded a significant section of southern Lebanon, southern Beirut actually, and we've got the pictures of the uh civilians running and screaming and bleeding for their lives on uh on television, and this is a great example.
Israelis are not living in the spin world or in the pr world.
You know, it wasn't that long ago.
That's how you won wars.
I know it sounds really brutal to uh say it, but that's really how they used to happen.
Folks quickly uh, David in Seattle, welcome to the EI B Network.
Hi hey, Rush I got.
I got to call you out on your uh economics.
You've always advocated uh free market economics and a company's right to pursue profit, and yet you suggest that if Clinton and the Democrats had got Anwhere uh going in the mid 90s, it'd be online now and we wouldn't be facing these shortages.
And I I think that uh, you know.
Our oil reserves.
Wait, wait, wait.
All I said was that the 400,000 barrel shortage from the pipeline in the North Slope would be covered, not worldwide shortages.
Well, I've listened to your show a long time, and you suggested that ANWAR would be a meaningful input to the oil supply and keep prices from going up as far as they have.
No.
Not prices.
Not prices.
It's simply ridiculous.
Not prices.
I have not said that about private.
I know that ANWAR is a limited amount of oil.
It is, but it's about as much as we get out of Texas, and that's significant.
And it would certainly cover what happened to this North Slope accident.
In terms of prices, it would be as silly to assert that as to think that releasing the Strategic Reserve would have an effect on prices.
That wouldn't either.
Right, right.
And you said that when Clinton released the Strategic Reserve.
I remember that in 99.
Right.
Well, when Bush thought about doing it, too.
But seriously, Rush, if you have private companies effectively running the ANWAR extraction and processing, how is ANWAR going to have any real net effect when world demand for petroleum is far outstripping U.S. demand for petroleum?
I'm talking about the growth of demand.
I never said that ANWAR is the be-all and end-all.
And war to me is a symbol.
And war to me, which I think I've been very clear about, I'm also for exploring the hell out of the Gulf of Mexico.
I'm for exploring the hell off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
And Florida, where I live.
I'm all for it because I'm sick and tired of being dependent on people who sell their oil to fund terrorism.
I'm fed up with it.
And I'm fed up environmentalists and wackos ending up having such an iron fist over a national defense of this country over foreign policy, which is what it ends up impacting.
So ANWAR is just a symbol.
We look at ANWAR and we say, there you have it.
It's the environmentalists and the American left who are always demanding that we somehow become independent or go eat alternate fuels or whatever.
I know why they're opposed to NWAR.
They're opposed to companies and corporations profiting, and they are opposed to oil itself.
I know what the environmentalists want.
They want to return to a quote-unquote simpler, less advanced lifestyle.
Well, frankly, I'm not going to use leaves from trees for toilet paper, so I'm not interested in these people.
And I'm interested in defeating them.
You get ANWAR going, and you get, it's a first step toward domestic U.S. production, and there's plenty of it to be found and had being increased as well.
And I'm all for that.
You know, oil is the engine that powers or is the fuel that powers the engine of freedom throughout the world, free flow of oil at market prices.
And all this talk about energy independence and so forth is bogus if the same people don't allow.
We can't build a refinery.
We can't do a diddly squat because the environmental wackos.
So I'm sorry you've misunderstood me.
Susan in St. Louis, thank you for waiting.
You're up next in the EIB network.
Hi.
Hi.
I'm a rarity, a Jewish Republican.
Whoa.
Yeah.
I know three.
Well, now you know four.
I'll tell you, though, there are more of us coming out of the woodwork, although I've been a Republican all my voting life.
But I want to thank you seriously from the bottom of my heart because I've told so many people, listen to Rush.
He's an honorary Jew.
You get it about Israel, and people don't get it.
And when somebody like Sidney Blumenthal, I cannot imagine that this moron doesn't get it either.
He gets it, but let me explain, Sidney Blumenthal.
Let me explain to people what you mean.
We had this story on Friday.
Sidney Blumenthal Was big in Hillary's West Wing office.
He's a noted, he's just, I don't know how to describe him.
He's worse than a liberal.
He's just a nut.
He's just, I think he's one of these guys secretly admires the old days of Stalin and Lenin.
They called him Grassy Knoll.
I mean, this guy is running.
He's just beyond description.
At any rate, Sidney Blumenthal wrote a piece, Slate magazine, Slate.com last week, admitting that the National Security Agency of this country was sharing information with the Israelis on Hezbollah troop movements from Syria and Iran.
This compromised the national security effort of the United States.
It also compromised the Israelis, and it let the enemy, the enemy, a bunch of terrorists, know exactly how their munitions, shipments, and supply lines were being tracked.
So you, Susan, want to know why Blumenthal could sell out Israel, could sell out his people.
And I'll tell you the answer.
You want to know it?
It's real simple.
Oh, wait, I think I know.
He didn't get the anti-stupid pill.
No.
That wouldn't help.
There's not a strong enough stupid pill to overcome liberalism.
Oh, you're not.
And that's the answer is liberals are liberals first.
Liberals, it's almost as though liberalism is their religion before anything else.
Liberals will be liberals before they'll be anything else.
And so right now, to liberals, the biggest enemy in the world is George W. Bush.
They are seething with rage and hatred, and they have been for so long that they're the early onset stages of genuine madness.
And they will do anything to destroy George W. Bush, including wreck foreign policy of this country and attempt to harm what the Israelis are trying to do in protect their nation.
And that's the answer.
And it really is no more complicated than that.
People try to make it so, but it isn't.
No, I agree with you.
However, what shocks me, and maybe I'm still a naive person, is that Blumenthal doesn't understand if Israel goes, so does he.
And that's what the world doesn't want to recognize, that when Israel's statement, and it should be for every Jew, is never again.
He doesn't think that.
You'd be amazed.
I've talked to them.
You'd be amazed at the number of liberal Jewish people who think Israel has no right to exist where it is, that they think Israel has displaced a bunch of poor, disadvantaged people, and that they're pushing them around and bullying them and deserve what they get.
I kid you not.
I've spent plenty of time talking to them about it.
It's almost a knee-jerk response.
Victim versus power.
They always side with what they think is the victim.
Back in just a second.
Your guiding light.
Times of trouble, confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos, terrorism, war, torture, humiliation, plummeting job numbers.
We had another story today about how the job numbers are five-month high at 4.8%.
They ran the story last week, too.
They won't give up on it.
Another coming out of the woodwork.
A Norwegian journalist has admitted that he fabricated interviews with Microsoft's Bill Gates and the Oprah.
A media report said today, freelance writer Bjorn Binkow said in a statement that the interviews published in Norwegian and Swedish media were partially concocted because of financial desperation.
I have met and talked to these global celebrities.
Bjorn Benkow was quoted as saying, but the circumstances and times have not always been as I described.
The acknowledgment came after Microsoft Norway said last week that an interview with Gates printed in the Norwegian magazine Man and the top-selling Swedish tabloid were totally fake.
What I did was done out of desperation, Benkow said, to pay the rent, to pay the electricity, to pay the food.
I had to lie to survive.
Okay, well, then we forgive you.
The dirty little secret here is just that we have no clue how widespread this is.
It's just got to be as fraudulent as we imagine it is.
All right.
I have a story here.
This cleared on August 4th.
The September 11th Commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and the FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.
Republican Thomas Kaine, Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in Without Precedent that their panel was too soft on questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Rudy Giuliani and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.
The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.
Kaine and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly.
In fact, the commission determined after it subpoenaed audio tapes that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all the hijacked planes had crashed.
All right, just a few observations here.
The first question is, why was the 9-11 Commission report not enough?
Why now do the two commissioners have to write a book about what didn't happen, what did happen, how hard it was?
Why is it all this stuff in the official report?
And by the way, what in the world did the 9-11 Commission care?
What business is it to determine whether or not whether we went into Iraq has any effect on terrorism against us?
What's the purpose?
The 9-11 Commission is not appointed to examine the political aspects of the Bush administration.
But yes, it was.
See, that's the dirty little secret.
The dirty little secret is that the book I want to read is the person on this commission or commissioners on this commission that can tell me why they had to put Jamie Gorellik on this commission and was the purpose to cover up for Clinton and his failures in his administration.
That's the cover-up I want to hear about.
I'm curious to know how Jamie Gorellic makes it on this commission in the first place.
A behind-the-scenes look at the investigation.
Internal disputes among who?
Over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq?
Was that part of the mandate of the 9-11 Commission?
I thought the 9-11 Commission was to find out what the hell happened on 9-11 and what prevented us from stopping it.
I mean, the effort to purely politicize this is now open and available for all of us to see.
As to this business on Giuliani, the questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kane and Hamilton a low point in the Commission's examination of witnesses during public hearings.
didn't ask tough questions, nor did we get all the information that we needed to put on the public record.
Commission members backed off, Kane and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings.
The editorial said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks.
Kane and Hamilton say it proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9-11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani.
Again, what does the aftermath of the attacks have to do with stopping them?
What is the aftermath of the attacks and how Giuliani or the cops dealt with something that had never happened before?
How in the world is that going to help us prevent the next one from happening?
Giuliani and the cops and the firemen had nothing to do with stopping the planes from hitting the World Trade Center towers.
Consider this a low.
Why are you guys intimidated by newspaper editorials?
That's quite an admission.
I love that one.
Why, we had to stop our intense questioning.
We had to stop our digging deep because of newspaper editors.
Well, thanks for the admission.
Thanks for telling us that the New York Times, the New York Post, the Daily News, the Washington Post, whoever influenced your whole outcome.
If it influenced this, what else were you intimidated by when it came to editorials from various institutes in the drive-by media?
Here's Gary, Greenville, South Carolina, your next on the Rush Limbaugh program.
Hi.
Hello, Mega Rush, Febby Dittos.
Thank you.
And if I may answer that question you just posed before I get to my point as to why now with the book, I'd say it's maybe striking why the iron is hot, giving all the buzz about the conspiracy about 9-11.
Maybe opportunism.
But on to my point about the Lieberman-Lamont battle, as if you have so brilliantly analyzed, if Lamont wins and it takes the liberals back to the Vietnam era with the Kuk fringe and the moveon.org types, that's a win for Republicans.
But on the other hand, if Lieberman wins, as I understand it, given all the Democratic strategists I've seen, and also all the Democratic senators out there saying, well, if Lieberman wins, then that's going to be a big hit.
That's going to be bad for the anti-war movement also.
I kind of see it as a net win for the Republicans, because if Lamont wins, then we're able to associate him with the Kuk fringe.
And if Lieberman wins, then it just their whole theory about the anti-war movement is a farce.
Well, it depends on how Lieberman wins, but if Lieberman wins the Democratic primary, your latter scenario has more impact than if he wins as an independent.
If he wins as an independent, the Kuks will simply, whoa, whoa, let's go back.
He didn't run as a Democrat.
If he'd have run as a Democrat, he would have been beaten as he was beaten in the primaries.
I understand the point you're trying to make.
Don't expect the Kook Fringe to drop whatever their energy is being expended on by virtue of the outcome in this race.
Remember, these people think they win when they lose.
Yes, you're right.
They prop them up.
So, I mean, so they're using spin and PR.
No matter what happens in the primary tomorrow, no matter what happens in the general in November, the Kuk Fringe will say that they've won.
One of the interesting things to me is all of the Democrats in the Senate who have been asked about it say they're not going to support Lieberman if he loses in the primary.
They're not going to support him as independent.
They've got to support the nominee of their party.
Oh, really?
Senator.
I'm sorry, I made a mistake.
Ladies, let me correct it right now.
Senator Daniel in no way of Hawaii said that he would support Lieberman regardless him running as a Democrat or an Independent.
Another way to look at this, Bill Clinton went in there to campaign for Lieberman.
Can somebody point out to me the last Democrat candidate Clinton endorsed who won?
His wife, right.
Did he endorse her?
Or he just campaigned for her?
Of course his wife.
But, I mean, just on the strength of that, I want to prepare you for something that I think might be on the Democrats' agenda.
I have no clue how this race is going to come out tomorrow.
Remember, the latest Quintipiak poll has Lieberman now cutting that big lead Lamont had in half.
And pollsters will tell you that you study the momentum of late season polls to tell you where things are headed, not the actual result.
If Lieberman in one week has reduced a 13-point lead to six points, then they'll tell you, well, the Mo is on Joe's side and anything can happen now.
A lot of experts will tell you that they didn't ever think this was going to be a runaway by a no-name, no-heard-of guy like Ned Lamont.
But if it is, let's just say that it is.
Let's say Lamont does win huge and the latest Q poll is wrong, and let's say he's a double-digit winner.
I will make this prediction to you now that somebody in the Democratic Party, and it'll probably be Der Schliechmeister, will go to Lieberman and say, for the good of the party, don't do this.
Don't run.
Don't run as independent.
Don't do this.
You were soundly defeated in the primary.
Accept it and move on.
We'll find a place for you somewhere.
Whatever.
Just as happened to Andrew Cuomo.
Just as happened to The Torch.
We won't gnaw on this one for quite a while, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if maybe conversations like that had already been discussed.
But we'll see.
I'm not convinced that Lieberman's going to lose this.
Everybody else is.
And I'm not convinced it's going to be huge.
But if it is, if it is huge, if you talk about political benefit to the Republicans, it will be obvious.
If Lieberman loses huge, there is a benefit of him winning, too, and that is his attitude on American foreign policy and national security.
Anyway, I appreciate the call out there, Gary.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back and continue El Quicko.
Mambo number five.
My old buddy Lou Bega and Rush Limbaugh.
We are back from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Hmm.
A story here in the Boston Herald.
This is from today.
It's in their business section, a columnist.
And there's a business section.
Yeah, Brett Aarons, Boston Herald Business Columns.
Check the headline here.
Hayton on Hillary, New Hampshire Democrats, lamb-based Clinton.
Dateline, Manchester, New Hampshire.
Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years, and he's never seen anything like it.
Lying, B.I. Itch, shrew, Machiavellian, evil, power mad witch, the ultimate self-serving politician.
No prizes for guessing which presidential frontrunner drew these remarks in focus groups, but these weren't Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton.
They weren't even independents.
These were ordinary grassroots Democrats, people who identified themselves as likely voters in New Hampshire's pivotal Democrat primary.
And behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.
I was amazed, said the pollster Dick Bennett.
I thought there might have been some negatives, but I didn't know it would be as strong as this.
It's stunning similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments that they have about her.
Bennett runs American Research Group, Inc., a highly regarded independent polling company based in Manchester, has been conducting voter surveys since 1976.
The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors.
He so far recruited 410 likely voters in the 2008 Democratic primary, sat down with them privately in small groups to find out what they really think about the candidates and the issues.
His conclusion, 45% of the Democrats are just as negative about Hillary as Republicans are.
More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way.
And we're not talking about soft negatives like, say, out of touch or arrogant.
Apparently, people in this group call her a political prostitute.
Bennett says he's never before seen so many New Hampshire voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party.
He's never, ever seen anything close to it.
New Hampshire's small, but it's a bellwether state with clout.
Its primary probably holds the key to the Democratic nomination.
And New Hampshire alone swung from Bush to Kerry in 04.
It's hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election, and it's hard right now to see Hillary carrying the state.
Again, this is Boston Herald business columnist Brett Ahrens published this very day, ladies and gentlemen.
And let's just see if this column ends up being, or this pollster's work.
Let's see if that ends up being a discussion item other than on Fox News.
Let's see if the drive-by media decides to report the results of this and start having discussions.
Bill Schneider at CNN.
Let's see if he hears about this and if he finds it interesting and fascinating and starts doing his own polling data.
My guess is somebody's going to go do some polling data up there to refute this right fast and be set up there by Mrs. Clinton.
If they don't go there fast, testicle lockbox time.
Joe in Rockville, Maryland, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Thank you, sir.
Had a good day.
Your call streamer told me to get right to the point.
I understand the show moves real quickly.
I'm a longtime listener.
I've been listening to your show and many others.
And as much as our president's strategy, after 9-11, he went before Congress, he went before the UN, and through all that process.
And we ousted Sodang Insane.
And I just feel like he's setting the table again and setting it up to where, you know, let me step in here only because I have a precious few broadcast moments remaining, and I don't want you to have to get cut off by time.
Let me see.
Basically what you're saying is that Bush is going through this resolution business knowing full well that this one won't work and it may not even pass just to illustrate again that this process doesn't work.
Going through the process.
Yes, it is.
Yet, going through the process.
This is why, ladies and gentlemen, I am your host of choice.
Being able to understand, cut to the chase immediately.
Get to the point quickly.
Shakespeare said brevity is the soul of wit.
It's an excellent thought out there, Joe.
Thanks so much.
I don't know if that's what's going on.
I don't know how much more evidence is needed that these resolutions don't work.
But another one here that doesn't certainly will advance the cause at some point.
It seems to me.
It's time to let Israel take care of this, once and for all.
Be back.
Stay with us.
Remember, Medicaid no longer to pay for the sex change operation known as the addedictomy.