All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:09
September 6, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, look at that.
Here's this, what is the State Department doing, giving this guy a visa?
And I'm telling you something.
There is a shadow government made up of former Clintonistas and others who are doing their damnedest to destroy this administration and its foreign policy.
They're just, we've got one of the former leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Qatani, wandering around the country for two weeks, making speeches.
He's a moderate Muslim, though.
He's a moderate.
There's no such thing as a former leader, one of the Iranian mullahs, Ayatollahs, that is a moderate about anything.
And Mitt Romney, here's a round of applause from Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney said, I am not using any state funds to provide this guy security or bodyguards or travel or any of the other things.
I am not doing it.
I'm not wasting the taxpayers' money in Massachusetts on this thing.
I mean, this is, it is, you know, you've got Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now demanding that Bush debate him at the United Nations when they opened their General Assembly meeting sometime in October.
The Iranian official news agency reported today what appeared to be a veiled threat from Ahmadinezad.
During the speech Wednesday, Ahmadinezad reiterated a proposal from last month to debate Bush, suggesting that the United Nations be the ideal venue.
The official Islamic Republic news agency said Ahmadinezad had warned in a speech that anyone who refused to accept an invitation to debate him would suffer a bad fate.
Said the statement was a reference to Bush's rejection of an invitation by Ahmadinezad for a televised debate.
It'd just be interesting to see how many of these freaks of the United Nations, which I still maintain looks like the bar scene from Star Wars, will demand that Bush accept this.
And we need this kind of dialogue.
We really do.
We need this kind of dialogue.
We need to talk to these people.
Seems to be one of the favorite themes of the Democratic Party and the American Left.
Let's go to Audubia Sambite 7.
I'm going to change the order here because I've now swerved into this.
Last night on Hardball with Chris Matthews, Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate who has based his candidacy on the destruction of Walmart, was asked this question by Matthews.
The president would say that you can't negotiate with our enemy.
They're Hitler.
President says you don't deal with Nazis, basically, with Islamic fascists.
What are you saying?
Can we negotiate with the enemy or what?
How can we communicate to the rest of the billion Muslims in the world that we in fact have better ideas and offer hope if we don't expose by direct contact with the Iranian theocracy, if we don't expose by having direct talks with the North Koreans, that we are offering hope, that we are offering something that is concrete, and these guys are the bad guys.
When Khrushchev beat his shoe on the table, what did we do?
We talked, we won, the war of ideas defeated the Soviet Union.
The man is, I was going to say a fool.
He misguided.
This is sheer idiocy.
I remember when Khrushchev banged that shoe at the United Nations.
And I don't know how many of you remember it, but I do.
And I'll never forget the reaction of my parents and my grandparents.
Put this in context for you.
My parents and grandparents lived through World War I.
Well, my grandparents did.
Then came the Great Depression.
Then came World War II.
They fought all those battles and prevailed.
Then Khrushchev shows up at the U.N., starts pounding the shoe, says, we will bury your children.
We will bury you.
And my grandparents were outraged and livid, and they took it seriously, and they believed it, and thus supported with tax dollars and votes all of the ensuing years of doing battle with these people.
The Soviet Union, my father, the same thing.
They didn't look the other way.
They didn't think that it was just some ranting lunatic from the Soviet Union trying to scare us.
They did not ignore it and did not go about their lives.
They geared up again after World War I, after the Great Depression, after World War II, and throw Korea in there.
They geared up after all that and they took it seriously.
There weren't any Senator Biden's.
Well, there probably were, but there weren't enough to affect things.
Well, I know there were.
What am I saying?
There were all kinds of appeasers back then, just as there are today.
This is, at the very least, this is ignorance on the part of this man, Senator Biden.
He says we won the Cold War by negotiating.
He thinks that all those talks at Reykjavik and wherever else that Reagan met Gorbachev resulted in Gorbachev just standing down.
Do you think Saddam Hussein chalks up his defeat and capture to negotiations?
Do you think today Gorbachev thinks he lost because he talked to the United States and lost in the talking contest?
Do you think that Adolf Hitler committed suicide because somebody beat him in a debate?
This is absurd.
This is outrageous.
And these are the people claiming that they are the ones who are best equipped and best able to handle these people.
He wants to go talk to the theocracy in Iran.
He wants to go talk to Ahmadinejad and tell him what a great country we have here.
Why don't you do a cultural exchange with him, Senator?
You go over there and let Ahmed Dinejad come here and let him see the United States of America.
They know exactly who we are, Senator, and they hate us for it.
There's no talking with these people.
And if he thinks that the Soviet Union was defeated with talk, it's called Strategic Defense Initiative.
It is called building up an arsenal that the Soviet Union knew it couldn't keep up with.
Words had nothing to do.
Words are what sustained the Cold War for 70 years.
Perpetuated it.
Constant appeasement.
Some Democrats breathlessly hoping that in fact the Soviets would win the Cold War.
So they admired Marxism.
Here is, again, Matthew is asking Senator Biden, who would be a better Secretary of Defense than Donald Rumsfeld?
Anybody.
Well, name a couple.
Anybody with experience.
Anybody.
For example, Armitage, Armitage would be a great Secretary of Defense.
Strong Republican.
Very good.
Very strong.
I kid you not.
This is not EIB production game.
He actually suggested that Richard Armitage, number two in charge to Colin Powell, who was actively angry at this administration and its conduct in the war on terror, would be an excellent Secretary of Defense.
So Bush ought to go out and populate his cabinet with political foes, political enemies.
And I'm telling you, he thinks he's the smartest guy in Washington.
So we now move to C-SPAN this morning, Washington Journal.
The host was Paul Orgel, and he interviewed the third way.
It's a Democrat think tank.
The third way, National Security Project Director Sharon Burke, and a caller from Alamati Springs, Florida calls this.
I'm not the biggest fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I did hear him say: if good and evil negotiate, evil is going to win every time because they're not going to sacrifice anything.
A very smart man I know said not so long ago that, you know, the real challenge for diplomacy is to sit down and get the other side to agree to everything you want.
The real challenge for diplomacy is to admit that it is useless when talking with pure evil tyrants.
It's useless in most cases.
And if you want to be the French, fine, be a diplomat.
You want to get nothing done?
You want to surrender half the time?
Be a diplomat.
It is time to understand.
It's time for diplomacy to admit that it's ineffective.
I think that you can negotiate from a position of strength and you can get what you want out of negotiations.
Negotiating with evil, you know, Kim Jong-il, he's an evil guy.
Sure.
I'm happy to agree to that.
But he's also got a state and he has survival at stake.
I think that you can negotiate with him.
Really?
Wait, we've had how many meetings have we had?
Multilateral, bilateral, unilateral, flitilateral, about making him get rid of his nukes and not testing them.
And he's going to test them.
And yeah, he's got a state.
His people are starving.
Does he care?
Nancy?
Is that her name?
Sharon Burke.
And Clinton and Carter, by the way, did that with negotiation.
Kim Jong-il is a nuclear threat because Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright, who went over there and talked to him, talked to him.
Ladies and gentlemen, when good negotiates with evil, evil will always win.
When right negotiates with wrong, wrong will always win.
It's inaugural.
It's a fact of life.
It's human nature.
You know, this is why I, whenever there are, like, this has been going around the past couple of days.
Partisanship.
You know, we're not getting anything done in Congress.
It's too much partisanship out there.
Politics are getting in the way.
Excuse me, I love partisanship because partisanship is where core values reside.
Core values exist.
And if you're going to throw away your core values in a negotiation or in a compromise, then what good are they?
Well, the other side's going to give up something too.
Well, if the other side is evil, it ain't giving up anything.
If your position is right and you're the good side and you're the right side, and you give up something for the golden sake of compromise, then you have just compromised your core.
And I don't know that that's worth it.
And that's what I mean when I say when good negotiates with evil, evil always wins.
In the history of the world, evil cannot be appeased.
It has to be stamped out if free people are to remain free.
It's that simple.
It isn't complicated.
We will be back.
Stay with us.
Now, this is funny.
This is hilarious.
It's so cute.
The editor of the Limbaugh Letter Newsletter, Diana Schneider, just sent me a link to a new children's book that's out there called Why Mommy is a Democrat.
And it stars a squirrel family.
I think it's squirrels.
Could be chipmunks, but whatever they are, they're rodents.
You know, a squirrel, and I know people think they're cute.
They're just tree rats.
A seagull is just an air rat.
Well, It's not actually a rodent, but it performs the same function.
But so there's a family of tree rats.
Mommy.
No, no, there's no dad around.
Well, no, there's no dad.
Ain't no dad here.
It's just mommy and the two little squirrel offspring.
Why Mommy is a Democrat, a different kind of children's book.
All these quotes from like Liz Winstead, the co-creator of the Daily Show, Why Mommy is a Democrat, is a sweet children's tale that reminds us why we are all Democrats.
I loved it.
And the mayor of Columbus, Ohio, Michael Coleman, Why Mommy is a Democrat is a warm and wonderful story of commitment to family and community.
You'll want to share this book with your children for the same reason you're a Democrat, because you care.
Sherry Mabry, York County Democratic Party, South Carolina.
I can't thank you enough for this opportunity to promote our values.
Senator Patrice Arendt, Utah Senate.
I just received my copy of Why Mommy is a Democrats, a wonderful book.
I immediately got online and I ordered more.
I'm looking forward to sharing your simple but profound message with my two children.
Thank you for your excellent work.
Who wrote this thing?
Jeremy Zilber, and it was illustrated by Yulia Firsova.
And they have a click on some sample pages.
You can actually read three of the pages of Why Mommy is a Democrat.
Well, let me describe the first sample page.
You have an old man and woman walking through a park.
The old man smoking a big cigar.
The woman looks like she's carrying an infant.
There looks to be a homeless dreg sitting on a park bench.
This is all in the background.
And here in the, behind the, behind the bushes, amidst the, what kind of flowers are those?
You have any idea?
I'm not a botanist or a biologist.
What kind of flowers are those?
Daisies?
They're daisies.
I thought daisies were yellow, but it doesn't matter.
Daisies.
They're white, five petals with a gold little thing in the middle.
Bumblebees run around on these things all the time.
And you've got these two little tree rat squirrels, one boy, one girl, the boy wearing blue jean overalls, and the little girl wearing a green and white striped little shoulder sweater.
And they're playing with building blocks.
They're out there trying to spell words, tree rats.
And mommy is looking out the window of the house, which is obviously a tree, with a cup of coffee.
And she's looking on admirably with her buck teeth and smiling.
And the page text is this: Democrats make sure we all share our toys just like mommy does.
All right?
Democrats make sure we all share our toys like mommy does.
Next sample page, we have a giant, what would there be, an elephant walking by where the previous old man and woman, the old man with a big cigar and the ugly old woman with a little kid, the homeless guy is now up out of the park bench because this elephant is walking by on the pathway in the park.
Mom has left the safety of the tree house and is now shepherding the two kid tree rats.
And the text is, Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like mommy does.
And of course, the elephant is significant.
It's a GOP elephant.
It's a Republican walking by.
And the thing is huge.
It dwarfs the homeless guy that's standing up off the bench.
Even he's got to leave because the Republicans are coming.
Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like mommy does.
And the third sample page, there is a university, and some graduate in cap and gown with the same couple.
You know, would you explain the woman on the left here wearing short shorts or a mini skirt and knee boots with that gray hair that is in a beehive?
Is this a depiction of rich Republicans?
Okay, rich Republicans is wearing a fur.
She's got some roses.
I take it back.
That's not short shorts.
It's a red skirt all the way down to the down to the down to the below the knees.
And their son, I guess, is graduating there.
And there's a sign on the side of the university entrance that says admission, $160,000.
Now, keep in mind, it's Democrats that run all these places.
It's liberal Democrats that run all these places and jack up tuitions.
And across the street, across the street, behind Little Finn, and the homeless guy's still here.
The homeless guy looking longingly, hanging over a fence, wishing he could get into the school.
But he can't because he can't afford it.
And Mom Tree Rat and the two kid Tree Rats now have their backpacks on and their books, as though they're getting ready to go to school.
Mom is packing lunch, a couple of apples in a brown sack, and there's a little mouse looking on.
And of course, these tree rats are not attacking the mouse.
No, They're friends with the mouse.
The mouse is probably their pet.
And the text is, Democrats make sure children can go to school just like mommy does.
Why mommy is a Democrat.
I tell you what, it's desperation time out there.
I don't know where this book is available.
I imagine you can, well, here's a donate button here on the website.
Donate.
So I guess you click on someplace in the website.
You can buy it there, or they'll tell you where to go to get it.
Why Mommy is a Democrat.
And the front cover is mom tree rat with a little girl tree rat on her lap sitting in wicker chairs with a little baby horse carriage there as a toy.
So the Democrats are associating themselves with squirrels, portraying them as Democrat families.
And whatever happens, it's because Democrats do it just like mommy does.
So they're admitting here, yep, we're the nanny party.
We are your mother.
You're always our kids.
You don't have decency and sense enough yourself to do the right thing.
Just turn your lives over to us, and we'll make sure that you have just a little of a lot and that you will be miserable.
Learn it.
Love it.
Live it because it is a beautiful thing.
As usual, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Last night on the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric said this.
You're going to hear a lot of different opinions.
Some of the people you'll recognize, Rush Limbaugh, for instance, this Thursday.
Some you won't.
And we're sure you won't always agree.
Gotta cover the bases.
So after, actually before that, and I don't know what time, what time did the thing run last night, their free speech segment?
About halfway through it, right?
I don't know what time it's later to run.
I don't know if the show formatically is going to be the same every night.
At any rate, on Fox yesterday afternoon, John Gibson, The Big Story, had a guest on, Stephen Bataglio from TV Guide.
And I love all these journalists out.
They're experts on television.
I don't know if they've ever been on TV or worked in TV, but they're the critics.
And, of course, they are the experts.
And John Gibson says, you know, the people, CBS, you're also doing this thing where an opinion that Rush Limbaugh, various guests coming in, speaking their mind, you get a sense that America is demanding that.
No, I think it's a big mistake.
You can get opinion all day on this channel, on the other news channels.
If you want to really hear what Rush Limbaugh has to say, you can listen to him for hours a day on the radio.
It seems to me that the evening news viewer wants 22 minutes of news.
And to all of a sudden give them opinion, it seems ill-advised.
Oh, come on.
Stephen, where have you been?
The whole ABC, CBS, NBC evening news is opinion.
Well, I don't know when I started my other hour.
Yeah, he said I do four hours.
He must listen to one hour twice on his podcast.
Bob Schieffer does a commentary at the end of Slay the Nation.
The idea that it's a big mistake.
You can get opinion all day on the channel.
People listen to Rush Limbaugh.
So, you know, this is just a sample of some of the quaking in their boots fear out there over the decision to have me on CBS.
Here is Rex in New Orleans.
Rex, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program.
Two points.
First, remember Churchill's statement, I will not remain neutral as between the fire and the fire brigade.
So much for negotiation neutrality.
Secondly, the guys won't let Bush catch a break if he goes unilaterally into Iraq.
They criticize him for being the Lone Ranger, cowboy shoot from the hip.
Then, when he wants multi-party negotiations, six-power negotiations with North Korea and with multi-party negotiations with Iran, they say, no, no, no, we must have direct one-on-one face-to-face talks.
The hypocrisy is deafening.
Well, it is, but these are just people trying to block anything Bush does and trying to screw it up.
He's not listening to them.
The question for a leader in a circumstance like this is, what's the right thing to do?
And he can't listen to all these people who say, well, you've got to be unilateral here.
You've got to be multilateral there.
You've got to be bilateral over there, and you've got to be flitilateral over there.
In the case of Iran, this is very simple.
It really is very simple.
You have to ask yourself, do we want a nuclear Iran?
And if we allow a nuclear Iran, what does it mean, given the statements being made by their lunatic president?
And we know the extremist, that's a very minimum, attitudes of the mullahs, the Ayatollahs that run the place.
Okay, let's say they get nukes.
They've got nukes.
Israel is the only other regional power that, well, India and Pakistan.
But Saudi Arabia doesn't have them, and that's where the big oil fields are.
In addition to the Iranians being able to give terrorists little nukes, take them around the world, blow them up and explode them in various places, they've become the most destabilizing factor in that region that there has been in a long, long time.
It's just a simple fact.
Do you want that to happen or not?
And then you have to ask yourself a very simple question, too.
Will Iran agree in negotiations to essentially say, okay, we'll stop.
You know what?
You've persuaded us, Mr. Kerry.
You are a brilliant man.
We will not do our nuke program.
And if they do say it, they'll be lying.
They will never do it.
They'll never say it's just a question of what we want and what we want to deal with.
Some of you might say, so what?
They're halfway around the world.
Not quite halfway around the world, but who are we to say that some nations shouldn't have nuclear weapons?
What right do we have?
Nobody stopped us.
I know that question circulates out there in the blame America first crowd, in the people who are just possessed with so much guilt.
They have no concept of the good guys and the bad guys.
And if they even do have such a concept, the bad guys can always be reasoned with.
If we just be nicer to them or what have you.
So go ahead and let them have their nukes.
And it might stabilize things, some people would say, because then nobody could attack Iran and Iran could attack anybody else because if that happened to be mutually assured destruction.
Well, the question is, if Iran made a nuclear move on the Saudi Arabia Peninsula, or if it made a move on Qatar or on the United Arab Emirates, would we move in to stop it?
We want the Iranians in charge of that much of the world's oil supply.
We want to sit around and let it happen.
I mean, these are really not hard questions.
The thing that is, well, they may have difficult answers in terms of action that follows whatever the answer is.
But the idea that we're going to get rid of the threat, and I know some people don't consider it a threat, but the idea we're going to get rid of the threat by talking to them, either with United Nations representatives or French diplomats or anybody from the European Union or even anybody from our beloved State Department, is just idiotic.
So I sit here and I question where national resolve is on this kind of thing.
And I don't think that it has arisen to the point yet where people really want to face this threat.
What we have here, you may not want to look at it this way, but we've had a number of incidents already that are the equivalent of Khrushchev coming to the United Nations and banging his shoe and threatening to bury our children and grandchildren.
We've already had, but, you know, times are different today.
We've got far more affluence and far more prosperity.
And so many of these things can be dealt with by so few Americans that not everybody needs to pitch in and get involved.
You don't have to deal with the threat.
You can pretend it's not real or that it ain't going to happen in your lifetime or that it's just a bunch of trumped up bragging and bellyaching by these people who really don't have anything, any number of ways to stay in denial about it.
And I think a lot of people still are.
Here's Matt, Burlington, Vermont.
You're next, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you for taking the call.
You bet, sir.
The subject I have in my heading, I'm calling it stealth legislation, and I'm going to need a little help.
Back a year or so ago, when Washington was all in a flutter about how pork gets attached to larger bills, I got intrigued by that, and I started poking around to see if there were other things that could be tacked onto bills besides a bridge or a road or whatever.
And to my surprise, what I found was that our own Bernie Sanders here in Vermont had attached to a larger bill a 5% reduction in the budget for the CIA.
Now, that wasn't easy for me to find.
I had to do a lot of digging, but I did find it.
Now, at about the same time, it appears that the CIA was attempting to get budget increases.
Now, I've heard since then that Sanders has done that more than once.
Now, if someone's asking for 5% up and you give them 5% down, that's a net loss of 10%.
If you do that for three or four years, you just cut your ability in half.
Now, I just made some of those last numbers up because I'm not operating on fact except for the first 5% reduction.
But the other part of this that I find interesting is, I mean, I know that he's a pawn of Howard Dean, but so who said what first, I don't know.
But right out of the chute after 9-11, screaming from the hilltops is guys like him saying, bad intelligence, bad intelligence.
We can't trust them.
They're all lying.
And I'm just wondering how much this stealth business goes on fire so that they have the ability to be, they're setting themselves up to be negative.
And I find it disgusting.
I mean, it's absolutely disturbing.
Now, what's the help I need?
Well, I'd like to see how to dig.
You know, when you look at the voting record of these guys, you can only see the larger bills that they voted on.
You can't see the stealth stuff that they stuck underneath.
Well, in Bernie Sanders' case, there's not much you can do.
He's elected by like-minded people from the state of Connecticut.
So, I mean, what do you say?
What are you going to do?
The substance of your point that people need to realize is that while journalists are out there saying that they can't find any evidence of Democrats wanting to cut funding for the war in Iraq, the war on terror, you have.
The substance of what you said is that here's Bernie Sanders who wants to cut the CIA budget by 5%.
He's not going to succeed in that.
It would take something like the Church Commission again to emasculate the CIA.
Our bigger problem with the CIA is a bunch of people in there trying to destroy the administration.
That's the big problem with the CIA right now.
But as far as Bernie Sanders and his little earmark is concerned, it's an indication who these people are and who he blames.
You know, it is almost a requirement to be a liberal on the ID test that you have to take.
You have to hate the CIA.
The CIA and the U.S. military are the focus of evil in the modern world.
They go in and they murder innocent people.
They deprive human rights and civil rights of people all over the world.
They put puppet leaders that are sympathetic to the United States in power against the wishes of their own countrymen, blah, And so while these people sometimes are out talking this tough game, as the Democrats are now, we'll make you safer.
We'll do this.
Behind the scenes, they're actually looking to undermine the intelligence and security network that has been established.
Brief timeout.
Back with much more right after this, folks.
President's on fire.
He is delivering a speech at the White House on the war on terror.
Our microphones are there.
Are we able, we can't cover the whole thing here because it's going to, because of the start time here.
It just bollocks up the programming format.
Are we able to jip this with our microphones there in the White House?
Fine and dandy.
Well, let's listen just a little bit of it here just so you get the flavor.
We'll call some audio soundbites from this as it proceeds.
On where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves.
Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate.
They have knowledge of where the operatives are deployed and knowledge about what plots are underway.
This intelligence, this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place.
And our security depends on getting this kind of information.
To win the war on terror, we must be able to detain, question, and when appropriate, prosecute terrorists captured here in America and on the battlefields around the world.
After the 9-11 attacks, our coalition launched operations across the world to remove terrorist safe havens and capture or kill terrorist operatives and leaders.
Working with our allies, we've captured and detained thousands of terrorists and enemy fighters in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and other fronts of this war on terror.
These are enemy combatants who are waging war on our nation.
We have a right under the laws of war, and we have an obligation to the American people to detain these enemies and stop them from rejoining the battle.
Most of the enemy combatants we capture are held in Afghanistan or in Iraq, where they're questioned by our military personnel.
Many are released after questioning or turned over to local authorities if we determine that they do not pose a continuing threat and no longer have significant intelligence value.
Others remain in American custody near the battlefield to ensure that they don't return to the fight.
In some cases, we determine that individuals we have captured pose a significant threat or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to have to prevent new attacks.
Many are al-Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying to conceal their identities and they withhold information that could save American lives.
In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held secretly, questioned by experts, and when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts.
Yes.
I get it.
Some of these individuals are taken to the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Club Guitmo!
Yes!
It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo.
These aren't common criminals or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield.
We have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo.
Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers.
They are in our custody, so they cannot murder our people.
Amazing he has to even say that.
One detainee held at Guantanamo told a questioner questioning him.
He said this: I'll never forget your face.
I will kill you, your brothers, your mother, and your sisters.
In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States.
Here it comes, a secret CIA president.
In a separate program operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.
It's going to close it down and move them to Club Guitmo.
This group includes individuals believed to be the key architects of the September 11th attacks.
Going to be an attacks on the USS Coal.
Going to give them a Geneva Convention.
An operative involved in the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
Yeah, within the United States.
Individuals involved in other attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians across the world.
Yeah, when did they happen in the 90s?
These are dangerous men.
All right, folks, we have to bump out of this and go to our EIB Profit Center timeout.
I just wanted to give you a sample.
The president's speech was a dynamic and great speech yesterday.
This one sounds of the same tenor and tone.
We'll try to get some audio soundbites from it as it progresses.
We'll be right back and continue in a jiffy.
Stay with us.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program must come to a screeching temporary halt.
But it'll resume shortly.
Broadcast excellence right around the corner.
▲
Export Selection