All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 7, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
September 7, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back.
It's Rush Limbaugh.
This, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, ABC, has released a statement about all this in their movie.
I haven't been able to find it yet, but I do know that they are saying criticism of the film is premature and irresponsible.
Criticism premature and irresponsible.
They are saying that no one has seen the whole thing.
Nobody has seen the entire Path to 9-11 movie.
Now that, that opens up a whole can of worms.
If nobody has seen the whole thing, if what's been circulating out there is not the full-fledged version of this, then it's interesting.
ABC News at the top of the hour, ABC Radio News reported, this is ABC.
ABC Radio News, I'm told, reported that edits have been made because of Democratic criticism, but that they couldn't confirm it.
So ABC Radio News can't confirm what ABC is doing elsewhere.
We are still looking for the statement.
We can't find anywhere on the web where it's been published.
It's obviously out there because Fox is talking about it and the others.
I don't know if CNN has it as well.
So when we're able to come up with a whole statement, I mean, virtually every frontline news source I have has nothing on this.
But it'll be out there, even the ABC website.
Couldn't find anything on it there as well.
All right.
As I mentioned, the president had another speech this morning.
I want to play some audio sound bites from this.
And don't sweat it, folks.
We'll get this statement.
We'll make sense of it when it comes into our hands.
ABC reacting to all the criticism of the movie The Path to 9-11, the mini-series.
Here is the president this morning in Marietta, Georgia, taking it straight to the Democrats.
You're out there saying, are we safer?
Are we safer?
Five years after 9-11, are we safer?
The answer is yes.
America is safer.
We are safer because we've taken action to protect the homeland.
We are safer because we are on the offense against our enemies overseas.
We're safer because of the skill and sacrifice of the brave Americans who defend our people.
Now, in case you're wondering if the Bush doctrine is still in effect, Bush explains yes and why it'll prevail.
After 9-11, I set forth a new doctrine.
Nations that harbor or support terrorists are equally guilty as the terrorists and will be held to account.
And the Taliban found out what we meant.
Five years later, Taliban and Al-Qaeda remnants are desperately trying to retake control of that country.
They will fail.
They will fail because the Afghan people have tasted freedom.
They will fail because their vision is no match for a democracy accountable to its citizens.
They will fail because they are no match for the military forces of a free Afghanistan, a NATO alliance, and the United States of America.
That's right.
We don't lose.
Bush puts the punishment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed right on the Democrats' door in this next bite, refers to him as KSM as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
KSM has been in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency.
He's provided valuable intelligence that has helped us kill or capture al-Qaeda terrorists and stop attacks on our nation.
I authorized his transfer to Guantanamo Bay.
And the sooner that Congress authorizes the military commissions I have called for, the sooner Khalek Sheikh Mohammed will receive the justice he deserves.
All right, and so Bush shifts the puts the punishment of Mohammed right on the Democrats' door in Jane Harmon's door.
It's up to you guys.
It's up to all of you in Congress, those of you who've been trying to grant these people a Bill of Rights and so forth.
Another portion of the president's remarks for you as we go through it next.
Clear details of the terrorist surveillance program were leaked to the news media, and the program was then challenged in court.
My administration strongly disagrees with the ruling.
We're appealing it, and we believe our appeal will be successful.
Yet a series of protracted legal challenges would put a heavy burden on this critical and vital program.
Surest way to keep the program is to get explicit approval from the United States Congress.
So today I'm calling on the Congress to promptly pass legislation providing additional authority for the terror surveillance program, along with broader reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
And this is cool, too, because these are people, these are people who have sought to punish this country by mischaracterizing the foreign surveillance program as a domestic spying plan, and that Bush is simply a voyeur.
All he wants to do is listen on your phone calls.
Bush is the real violator of rights here.
Bush is the real terrorist.
And they know full well what they are doing in mischaracterizing the purpose of this program.
Now going to Congress and saying, okay, you guys want in on this fight?
Let's see your cards on the table.
You claim you're for a strong America.
You claim that you're big on national security and defense.
Let's see.
But Mr. Pentecost, you can't trick us this way because it's just before an election.
It's just before an election.
You can't trick us this way.
Who's playing politics, Bush says?
I'm trying to protect the country.
You want to look at it politically?
You go right ahead.
Make sure everybody knows how you're playing it.
Kind of like this, folks.
The big finish here.
Bush points out that he never said that it would be easy.
In the early days after 9-11, I told the American people that this would be a long war.
A war that would look different from others we have fought with difficulties and setbacks along the way.
The past five years have proven that to be true.
Five years after September the 11th, 2001, America is safer.
And America is winning the war on terror.
With vigilance, determination, courage, we will defeat the enemies of freedom and we will leave behind a more peaceful world for our children and our grandchildren.
God bless.
And out the door he was.
That was in Marietta, Georgia, earlier today on his way to Savannah after that.
And he did get there.
By the way, Al Jazeera has released a new videotape of the 9-11 leaders before the 9-11 attack.
Now, I don't, obviously, the tape that has been made available, but it's bin Laden and Zawahiri and others, the 9-11 leaders, before the attack.
And I don't know to what purpose, maybe to help celebrate the anniversary from their end.
Who knows?
David Broder, before we go to the break, David Broder, in a startling column today in the Washington Post, says that it's time for the journalism community to apologize to Karl Rove for the Valerie Plame business.
He says all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson, can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
Karl Rove is owed an apology, and he says from Sidney Blumenthal, from Joe Connason.
He points out how, what's his name, the Lout, Frank Lauten.
No, no, this is a different column.
That's Byron York talking about this.
Frank Lortenberg was being interviewed by somebody on some television show.
Yep, Rove is no doubt a traitor about this.
Journalism not only owes an apology to Karl Rove, journalism owes one of the major biggest corrections they have ever made.
They owe an apology to the country.
But they'll never happen because they got out of this exactly what they, well, they got 90% of what they wanted.
They wanted Rove in jail, Cheney indicted and in jail, what have you.
But they wanted this to impact negatively on Bush's numbers, ethics, approval numbers, and they got that.
Back in just a sec.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have, Rush Limboy, and the EIB network.
ABC says that their release via the, I haven't still haven't seen it.
I'm trying to, I'm getting this in various different sources.
That the PAFTA 9-11 is staying on the air and that the criticism is premature and irresponsible and that nobody has seen the entire thing.
Which kind of surprising to me, because I think I have.
But nevertheless, we're still trying to track this statement down.
The cable networks all have it.
We can't find it anywhere.
I mean, I've got every source there is, and I cannot find it.
Cannot find it from ABC or any of the other sources in the pages.
And I will admit that I am curious about this only because somebody has told me that the ABC radio news at the top of the hour says that ABC capitulated and made some edits in response to the Democratic criticism.
Now, I've not seen that in any of the other, by the way, ABC Radio News said they couldn't confirm it.
So, I mean, ABC Radio can't even find ABC Entertainment's press release on this.
So, don't feel bad.
This thing is obviously going out to select people first.
But regardless, if it weren't for that little contradiction, I wouldn't be so curious about this.
But as I say, we'll keep digging it.
Now, this next story, this comes from the Connecticut Post out of Bridgeport, Connecticut.
I have been to Bridgeport.
I have friends up there, and Bridgeport's where I fly into.
A polling company owner has admitted participating in a conspiracy to falsify data in order to meet deadlines for clients, which included the campaigns of President Bush, U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, and Mayor John Fabrizi.
Tracy Coston, 46 of Madison, admitted to U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall that she participated in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Coston, who owned and operated Data USA, a survey and polling firm with offices in West Haven and Guilford, Connecticut, faces up to five years in prison when she is sentenced on November 30th.
Preliminary calculation of the federal spending guidelines calls for her to receive a sentence anywhere from 27 to 33 months in prison and a fine of between $6,000 and $60,000.
The company was running up against a deadline.
Results were falsified.
Sometimes a respondent's gender or political affiliation were changed to meet a quota.
Other times all survey answers were simply fabricated.
They were just told to pretend these people are rats and dogs, cats and dogs, and go out there and just make it all up.
Now, when I first heard about this, tip of the iceberg, maybe?
So many institutions that we have had faith in indicate and prove to be not worthy of this face.
So here's one polling unit that admits making it all up and working for a lot of Democrats.
It did work for President Bush as well.
There's a story in the New York Times today.
The Libs are in a panic mode out there.
Since Senator Lieberman lost last month's Democratic primary in Connecticut, a rumor has gained new life, particularly among his liberal critics, that President Bush might nominate him to replace Rumsfeld should Rumsfeld be ousted, as many Democrats have demanded.
So Rumsfeld's not going anywhere because the Democrats want him to.
He may retire.
I don't know.
I don't even think he'll do that.
But if he does, they're all just concerned as hell that it would be Lieberman.
Where does this paranoia come from?
What would the sense be in making Lieberman Secretary of Defense?
Lieberman, I think, wants to win his Senate seat back.
Why would Lieberman even want it?
Why would Lieberman be Secretary of Defense for two years?
And one of those years basically being a lame duck year.
Utter paranoia out there.
By the way, in something that doesn't come as a surprise, Bryant Gumbel will keep his play-by-pay job with the NFL network, despite saying on his HBO show that Paul Tagliabu should show his successor as commissioner where he keeps Gene Upshaw's leash.
The new commission, Roger Goodell, took over for TAGS last Friday, met with Gumbel to discuss his remarks about the Upshaw Incident, Executive Director of the Players Association.
And while he didn't discuss the specifics of the conversation, Goodell said, We had a good talk, and I feel comfortable, and he will stay on.
What Gumbel had said was, before he cleans out his office, have Paul Tagliabu show you where he keeps Gene Upshaw's leash by making the docile head of the players union his personal pet.
Your predecessor has kept the peace without giving players the kind of guarantees other pros take for granted.
And since Upshaw is black and Tagliabu is white, there were racial countertones.
Now, I frankly, I don't think Gumbel should lose a job over it.
Free speech is what it is.
I just find the, and I, a lot of people say, Rush, what happened to you at ESPN?
He ought to have been.
No, that never works, tit for tat.
You know, two wrongs don't make a right in this case.
But there is clearly a double standard.
There is no doubt that there's a double standard.
If Gumbel were a different skin color and said that, he would be gone.
But all kinds of people came to his defense.
Well, I mean, actually, the NFL knew what they were getting.
What are they surprised about?
That is also a double standard.
Kim in Hisperia, California.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush, it is such an honor, and I've got to say I've got to be the luckiest woman in America.
Not only do I have a great husband, but I've called you twice and gotten on the air twice.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that.
I want to tell you, shortly after the 9-11 attacks, my husband, who's a 27-year veteran of Culver City fire, we were at the California State Fire Association conference, sorry, I'm a little nervous, in Redondo Beach, California.
And Jane Harmon was one of the guest speakers since that is her district.
And she stood in front of the firefighters of California, and she promised them that she would do everything she could to not only protect them and save their lives, but save the lives of the American people.
And I've been following her.
I've been tracking her.
And she not only has done nothing to make us safer, but now with her latest comments, not calling the enemy what it is and really looking to protect them more than to protect the citizens, firefighters, and police of America, I'm outraged.
And I think every firefighter in California should be calling her to remind her of her words nearly five years ago.
Well, you know, you can do that, but she comes in a safe district out there.
She's not in any trouble, is she?
No, she's not in any trouble.
And of course, with her money, she can always buy her elections, you know.
Whoa, What do you mean with her money?
Are we talking a wealthy lady here?
Oh, we're talking a very wealthy lady.
You're familiar with the Harmon Cardin Speaker Company stereo company.
That's her husband.
So she has more money than any of us could ever imagine.
So she's very safe.
And, you know, I just want to challenge California to write her letters.
Firefighters and police, especially.
She promised us.
She promised she would put these guys away, that she would fight the terrorists.
And she's not.
She's not doing a thing.
You know, no Democrat is.
But they've spent the last number of years trying to portray Bush as the real enemy.
And if we just get rid of Bush, that the world will respect us again.
The world will love us again.
They won't hate us.
And nobody will have any need to attack us.
That's really what they have established.
And as one of the callers earlier to the program said, that's one of the big threats posed by this movie.
Because this movie, The Path to 9-11, the miniseries, whatever they want to call it, does indeed illustrate just who our enemy is and how long they have been planning these attacks and how intense they are, how cold-blooded they are.
And it will clearly illustrate to viewers that that's the enemy.
They are the bad guys.
And they're not just criminals, as Jane Harmon says.
They are terrorists.
And they are warriors.
And as the president said yesterday, they are not insane.
These are not wackos that it just write off as we're always going to have them.
These people are practicing an ideology.
I mean, they're insane like Hitler was insane.
They're insane like Marx was insane.
They believe what they believe, and they're out trying to achieve it.
They're out trying to accomplish it.
And one of the ways they accomplish their aims is to kill people that don't agree with them or believe differently or just because they're alive and believe differently.
This movie illustrates all of this over five intense hours.
We'll be back and continue right after this.
All right, I have here the statement from ABC, ladies and gentlemen, holding it here in my formerly nicotine stained fingers.
The path to 9-11 is not a documentary of the events leading to 9-11.
It's a dramatization drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9-11 Commission report, other published materials, and personal interviews.
As such, for dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue and time compression.
No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete.
So criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible.
The attacks of 9-11 were a pivotal moment in our history, and it's fitting that the debate about the events related to the attacks continue.
However, we hope viewers will watch the entire broadcast of the finished film before forming an opinion about it.
Okay.
So there's the statement.
Now, you want me to analyze this?
You think, what?
It sounds like, yeah, the admission that they're still editing this.
Now, they can't shoot a different ending.
I mean, if they start shooting a different ending, then we know something's up here.
But let me, there's something about this.
And when I first got word that nobody has seen the final version of it, uh-oh.
Uh-oh.
Now, I don't want to be conspiratorial, and I'm not trying to be paranoid, but there are certain things that we know to be true about the drive-by media and the entertainment media.
Okay, Path to 9-11 is not a documentary of the events leading to 9-11.
It's a dramatization drawn from a variety of sources, including the 9-11 Commission.
By the way, I had heard all these changes are going to be made.
This is not news that they were going to put, I said earlier today, they're going to put graphics in front of this thing.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, this is not a documentary.
It's a dramatization drawn from a variety of sources.
9-11 Commission Report, other published materials, and personal interviews.
The movie contains fictionalized scenes.
The version I have does not say that.
So that's probably been added.
No one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete.
So criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible.
Well, you may not have seen the final version, but we've seen enough to know that they're editing things out of it.
I, on Monday, will be able to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, what has been taken out of this, if anything.
Because if they are responding to the Democrats, if they are responding to the suggery and the bully tactics of the Clinton administration, if they do take those scenes out of there, I will know.
Not only I, but the others have seen it.
Sandy Bergler, Richard Benvenist, a whole room of Democrats saw the whole thing.
I'm not the only one that's seen it.
So now they're still editing.
And when they announce that they're still editing it in the face of criticism from one political spectrum, the Libs and the Democrats and the Clinton administration, well, the little red flags of curiosity start darting up.
We will keep a sharp eye on this.
Jeff in Harwich, Massachusetts, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
You bet.
Rush, I'm a former Delta Force officer.
I was in the first Blackhawks shotdown, former CIA Counterterrorism Center officer half a dozen years in Europe and the Middle East.
I met this enemy that we're up against.
And I'd like to just give you two quick points for your listeners to consider.
First, previous conflicts, POWs, have been held until the end of the war, at which point they were repatriated.
That might be a strategy that we ought to take a look at.
And second, when the Democrats have made this year, the year they're trying to take the Congress and try to say that they're going to be tougher on terrorism, I'd like to suggest a litmus test for your listeners.
And that would be, has the Congressman made life harder on the enemy or on us?
And when they're going to the voting booth, I hope that they will decide, I'm going to vote for the person who's going to make life harder on the enemy.
You know, that is an excellent question because it's a legitimate one these days.
It is a very legitimate question these days to ask when you've got Democrats in Congress trying to create the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights, when you've got people like Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy and the whole liberal complex trying to, well, they're trying to punish the whole country over a few incidents at Abu Ghraib rather than concern themselves with the people who want to kill us.
Our troops have behaved in an incredibly admirable way.
When you look at what happens when the enemy takes prisoners, like they did with the 101st Airborne or Daniel Pearl, what kind of treatment is that?
That's beheading.
That's mutilation.
That's torture.
And where is the outrage in our Congress?
We have a congressman up here, Delahunt, who's actually written to Rumsfeld arguing that we need better treatment for the enemy combatants in Guantanamo.
Let me tell you something.
You know, that's another good point, too, because they never have any harsh criticism for the enemy, period.
Not to mention no beheadings, not talking about the beheadings.
There's no mention of, no harsh mention, no criticism of the enemy.
Just the, Jay, y'all, these are very heinous criminals.
I don't want anybody to realize I'm soft on them.
These are heinous criminals.
We don't get criticism of them like these Democrats criticize members of the U.S. military and impugn them and denigrate their service and harm their morale and try to say they only joined because they couldn't get an education otherwise.
And they're going to grow up in a Walmart economy.
And who wants that?
By the way, your guy, Delahunt, is also a big pal of Hugo Chavez and went down to Venezuela to negotiate the PR scam of so-called cheap oil for the poor in Massachusetts during the winter.
Do you know that Venezuela actually harbors Hezbollah?
There's Hezbollah elements in Venezuela there as the guest of Chavez as well, and Delahunt is playing footsies with them.
These are the guys that brought on this most recent war in the Middle East.
Well, hell, go back to the Contra situation in Nicaragua, and you had Democrats that were coddling Danielle Ortega.
We need to remember who the enemy is.
You're so right in your caller earlier.
Let's focus on the enemy.
Put the country first, quit bickering amongst ourselves, because that's what it's going to take to win this war on terror.
Yeah, it is.
It's going to take a united effort.
And it'll happen at some point.
It will happen.
The country will rally.
But it's going to take far more than has happened for that to occur, I think.
It's still not necessary for everybody to rally.
It's not affecting their lives personally.
Look at the economic numbers.
Look at the unemployment numbers.
Everything's great in terms of the economy.
Statistically, the gasoline price is coming down.
I mean, what war?
Why do I need to care, Limbaugh?
I don't care.
I mean, I've got to be first in line at Blockbuster on Friday night.
That's my objective.
So forth and so on.
You know, the interesting, you mentioned Delahunt and Chavez and Hezbollah.
Try this.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in fact going to go to the United Nations.
He wants to speak on the evening of September 19th at 7 o'clock.
Bush will speak at 11.30 in the morning on September the 19th.
Guess where Ahmadinejad is going to be coming from?
Cuba.
He and Hugo Chavez are flying to Cuba for some non-aligned nations meeting on the economy and world communism, whatever the hell these little tyrants do when they get together.
And it's in Havana.
And then after that, they're both jumping a charter and heading on up to New York, the United Nations, for the General Assembly opening on the 19th.
And of course, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to debate President Bush At the United Nations.
Which, well, which Democrat, who?
Chavez, Chavez or Ahmadinejad?
I don't think any demand.
They'll stay in official hotel.
They'll probably stay at the embassies.
I don't know if Iran has an embassy here.
It's a good question.
Which Democrat will host more likely Chavez than Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad, where would he go?
You probably find that hotel up in Harlem where Castro took over in the 60s and they killed the chickens in the rooms and ate them, make the whole total mess of the place.
Now, HR, look at the name up next.
Is that right?
Is that okay?
We have an Iraqi on the phone named Fike, and it is from Natchez, Washington.
Hi, Fike.
Nice to have you with us.
Yes, sir.
Hi to you, too.
Sir, I would like to share with you the story.
Last week, I communicated with my sister in Baghdad.
She lived in the center of Baghdad.
And when I visited her in 03, she wasn't talking much about our boys and girls.
But surprisingly, last week, man, she made me so proud to be American because they announced that their house will be searched.
So she did open the doors and waited for them.
And she told me that she could not believe how polite they are.
And after the search, they played with the kids.
And when they went inside, she couldn't tell that the house has been searched.
And she told me, this is her own word, God thank we didn't get the Iraqi army, we got the Americans, because we didn't believe before how polite, how nice and kind they are.
And as American and proud of it, I'm going to use one phrase from you.
I'm swelling with the pride.
I love it so much because the only thing we hear is negative.
And also, if you allow me to add that she said, do not pull the troops out.
It will be blood bad.
And I waited for this minute to share it with you and your listeners.
Well, it's awfully timely, and I'm glad you did.
We keep hearing these stories, and it warms everybody's heart, Fike, because we don't hear them otherwise.
Other than when people like you or returning soldiers from the Army and the Air Force, the Navy, wherever call us, the Marines call us and say we're back and start telling us stories.
We know they exist.
We have hope and faith that these stories happen, but we don't hear about them.
We don't get one story of heroism of the U.S. military in the drive-by media.
Not one.
Not one.
They might get some sympathetic treatment when they go visit them at Arthur Reed or Walter Reed Hospital, but that's all to try to get them to say it wasn't worth it losing their leg or their arm or whatever.
But don't worry, you can tell your sister is as long as the man in the White House remains there, we're not leaving.
Beyond that, dicey.
But as long as George W. Bush is president, we're not leaving.
All right, a quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us, my friends.
Don't go away.
This video, apparently, that Al Jazeera is playing is Bin Laden and the hijackers before 9-11, before the attacks.
Still getting clarification.
So much stuff is breaking here.
I'm still looking at this statement from ABC Entertainment on the path to 9-11.
Now, don't get confused.
Folks, there's a couple stories out there, and some of them hit this morning, and some of them hit yesterday about edits due to artistic consideration.
And then there's a list of things.
In fact, Hugh Hewitt had them on his blog yesterday, and I didn't, I mentioned it, but I didn't get a chance to read them to you on the air, so he linked to his blog at rushlimbaugh.com.
Always go to rushlimbaugh.com.
There's always, despite what you hear on this program, there's always even more there at the end of each day.
These edits, these artistic edits that are going around now, there's an LA Times story, a Tribune services story.
And the ones that Hugh Hewitt mentioned, they really are, they're the kind of edits that for those of us who've seen this thing, we probably wouldn't even know they had been made from what Hugh says.
They're just not substantive and so forth.
But I tell you, the Clinton people are making a big scene out of this.
And it just strikes me again, it's all about them.
Are they concerned that maybe Jordan has been misportrated here?
Are they concerned that the CIA maybe has been not fully accurately represented?
No, they don't care about any of that.
It's just about them.
It's just about them.
And it just, if they're making ABC, if they're really pressuring Bob Iger and ABC to make substantive changes in this to please the Clinton people, they're going to have a big problem after this because they're going to have shown that they will buckle.
But this is all premature.
I'm just saying the way I read this, no one has seen the final version of the film because the editing process is not yet complete.
So criticisms of film specifics are premature and irresponsible.
Well, they know what the main criticisms are.
They know what the controversial parts of the movie, and if they take them out, it's not going to be good for them.
And, you know, we get the Clinton guys, even on TV, throwing the tenant under the bus.
They don't care.
They will throw anybody under the bus in the park, whatever, in order to save themselves.
This legacy they have is just so flimsy.
It's so phony, built totally on spin.
The idea that a five-hour TV movie can upset this legacy that they have established for themselves, that they think they've established for themselves.
Here is Betty in Canton, Missouri.
Betty, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
After trying to get you for all these years, I didn't think I'd be so.
I'm not angry.
I am mad.
When I finally get you, I'm so mad.
I heard Dredge Sunday night say he couldn't confirm that you would be on.
And I thought to myself, no way, that man's not going to be on that CBS.
That Katie Kirk.
I just cannot believe.
And then you come on Tuesday and confirm it.
And you're like one of my kids.
I love you.
You've taught me more than any political history teacher I've ever had.
And then you know, you know, as the kids said, they're sucking up to you just because you're going to boost their ratings.
I can't believe it.
I just really am so upset at you.
You know, you know, let me tell you, Betty, I love you, and I appreciate this.
could understand this if they had signed me to be their nightly commentator.
This is one time.
Even if I do boost the ratings, I'm not going to be boosting them next week or the week after or tomorrow.
Well, and I said totally.
If people tune in to watch me above whoever is going to watch the program anyway, if they get an above average tune in factor because of me, then if I'm not on tomorrow night, then they're not going to get it.
Right?
It's not as though I'm not going on CBS and saying, folks, this is Katie Couric and this news.
This is the news to watch.
I don't want you watching any other news today.
Hold Fox to help watch the CBS.
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm making a commentary on the issues of the day, actually about patriotism, and I'm accepting the invitation to have an opportunity to access that audience.
And it's no more complicated than that.
Because I say, can I understand if I had signed on as the daily regular commentator, then I would somewhat understand this.
Not totally, but I'll be more understandable than just doing one appearance.
We got to go.
Quick timeout.
That's back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Go ahead.
Hit the toll.
What do you people want me to do?
You want me to pull a Bill Clinton and call CBS and say, pull my commentary.
Don't run it.
The audience is upset.
Come on, folks.
Wake up.
We'll see you tomorrow on Open Line Friday.
▲
Export Selection