All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
33:45
August 10, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back to the program, ladies and gentlemen, 1-800-282-2882 on a momentous day.
This isn't just a warning.
This isn't just an elevation to some new color.
This is the arrest of 21 people, the suspicion that 50 at least were involved, the Brits breaking up a ring that would have blown up six to ten airplanes leaving UK and coming to the United States.
And if you're traveling today, you're traveling under extreme circumstances.
No liquid unless you're willing to, and if you have baby milk or Jack Daniels, you've got to take a swig before you're going to get on so it doesn't turn out to be nitroglycerin, although Jack Daniels is close.
1-800-282-2882.
Now, I know I'm going to get letters on that, aren't I?
Tuesday election results did not simply shatter incumbency dreams for Senator Joe Lieberman.
We'll get to his race in a moment.
But to others, voters in both parties seem to be in a let's refine our message mood by throwing out other incumbents, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, a slightly unhinged Georgia Democrat, best known for slapping a Capitol Hill police officer with her cell phone.
Apparently, she had not yet gotten the, you know, sold the chip to Hezbollah, but had scuffled with the Capitol Hill police, accused Bush of President Bush of having foreknowledge of the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Anyway, she lost as well and had a little musical kind of send-off.
And did you see this musical kind of send-off in her press conference when she sounded like this?
Let me tell you about hard work.
Minimum wage with the baby on the way.
Let me tell you about hard work.
Okay, minimum wage.
What does she make?
$160,000 a year, whatever it is.
In any event, that was Cynthia McKinney.
Now, Russia only played this once the other day.
It deserves to be played again.
A little parody here about Cynthia.
Now, there you go.
Al Sharpton in a megaphone there.
That's actually, of course, Paul Shanklin, PaulShanklin.com.
A little parody there.
The original song, of course, for those old-timers, Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show, Cynthia's mother.
We are back, ladies and gentlemen, on the Rush program.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
And it wasn't just the Democrats.
You have probably heard by now that Congressman, well, we're on Michigan today.
Congressman Joe Schwartz was defeated in Michigan in the primary by Tim Wahlberg, a small government conservative, club for growth type candidate, and a border guy, a guy who wanted stronger borders.
And more liberal Joe Schwartz was defeated.
So both parties appear, and I think this is a good thing, to be moving away from triangulation and being all things to all people and can't we all just get along, to sharpening their message, to sharpening the differences between them.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have a partisan blowout election this year and in 2008 because there is a big debate in this country about whether to be the kind of America that the Bush administration wants us to be,
proactive against the terrorists, hard-nosed against the terrorists, recognizing the war we face, you know, getting after the terrorists where they live rather than waiting for them to come here.
Are we going to be that kind of America or are we going to be a McGovernite?
You know, we're back to 72, a McGovernite America.
See, McGovern beat Lieberman this week.
Now, his name was Ned Lamont, but it's the same thing.
It's the rage of the white limousine liberal male who is after poor Mr. Lieberman.
We got a caller today who said, you know, he's a liberal, but hey, it's a war.
And he represents a Democratic Party that since 72 has been eclipsed, particularly on the activist level, particularly now in the blogs and the multi-millionaire limousine liberals that support him like George Soros and Ned Lamont.
Here in Connecticut, Harry Truman, Harry Truman lost on Tuesday.
JFK lost on Tuesday.
Scoop Jackson lost on Tuesday.
FDR for Crying Out Loud lost on Tuesday.
This isn't the party of those folks.
This isn't your father's Democratic Party.
This isn't your grandfather's Democratic Party.
This is another animal altogether.
This is a McGovernite party.
You remember after McGovern got the nomination in 1972 and then, of course, disastrously lost the election because Americans are not a cut-and-run people, by and large.
We are not, even in an unpopular war, interested in defeat.
We are not interested in retreat.
We are not interested in totally blowing it.
An unpopular war means we just have a greater demand for victory.
Most of us.
But because of the McGovern takeover of the Democratic Party in 72, what did the Republican Party get?
Gene Kirkpatrick, Paul Wolfowitz, the so-called neocons now, are the ex-Democrats, the Scoop Jackson Democrats, who were strong on defense, who wanted America, because America was good, to play a stronger role in the world to oppose tyranny, to spread freedom, to spread democracy, to spread free trade, all of these things.
Now Ned Lamont comes along and reconfirms the McGovernite opposite point of view and has to answer the question, it seems to me, now, and so do all of you, and I would appreciate your call.
What would you do now?
The troops are there.
We're fighting the war.
We're killing the enemy there.
We're capturing them here.
We are intercepting their plots here.
We are running them down here.
What would you do different?
The Hartford Courant asked this question of Ned Lamont during the course of this election, and I'm sad to say that the voters of Connecticut must not have been paying attention because it's very odd the kinds of answers Mr. Lamont gave to the questions posed.
Who's the greatest threat to U.S. security?
He says, North Korea, not mentioning Iran.
Okay, North Korea is a threat.
Let's talk about North Korea.
So they ask him, what's your suggested approach to North Korea?
He says, well, quote, we can't work North Korea alone.
South Korea, Japan, and especially China are key, unquote.
Okay, well, that's what Bush has been doing, not to great effect, by the way, for what, the last two years, six-party talks.
That's all we've been doing.
Then, in contradiction to that, Mr. Lamont says to the reporter that the White House, however, should be talking, quote, directly, unquote, with Pyongyang, with North Korea.
Well, wait a minute.
Are we going to have the six-party talks?
Are we going to go with multilateralism?
Are we going to go with our partners?
Are we going to go with a multilateral approach, the multi-nation approach, which is all we hear from the Democrats?
You can't be a unilateral cowboy.
Or are we going to go unilaterally?
You can't have it both ways.
Well, apparently, Mr. Lamont did have it both ways.
Did have it both ways.
So I'm sorry, Mr. Lamont, there are some of us and all of the rest of you folks in this wing of the Democratic Party, this new Democratic Party, this McGovernite approach.
There's some of us who remember what happened when you prevailed in 1975.
When you influenced Congress to cut off the aid to the South Vietnamese, even though they were quite willing, as we were pulling out, to take on their own defense, we cut off all aid to them as well, ensuring their defeat and the bloodbath that followed.
The domino theory in the 70s was that if South Vietnam fell, all the other nations would go communist too.
The domino theory was right.
Laos is communist today.
Cambodia was in the killing fields and is not now only because we come back.
How many millions of people died there because the domino theory was right, because the defeat in South Vietnam led to a bloodbath because communists do not, do not like opposition.
Communists kill opponents.
And this is what happened in the bloodbaths that followed.
How many more bloodbaths do we want on our conscience?
For instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, were we to follow Ned Lamont and declare victory and go home?
The McGovernite, I thought it was gone.
I thought it was gone in the 70s and 80s after Reagan's victory.
It's back, and it's back with a vengeance.
And I want to get your take on this now as we get into, let me take a short break and we'll get into your calls.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush 1-800-282-2882.
Back after this.
Welcome back to the Rush Show.
I'm Roger Hedgecock here at the EIB network, rushlimbaugh.com.
Don't forget that.
1-800-282-2882, our phone number, of course.
Now, I have been reminded that I was remiss in going back to look at the, of course, listeners are way ahead of me here today.
Look at the character of Hezbollah, the character of Hezbollah.
And we talked about how they deliberately built in this fellow's village a bunker for the rockets and then put a school and a residence over the bunker so that then the Israelis either got the rockets or if they bombed the rockets, they got the world opinion turned against them because they killed civilians in the school in the house.
That's the way this has been going, and that's the way this war is.
It gets worse.
You'll remember that when the two soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah, there was talk about, well, yeah, but the Israelis have hundreds of our guys.
We want our guys released.
We want some kind of prisoner exchange.
They kidnapped our guys first.
Let me focus this.
Samir Kuntar is one Lebanese prisoner who is held by Israel.
He was captured.
He was captured in Israel in a group of Hezbollah fighters who had come across the border, had killed some settlers, including a four-year-old girl who had been killed with a rifle butt in front of her parents by Samir Kuntar.
He had been captured by the Israelis, and in this capture, he was sentenced to prison.
In other words, he came in with this four-man group.
At that time, he was at the Palestine Liberation Front, the affiliate of PLO, shot a policeman, forced their way into an apartment building, captured Danny Heron and his daughter Enot, four years old.
The Kuntar and his group took Danny and Anat Heron down to the beach of this little village.
They were right on the coast there.
Shot Danny in front of ANOT so his death would be the last thing she ever saw, and then smashed the little girl's skull against a rock with his rifle button.
That's the person they want back.
That's their highest priority.
They named him by name as demanding the release of a prisoner, their highest priority.
We want him a hero, a hero of our fight against the Zionists.
That's the kind of personality I'm afraid that the president of Iran has too.
And I'm afraid that when Mike Wallace goes there, does an interview and calls him a fine fellow, not insane at all, a very smart fellow, he obviously has very strong feelings about the Zionist state, says Mike Wallace.
Mr. Wallace, the Zionist state is a phrase we would normally in the West say Israel because that's the name of the country.
The Zionist state is the phrase used by Arabs whose goal in life, and as many lifetimes as it takes, is to murder every single Jew and extinguish Israel as a state.
Mr. Wallace, you're on their side when you use their vocabulary.
Sorry, that's just the way it is.
Now, I believe we're trying to get the Attorney General of the United States on the line, and we will do that in order to get his take on the Ohio arrests, the Egyptian student arrests, whether there's a tie-in with the arrests in the U.K. By the way, 20 more are sought in the U.K. on this bomb plot uncovered today against the airplanes coming in from the U.K. into the United States.
In the meantime, Jim and Richard Richmond, Virginia, is on the rush show.
Hi, Jim.
Hey, how are you doing, Roger?
Basically, what I want to call on the day in light of what happened in Britain is that I think it's time to take the gloves off politically and personally.
I think it's time to call the people who refuse to look at the overwhelming evidence on the war on terror what they are.
They're morons and they're useful idiots.
Now, I know a lot of people would react to that in a very emotional way, but I asked the people who would react to that, ask yourself basic questions.
Where did Hezbollah get the 1,500 rockets or more that they fired into Lebanon?
Where did they get unmanned drones?
Why did 11 Egyptian students register for a college in Montana and not show up?
How long do you think it took for these people who were arrested in Britain to plan this massive attack?
I mean, it wasn't conveniently planned because Joe Lieberman lost the primary, like one of your callers, I believe, alluded to an hour ago.
Do you really believe that we're not in a war on terror?
If you do, in my opinion, you're an intellectual idiot and not be given credence in the political realm.
And I would like to see our politicians who know better.
They have the intelligence.
They are on the inside track.
They get briefings.
They know we're in a war.
They know this is real.
They see the updates.
Call people what they are.
Use the words you want to use so you don't have to take the political heed for it.
And for people in your personal life, if you really believe in what we're doing, when people speak out and they say dumb things, point it out.
Yes, you're not going to be popular.
You're probably going to be called a name, but so what?
This is a different world.
Jim, I appreciate the call.
And the number of suspects arrested now is up to 24.
But the beauty of American democracy is that you, the voter, are going to get a choice between the vision that Jim just outlined of the point of view of the war and the point of view of the war of the people, like Cynthia McKinney, who believe that Bush actually set up the attack on the towers, that the more we fight terrorism, the more we create terrorism, etc.
You're going to have the choice.
It's called elections.
More after this.
Roger Hedcock, Infer Rush Limbaugh.
On the line, we have the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzalez.
Mr. Attorney General, welcome to the program.
How are you, Mr. Mayor?
I'm fine, sir, and I appreciate that sense of history you have.
Ancient history, by the way.
History is important.
Yes, it is.
By the way, I've been talking about that all day.
I wanted to get your take.
How serious was this threat that we've been reading and hearing and seeing all day long, the reports of, with regard to these planes out of the U.K.?
Well, you know, I'd have to characterize it as a very serious threat.
And I think that we have a plot here that was very sophisticated, multiple actors requiring, I think, exquisite timing, a very sophisticated method of injuring people.
And I just think it highlights the fact that we are dealing with people who are very patient and very smart.
And as the president said today, that we are safer today than we were before 9-11, but we're certainly not safe.
I'd like to focus, too, on the internal threat.
I think there's been some downplaying by Mr. Cheritoff today as to the threat in the United States itself, but there have been some remarkable stories.
The story of the 11 Egyptian students who were seeking English language instruction for a month in Montana, and most of them never quite made it that far.
The two American-born folks out of Dearborn, the high school students, I guess 20 years old now, but high school graduates out of Dearborn, who were caught in a situation that suggests a support of Hezbollah as the cigarette smuggling rings that have been busted by the FBI recently suggests as well.
How do you read the Hezbollah presence in the United States and whatever threat that they pose within the United States?
Well, they do pose a threat.
It's something that we watch carefully.
I mean, we have an obligation to study those kinds of threats.
And, you know, so it's not just, certainly it's clearly not just Al-Qaeda that presents the threat to the United States.
There are other terrorist groups.
There are domestic threats.
Sometimes we may get information relating to the activities of a sole person, an individual.
And so we have an obligation in the law enforcement community to follow up on all those threats.
I know Bob Mueller is dedicated, the director of the FBI is dedicated to doing so.
And we really ask a lot of the fine men, women, and the Bureau to run down all the leads of threats against the United States.
I mean, every morning I review the intelligence, the threat assessments against the United States.
And believe me, there are things that I read that I worry about.
I hope so.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez with us, because I'll tell you, Mr. Gonzalez, I've been concerned living along the border here in San Diego, of course, about not just the workers coming in, but you've got tens of thousands of people.
I just read an article, it's 45,000 that have jumped into the United States and not shown up at their hearings and so forth, even though they were apprehended.
They were released and told to come back for a hearing.
They didn't come back for the hearing, and they're from nations that you have on a list of terrorist nations.
So I worry about that.
And I wonder, since we don't know where these tens of thousands of people are, How high is your confidence that we have control of this situation?
Well, again, I can't put it any better than I think we have done a lot to make America safer.
We have spent a lot of money to secure our airports, to secure our borders.
We have additional resources.
We have additional tools, additional laws like the Patriot Act.
We now have a brand new department, the Department of Homeland Security.
Many of the federal agencies have reorganized themselves in a way to be more effective and efficient in dealing with terrorism.
We, for example, in the Justice Department, we are trying to stand up a new national security division so that we can be more effective in dealing with terrorism.
So I think we have done a lot, but clearly, I mean, more needs to be done.
It is very difficult in an open society like ours where we have democratic freedoms that people want to exercise.
We obviously are also concerned about restrictions on movement of goods and services along the border that may somehow adversely impact our economy.
So these are all things that we have to weigh in trying to arrive at a good solution to security on our border.
You talked about the situation where people are apprehended and told to come back in 45 days at a court date.
I mean, that obviously is not working.
It has not worked.
It makes no sense.
The President has talked about this repeatedly.
It is something that we are going to change and have changed.
And so we just need to do a better job with respect to border security.
The President has talked about comprehensive immigration reform, and we are committed to it.
We are hopeful we can still get something done this year.
Alberto Gonzalez, the Attorney General of the United States in the Bush Administration.
And Mr. Gonzalez, you mentioned the Patriot Act.
There is obviously a continuing debate about this.
Are there parts of that act where specifically do you think it ought to be strengthened, or changes that ought to be made?
Well, we are continually looking at what additional tools that we need to have to make us more effective in dealing with terrorism.
We have been successful in getting the tools that we need from Congress.
We will continue to go back to Congress.
If there are additional things that we need, one of the things that we do, for example, is we study very carefully the laws in other countries.
We study carefully what is available to the prosecutors in Great Britain.
And if there are things that seem to be working over there and dealing with this new kind of enemy, we think about whether or not we should have legislation in this country.
So it's an ongoing process.
Again, we understand the importance of protecting civil liberties.
And so in everything that we do, we keep that in mind.
But we also feel a very strong obligation to do what we can do to protect the American people.
Any arrests likely in the United States as a result of today's arrests in Britain?
Well, you know, what we do is investigate possible criminal wrongdoing, and if we feel like that that has happened, we bring charges.
And depending on the facts of this particular plot, there may have been some criminal wrongdoing that could be subject to criminal charges.
But we will be working with our British counterparts.
Obviously, they will have the lead role in terms of prosecutions, and we will be working with them to ensure that whatever happens, that these folks will be brought to justice.
The transportation safety folks today clamped down a whole bunch of new rules on people traveling on planes, particularly with regard to carrying on liquids in light of the liquid bomb-making suggestion coming out of these arrests.
Unfortunately, that again gives the impression that everyone is a suspect who gets on an airplane subjected to this kind of intrusion.
I can't take my shaving cream on the airplane anymore because I might be a bomber.
Well, I'm not a bomber.
In World War II, we focused on the Nazis.
We didn't focus on American citizens.
And if there were Americans who were sympathizers of the Nazis, we found them and we focused on them.
How come we can't focus on our enemy here and try to, in effect, give the impression that every American is the enemy?
Well, but I think this is a new kind of enemy and a new kind of war.
And I think, moreover, I think with the advent of the Internet, where you can have people that never leave a country, they get educated about the ideals of al-Qaeda, for example, and they can get trained over the Internet.
They can, in essence, wage a virtual jihad over the Internet.
And so the threat can very easily come from within as opposed to from without.
And I think that's part of the new challenge that we have to deal with.
You know, what we're trying to do here in terms of protecting America against this type of enemy is something that is not easy to do in every case.
I admit to you that it sometimes requires an imposition of inconveniences upon the American public.
And we all experience that every time that we travel, say, through one of our airports.
But again, everything that we do, we do with the mind of providing maximum security to the American public.
Well, I'll tell you what, Mr. Gonzalez, Alberto Gonzalez, the Attorney General with us in the Bush Administration, this is a great victory today for the forces trying to keep the country safe and Britain in the same way.
There isn't any question that what didn't happen is the news today, and what didn't happen is a bomb and a potential amount of death that would rival, if not exceed, 9-11.
And on that score, we have nothing but congratulations for everybody involved.
I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor.
Of course, you know, I think we've disrupted the threat.
We still don't know everything that I think can be known.
And so, you know, I think it may be too early to say we've ended the threat.
So we continue to do our investigation both here in the United States and I know in Great Britain.
And, you know, we'll continue to do our best to make America as safe as possible.
In that regard, Mr. Attorney General, I'll tell you on behalf of this entire listening audience, go get him and get him good.
Okay, we'll do that.
Thanks for being with us on the Rush program.
I appreciate it.
You bet.
All right, Alberto Gonzalez there, the Attorney General of the United States.
On the Rush Limbaugh program, Roger Hedgecock sitting in for Russia.
I'll be back right after this.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
And I was going to ask, I got to tell you, I did chicken out.
I was going to ask Alberto Gonzalez: so, how are you going to handle the anger from the New York Times at not getting a leak that this bust was coming so they could warn the terrorists ahead of time?
How are you going to handle the anger?
The backlash, the editorial condemnation.
Too political to ask the Attorney General that.
But it is interesting because tomorrow, now, which headline do you expect from the New York Times?
48 hours after the crushing defeat of his war policy at the hands of Connecticut voters, George Bush conjured up a so-called rumored threat to airlines in the U.K.
Or George Bush policy of deterring terrorism in conjunction with our partner, the United Kingdom, worked again to keep the terrorists from killing any more Americans.
Which approach do you actually think the mainstream media will take?
I've done a little survey here during the break, a very short break, as you know, here on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I did take a little look at the news as to whether or not there's been any thank yous yet, any accolades, any break-in to say thank you for saving us from being blown up over the Atlantic by these folks.
Not yet.
Okay, I'm optimistic.
Maybe by the end of the show.
Here's John in Gainesville, Florida.
In the meantime, John, welcome to the Rush program.
Hey, Roger, greetings from the home of the world champion, Florida Gators.
Yes, sir.
I'm going to go ahead and get right into it.
You know, you had this guy on earlier talking about intellectual idiots.
But, you know, you can obviously tell that it's people like him that is an intellectual idiot because liberals all agree that we are in a world in a war on terror.
But the liberals disagree on how to fight the war on terror.
And the Iraq war was not part of that war on terror.
In fact, if anything, that war has made us much weaker because you have over there quagmiring which we're getting nowhere.
The status quo is not helping us.
And we did not foil this terrorist plot this morning through the Iraq war.
We did it through three things that the liberals agree on that are able to fight the war on terror, and that is diplomacy, intelligence, and freedom from foreign oil.
So I don't understand how you think that all of this military might, you know, unleashing America's military might in the country is going to go ahead and win us the war on terror.
Well, as I say, as I say, and I think you'd agree with me on this one, John, the voter in the United States is going to have in the next two election cycles a stark choice, a contrast between the two parties and the approaches.
You've just articulated one.
I think you'll hear another one articulated from the conservative side.
But let me try to pull this together a little bit.
We're there now in Iraq, and this is the same question asked of Ned Lamont.
What would you do now?
I mean, I know you want to refight why we got there, but let's talk about today.
What would you do from today?
Well, I think we have two choices.
I think one, we either pull out and have Jack Mernthes' plan where we're just over the horizon, or we add 300,000 troops and stabilize the country.
I think both parties at this point can finally agree that we are not getting anywhere in Iraq with the status quo.
If you were president and had a magic wand, John, if you were president and had a magic wand, which of those two choices would you take?
Unfortunately, I would have to choose to pull out only because if you added 300,000 troops, basically what you're doing is showing Iran that, hey, you know, you're making a show of force and that Iran's going to come and think that they're about to get invaded.
And then all of a sudden, you have them speeding up their nuclear program, which then we have to attack Iran, which then you won't be able to go to the supermarket without worrying about a suicide bomber right next to you.
So I think you have to pull out.
The United States creates the extremists and the attacks and the terrorists by attacking them.
I certainly think that's the case, yes.
And I think a lot of Metropolitan will agree as well.
Did the Israelis create Hezbollah?
The Israelis, I don't know if they created Hezbollah.
They created the aggression towards them.
Now, whether that aggression is right or not is.
Let me see if I understand that.
We just have a couple of minutes, so let me just see if I can understand that, John.
The Israelis then caused Hezbollah to start the war.
I don't know the history of the ⁇ all I know is that both sides are ⁇ Well, just a month ago.
I know it was a long time ago, but just about a month ago, Hezbollah captured one of the Israeli soldiers and began rocket attacks on Israel.
If you remember that far back, they started the war.
But now you're saying that Israel actually caused them to start the war?
No, no, not this most recent war.
I'm sure that's not the case.
I mean, I'm sure it goes back hundreds of years.
I don't know the history of the Israeli-Arabic conflict.
What I can do is to say that.
Israel was a state founded in 1947.
Okay.
But that's not what I called to talk about.
I called to talk about what's going on in Iraq and the difference between how the And how the Republicans want to fight the war on terror.
I'm trying to understand how we get less terrorism by pulling out of Iraq and giving the terrorists a victory.
Giving the terrorists a victory.
What you'll be doing is saving America from getting any more into a deeper quagmire and making things worse off than when we went in in the first place.
I mean, I think we can both agree that we did not foil that plot this morning because of the Iraq war.
That was done through the war on terror, through intelligence, through diplomacy with our allies, through back channels, through CIA, through MI6, not because of the war on Iraq.
All right.
Now, John, I appreciate what you've said because you've set us up nicely for the fact that the voter is going to have a very clear choice.
Retreat from Iraq is good for America.
Victory in Iraq is the only good for America.
Those are the two choices you're basically going to get.
Your premise says that if we stay in Iraq and steal the course, we're eventually going to win.
But there's nothing to say that we will.
You have Senator McCain saying we're playing whack-a-mole.
You have Senator General saying the violence is the worst he's ever seen.
I love it, John, because it's a question of: are the Iraqis governing themselves?
Are they messy in that government?
Sure, they're just getting started.
Are they having a lot of problems?
Sure, they're just getting started.
Are there many parts of Iraq that are doing very well, like Kurdistan?
Absolutely.
Are you going to read about it in the New York Times?
Never.
John, in other words, you think we're being defeated in Iraq.
The Iraqis don't agree.
Zarkawi didn't agree.
The insurgency is constantly concerned that they're losing out there.
That's the problem.
Roger Hedgecock, back with more after this.
Sadly, out of time here.
All kinds of things I didn't get to today, but I'll have a chance to do it tomorrow.
You will too on the Rush Limbaugh program.
I'll be filling in for Rush tomorrow.
Look at this article I missed.
Western values are causing mental illness in Japan.
How can I have not done that one?
Well, okay, we'll get some time tomorrow.
I'm Roger Hedgecock.
Thanks for listening to the Rush Limbaugh Program.
▲
Export Selection