All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:55
September 22, 2006, Friday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, I even after 18 years I get I get surprised.
My innocuous little story asking Dawn to go get me a cigar and her refusal.
Am I having to go get it myself?
And in showing her the box of the cigars I want and her steadfast refusal to do it, she gave me some water but no cigar is causing voluminous response.
And I must say, Dawn, your side's getting up to about 40%.
It used to you were 10 to 1 against you, but now a bunch of women are calling in, writing in rather, and saying, Good for Dawn.
It's poison.
You shouldn't shouldn't be doing it.
I wouldn't do it.
So you're getting your supporters up.
The thing I don't get.
So I ask you to get a cigar.
I'm in a commercial break.
It's not like an unplug it up here, go get it.
It's not like Bill Clinton asked you to go get a cigar.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Oh, yes, ladies and gentlemen, here we are on Open Line Friday.
I am America's real anchor man.
Doing the job, traditional news organizations claim to do.
Open line Friday means that when we go to the phones, show's yours.
You can talk and ask anything you want.
Telephone number 800 282-2882, and the email address is Rush at EIB net.com.
You know, I I don't want to leave you hanging.
If you were listening the uh uh end of the first hour, I didn't really give myself enough time to do this.
But yesterday, yesterday there was a Bill Clinton got involved in in all this by suggesting that we need to talk to uh terrorists and uh and others need to talk to these countries that are threatening us and so forth and so on.
And Dean Carriannis up at the uh website, Rushlimbo.com, sent me something last night.
It's a um uh an Amir Tehari piece from March 5, 2005.
And let me just read you the excerpts of it because you know this falls under the category of just who it is that Democrats look at as the enemy.
All this talk about Ahmadinejad and Chavez and so forth, uh the Democrats not reacting much at all.
Instead, they blame Bush for the problems and the evils of the world.
Listen to this.
Where is the country that Bill Clinton, former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?
Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill.
It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70% majorities for liberals and progressives.
Well, if you uh thought one of the countries was Scandinavian, maybe New Zealand or Canada.
You are wrong.
Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in early 2005.
Quote, Iran today is in a sense the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency.
It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.
And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose.
Again, this uh op-ed dated March 5, 2005, so this is a little over a year and a half ago that Clinton said this.
On Charlie Rose, he said, quote, Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Katami in 1997.
It is the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals or the progressives have won two-thirds to 70% of the vote in six elections.
Two for president, two for the parliament, the Majis, two for the mayoralties.
In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70% of the vote.
There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.
Well, Amir Taheri asks, Well, who are the guys that Clinton identifies with?
Well, there is, of course, President Mohammed Katami speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, call for the whole world to convert to Islam.
Clinton's declaration of love for the mullahs shows how ill-informed even a U.S. president Could be.
Didn't anybody tell Clinton when he was in the White House that elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran were as meaningless as those held in the Soviet Union?
Did he not know that all candidates had to be approved by the Supreme Guide, and that no one from opposition is allowed to stand?
Did he not know that all parties are banned in the Islamic Republic and that such terms as progressive and liberal are used by the mullahs as synonyms for apostate, a charge that carries a death sentence?
More importantly, does he not know that while there is no democracy without elections, there can be no elections without democracy?
Clinton told his audience in Davos as well as Charlie Rose that during his presidency he had formally apologized on behalf of the United States for what he termed American crimes against Iran.
But what were those crimes?
Well, Clinton summed them this.
It's a sad story that really began in the 50s when the U.S. deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary Democrat, brought the Shah back, then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Homeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein.
We got rid of the parliamentary democracy there back in the 50s, at least that's my belief.
Duped by a myth spread by the Blame America First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran.
The truth is that Iran in the 50s was not a parliamentary uh parliamentary democracy, but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed and dismissed the Prime Minister.
Mossadegh was uh named Prime Minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed.
In what that meant that the U.S. got rid of parliamentary democracy that did not exist is not clear.
And the uh the story goes on.
I didn't know that I did not remember uh any of this.
But you have to remember the stuff reported from the World Economic Forum in Davos is highly sanitized.
Most of it is social and about all the partying that goes on, what rock stars show up to attend and perform, uh what actresses and models are there to entertain the attendees, and if there are any attacks on the United States,
those are reported, uh, such as when Eason Jordan, the former executive at CNN said that he had evidence that the U.S. had been targeting journalists in wars, particularly in Iraq.
That led even Barney Frank said prove it.
Yeah, Barney Frank was there.
Uh so I don't uh uh this column by Amir Tehry was not in a newspaper.
I don't think it was.
He uh has a column in the New York Post, but this was at his uh website, Benadar Associates.
Uh and I did not know any of this, and I wanted to share it with you uh because it's all it's all in context here of just exactly when you talk about Democrats and liberals.
You know, Bill Clinton is uh a whole bunch of different people, but he really becomes a different guy when he travels abroad.
He really does.
Well, I mean, rephrase that when he goes to another country.
He travels abroad quite frequently.
Uh but when he's in a different country, uh he goes to the Saudi Arabia, he goes to he goes to uh Dubai.
United Arab Emirates, rips this country uh a new one, comes back, says something entirely different to different audiences.
Uh dangerous stuff really is.
And the liberals uh, you know, John Kerry, the same uh same type of mindset, Al Gore the same thing.
Uh and they all blame George W. Bush for the problems of the United States, uh, not our enemies and certainly not themselves.
I've been going through the newspapers for show prep today.
Uh it's funny as it can be.
The New York Times in a news story, the New York Times in an editorial, and the LA Times in a news story, and the Washington Post in an editorial, where there are versions of who won and who lost on the uh uh military tribunals legislation that was agreed to yesterday by McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Warner, and the White House.
And I can't wait to share this with you because the libs are beside themselves.
And they don't even the fact that they can't interpret it properly is indicated, illustrated by the wide variety of interpretations from these various newspapers.
I will share that with you, and we will get to more of your phone calls right after this timely timeout.
Stay with us.
Ha, welcome back, El Rushbo serving humanity, simply by being here, simply by showing up on the EIB network.
I want to go back and replay you one question and answer with my interview with UN ambassador John Bolton.
Uh he was with us last half hour for about uh a good thirteen minutes or so.
This was the last question and answer.
Now I want to ask you about France.
Uh uh Chirac has uh again said no to sanctions or very weak ones uh regarding Iran.
How is there going to be any agreement in the Security Council if France and Russia and China continue to give Iran a pass?
Well, look, this is going to be a test of the Security Council.
There's there's no guarantee that it will come to the right result, uh, even with the very aggressive diplomacy that uh President Bush and Secretary Rice and I and others have been engaged in.
Uh and this will tell us a lot about whether the Security Council can be effective in helping us against uh the the two greatest threats to the United States in the world today, the international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
So I don't want to leave anybody with the impression that we're promising success in the Security Council.
We're gonna do everything we can, uh, but but we'll find out just how effective the Council is gonna be.
All right.
Now let's let's connect some dots here.
Love that phrase.
The President has said, and Bolton acknowledged this earlier in our discussion that a nuclear Iran will not stand.
We'll put up with it.
Not going to allow it.
Another dot is that the last option anybody ever wants to solve a problem is military.
The next dot is Ergo, we go to the Security Council where we are one of five, and we have a veto.
We want sanctions against Iran if they do not agree to cease and desist their uranium enrichment program.
Well, do the math.
The French, the Ruskis, and the Chicoms have sided with Iran.
Chirac being the latest, doesn't want sanctions at all.
Maybe limited, but not even practical ones.
If you add it up, it's four to one.
Bolton acknowledged this and said, hey, we're not promising anything's gonna happen here.
We're not promising success.
It's gonna be a huge test, but we're gonna give it our best shot.
Now, if I may be free to interpret this, which I am because I am me.
It sounds clearly to me like there aren't all that many high expectations for success in the sanctions movement.
That's the next dot.
So let's go back to the first dot.
President has said a nuclear Iran will not stand.
The last dot don't have much success in the hope for these sanctions at the Security Council.
Then what?
I mean, that that folks is a big bold question mark.
Maybe two or three question marks.
I found I found that answer uh fascinating.
We're not guaranteed anything.
I mean, it it's uh it's gonna be a real test of our diplomacy.
But then over here we've said the policy is the policy.
So uh I I mean I don't want to interpret this any further.
I think you probably can as well as as well as I can.
Uh uh I uh I shouldn't say this.
I really shouldn't say this.
But keep an eye on December after the elections.
Just keep an eye on December.
Terry San Diego Cal.
I know nothing.
I'm just I'm an average citizen here in Middle America, outside the beltway, not in New York today, analyzing from afar, just as are you.
Uh Terry San Diego, your next open line Friday.
Hi.
Russ, it's great to speak with you.
Uh a little off topic.
Uh open line.
There's no such thing as off off topic on open line Friday.
That's the point.
Yeah, great, great.
Uh just thought I'd give you a call and tell you about something that you might find a little interesting.
Okay.
Um Fortunately, my son, my I'm a uh I'm the father of three highly competitive boys.
Thank God they're competitive.
Uh older how old are they?
Twelve, six, and three.
Three-year-old's competitive.
He has two older brothers, Rush.
Okay.
I guess you've got to fight for food at the dinner table.
Exactly.
Okay.
Uh fortunately, my uh my two older boys are in one of the best public school systems in the country.
Um, and what threw me this year was that's a relative term, by the way, best public school system is certainly.
I'm the product of a Catholic education, so I I I can't really uh compare from personal experience.
Either way, uh my my oldest son threw me for a loop this year when he came home and he said uh something about his fantasy football class.
Now I had no idea there was such a thing as a fantasy football.
Wait, wait, wait, how the six-year-old?
No, the twelve-year-old, my old.
Twelve year old.
What what grade is that?
Seventh.
Seventh grade.
Yeah, it was junior high for me.
First year of junior middle school now, I guess it is.
Uh fantasy football class.
What fantasy football class?
A whole class, or is it a segment of a class?
Uh no, it's actually a class.
Uh it's a um elective that he took, and on back to school night, I was still baffled at to what the heck it was all about.
And in the uh in the back to school evening where the parents are uh briefed on each class's uh curriculum throughout the year, it fascinated me.
I mean, the only problem with this teacher is that he's a USC fan and I'm a Notre Dame fan.
But either way.
This uh teacher actually laid it out very, very well.
It teaches these kids, uh it's a class of 39 boys, obviously, since it's an elective.
Um it teaches these kids um how to not only read spreadsheets, but to create spreadsheets, how to analyze statistics, how to see trends in statistics.
Uh it's just it's it's amazing uh what he was able to extrapolate out of fantasy football and make it a very teachable, useful for these kids' future uh out of this subject.
It it's it's just fascinating to me, and uh I I was wishing that the like NFL or or or you know one of ESPN could come into a special on this because it's it's a really neat class, and it um I see I misunderstood.
I thought you were gonna be condemning this as a waste of time, but your point is that they're taking something these kids are naturally interested in and using it to teach them things that otherwise would be mundane and boring to them because the data is what's fascinating to them.
You would never get a seventh grader to find analytical statistics fascinating.
Well, did do they also follow through on the real purpose of fantasy football and gamble in this class?
Well, see, um back to school night.
Um I actually posed the question is there extra credit if they cover the spread?
And the teacher said, no, no, no, no.
We don't even bring up gambling.
Well, there's no covering there's no covering the spread in fantasy football.
That's the point.
I've never done fantasy football.
You know, I did fantasy football back in 1979.
I was the original comish of the paper football league.
The name of my team was a limball laxatives, because my front office was so full of it.
Well, right.
And uh uh but yeah, I was yeah, I've uh fantasy football is fascinating.
It changes the way you watch the game.
You have no interest in teams.
The only interest is your team.
You know, it's it's it's great for my son.
Um my son is a a very ardent student.
Um he does very well in all of his classes, but it's you know, he plays football himself.
He plays lacrosse the other half of the year, and uh you know, he gets to put his brain to work at uh at something that he enjoys instead of something that is um I know you like this.
I can tell you like the idea, and I'm somewhat uh intrigued by the idea of using um uh statistical information and data that these kids are naturally interested in to teach them uh statistics, uh analyzing how to use spreadsheets and uh and file databases and this sort of thing.
But I I I think you ought to look into this further out there, Terry.
You need to find out if uh if Vegas uh power brokers and forces are involved in this, and this school just they could have made a deal just to create some future bookies um down the road that Vegas could hire and and uh and use to their own advantage.
I mean, this is an early start on all this.
Well, I should probably pay.
The purpose of fantasy football is gambling.
Well, I should probably pay attention to my son because his group, they're broken up into groups.
His group is winning right now.
Yeah.
Uh but winning what?
Wait a minute.
Winning what?
Uh the overall uh his team's overall performance is ahead of the other groups in the country.
Well, they're leading, but what are they winning?
What are the stakes here?
Is the grade at stake?
What's at stake?
Respect, Rush.
Respect.
There's always respect in winning.
No, no, no, no, that's not my point.
They're leading.
No, no, no, no.
I no, I know what your point is.
There isn't i it's not a uh it's a uh the the winning is the um like I said, it's You know, that'll be a real test.
I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you something, Terry.
That's gonna be a real test.
Because I know the public school system, and there aren't any winners allowed, because that humiliates the losers.
And I wonder if your son does end the season winning or leading, as you say, I want to see how the class deals with the buffoons that ended up losing.
Back after this.
Keep us informed and post it.
That's exactly right.
We do the thinking.
You do the listening.
It's a great combination.
L. Rushbo on the EIB network.
I have to tell you, the email on this cigar business is still pouring in.
It's it's just incredible.
And it's uh it's it's running the gamut.
I've I've lost the ability to keep track of who's ahead, me or Dawn uh on this thing.
Uh you've been catching up a lot.
Ever since I said you're running 10 to one uh against you, uh with all these women saying I'd get you a cigar.
I've got all kinds of people now really.
It's I I uh never cease to be amazed at at the innocent little things on this program that cause a fire storm out there.
Uh what are some of the women saying to him?
Dawn's right, we want you to be around a long time.
I can see when you smoke these things, you end up inhaling a little bit.
I do not inhale these cigars.
That will kill you, and I do not do that.
Um others are saying, I'll get you a cigar, I'll get I'll get you anything you want.
Uh I've never met a woman like that in person.
Uh I only hear that from people I don't know.
I never have.
I honest to God.
This came up the other day.
Uh well, some time ago, a woman was calling in, remembered the story we had about uh uh how women can train their husbands to stay out of the kitchen or what have you, because husbands tend to gravitate to the kitchen and start making moves in there when uh uh uh she's at the stove or doing other things for dinner, which I don't even understand that.
Um but the answer was fix his drink and put his uh bowl of peanuts on the other end of the uh kitchen and in the other room, and that's where he'll end up going.
And a woman called to say, Yep, works every time I try it.
And I was listening to all this and stunned and I have never in my whole life had any woman with whom I've been in a relationship offer to get me anything.
Drink.
I mean it it's incredible.
That's been my training with women from the early days of feminism.
I I've I don't have an application sturdily, and that's the point.
Demanding it just makes it worse.
Um this is all this is all foreign to me.
But when I mean in an email, when it's when it's just people I don't know, I'll get your cigar.
I'll get you whatever you want, man.
But I says, as I say, Dawn, your uh your team is uh is coming back.
And some of them based on my health and their concern for my health and their desire that I be around forever, and others on the basis of you lazy bum, get up and go get it yourself.
That's what commercial breaks are for.
It's running sort of like what you said to me.
So that I understand.
That's my life.
All right, to the phones we go, Jerry in Cookville, Tennessee.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Yes, cohiba espendidos, greetings, Rush.
But he won't get you a cigar.
I mean, you still get it puff it in your face.
Thank you, sir.
But anyway, after um after this uh moron from uh Venezuela was up here, and and Charles Schumer uh was on Fox News this morning, and uh I think he mentioned he said uh well, this is uh like the state of how the UN is.
Yeah, let's let's play the I've got the bite.
We played the bite.
Uh audio set of byte three, Mike.
Go grab the bite.
And you listen to this with me uh here, Jerry, and tell me if this is the one that you're talking about.
You ready to go up there, Mike?
Good.
Hit it.
Well, two things.
Number one, what he said, I've said this yesterday, despicable, disgusting.
The worst part of him is not what he says, but what he does.
He's really ruining Venezuela.
He's nuts.
He's crazy.
He's a bad guy.
Right.
But he craves attention.
The more attention he gets, the crazier he gets.
You know, he's like somebody who goes to Times Square and drops their trousers.
Everyone looks at him, but no one thinks much of him.
As for the applause he gets, that's really shows you something about the UN.
All right, is that the uh is that what you heard?
Yes, yes.
All right.
So what's your what's your comment about that, Jarr?
Okay, well, um, after uh O'Cucky uh made that remark.
I wonder uh if they'll uh go ahead and nominate uh Ambassador Bolton uh for the uh ambassador for the United States.
Okay, interesting thing.
Schumer has changed his mind about Bolton.
Uh but that's not the problem.
I I I've uh I did not ask Secretary or Ambassador Bolton about this when he was on, because uh, I I knew he he he's not gonna answer questions about his confirmation process, his nomination process.
He's just not gonna do it.
And I didn't want to put him in that position.
But last night Robert Novak posted a column, it's at Human Events Online uh or humanevents.com, and I'm sure it's in a couple of other places.
Uh let me give you the upshot of this uh as it relates to the Bolton nomination.
As you know, he's serving under a recess appointment, and he's got to be reconfirmed uh by the time Congress adjourns for the November elections, or his term will expire in December.
And he if he's not voted in this time, he's gone.
The focus temporarily is on Senator Lincoln Chafee, a frequently unfathomable Maverick Republican, as the days dwindled down for this Congress to permit John Bolton to continue as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. But Bolton's two years struggle to get confirmed can be directly traced to a determined Democrat Senator and the vengeful U.N. Secretariat.
Senate Republican whip Mitch McConnell sat down Tuesday of this week for a heart-to-heart talk with Chafee, pleading with him to permit Bolton's nomination to reach the Senate floor.
The reason Chafee is in this pivotal position can be attributed to Senator Christopher Dodd's fierce excuse me, open opposite that was not a cigar cough.
Fierce, open opposition to Bolton and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's stealthy sabotage executed by his deputy Mark Malik Brown.
Bolton's ordeal provides a cautionary tale for any foreign policy conservative who wants to serve his country in Washington.
Nobody can deny Bolton's intelligence and vigor in a lifetime devoted to public service, nor can anybody deny that Bolton has been faithful to the program of any president he served, even when official policy conflicted with his own views.
But those views have caused him no end of trouble.
Indeed, some of Bolton's colleagues in the State Department were backstabbing him when the president named him UN envoy.
Bolton's overriding defect was his anti-Kestrel views.
Those views collided with Dodd's goal of normalizing relations with Cuba.
Dodd was able to mobilize Democratic colleagues in a deadlock, creating demand for executive branch documents involving Bolton.
Dodd still lies in wait, hoping to filibuster Bolton again.
But he doesn't appear to have the votes this time.
APAC, the pro-Israel lobby, now backs Bolton, and the usually partisan Democrat Senator Charles Schumer has indicated he'll change his vote from last year and vote for cloture to end debate.
Bolton's confirmation for another two years of the U.N. would be bad news for the Secretary, and according to U.N. sources, Mark Malik Brown has been stirring up anti-Bolton sentiment with his fellow ambassadors, who in turn have contacted senators.
Bolton has demanded reform at the U.N. That's not made him popular with the world organization's bureaucrats.
They'd like nothing better than to give this conservative diplomat his comeuppance.
So Chris Dodd's the problem.
And Bolton's position on Cuba is said to be Dodd's problem.
Dodd wants a normalized relations and the embargo and this sort of thing.
Bolton.
Fiercely anti-Castro.
I would have loved to have been able to ask him about this, but I know he's not going to answer it.
He's not going to throw gasoline on the fire that's already burning, especially when he appears to be winning it with uh the apparent likelihood that the Democrats aren't going to have enough votes to stop a cloture vote, uh meaning they're not going to be able to muster 60 uh votes against him.
Uh but it's still going to be close.
Mitch McConnell sat down with Chafee and begged Come on.
Link, look what this administration just did for you, campaigning for your re-election, which was a dead heat up to the last moment.
Look what they And Chafee said, I it's not about Bolton.
He actually said this.
Chafey said, I want I want a letter to the president, and I uh I I want a response.
Our whole Middle East policy is out of whack and not right.
And I don't like what's going on in Iraq.
So that's uh that's where that's the reason why Chafee's important because he voted for Bolton the last time.
Voinovich is going to change his vote.
Voinovich was a Republican who opposed him in committee, but didn't up did not uh oppose him uh coming out of committee and therefore permitted a floor vote.
Uh Bolton lost that.
But uh I I think uh, you know, the more Bolton is seen uh the the more respect he has.
And this is just pure partisan politics and petty policy things uh with uh with Chris Dodd.
I know Novak says it's all about Cuba policy, but it's I mean, the the opposition that Christopher Dodd has to Bolton is so virulent that I would think there's more to it than uh than that.
Brian in Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania, hi, and welcome to the EIB network.
Mega Deals, Russia's good pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
Uh, the point I want to make is uh Chavez is up here heading out oil and and uh making a big deal about it when several months ago he, speaking from the all tech nations made uh comment that they should re reduce production and keep oil above eighty dollars a g uh barrel.
So he's had free oil, but he's one of the people who wants to keep the price of oil uh high, you know, to keep his money flowing.
Right.
Well, that's uh typical.
I mean, he's he'll he'll he's free to give his own oil away or sell it at cut rates uh to uh you know a small group of people in liberal enclaves of the United States.
Harlem and uh and Massachusetts.
Uh it doesn't affect what he's doing.
He's probably uh still making a little profit on it, even uh even at the reduced price.
Uh but of course he wants to keep the oil price up.
That's his source of revenue.
That's his uh that's his source of power.
As Secretary Bolton said, that's the problem with him.
He's got a natural resource that allows him to ramp up with arms and ammunition uh that uh that that creates uh problems for everybody in this hemisphere.
And remember, we are his largest customer.
We are the largest customer of Venezuelan oil.
Uh it cuts both ways.
Uh if uh if if he cuts us off, uh we gotta go elsewhere if we cut him off at this point in time.
You know, the world oil price is going down because demand is going down, uh, which has all the experts scratching their heads in uh in puzzlement.
But I don't think he would ever cut us off.
I mean, he depends on it too much.
You don't you don't cut your number one customer off.
He's he's angling to become the head anti-American of the non-aligned movement, the third world, and so forth, and he's just there pumping his chest.
Um that's why what he said doesn't offend me, and that's why I spent so much time yesterday saying, Look, the more interesting thing to me is that he feels comfortable and confident coming here and launching these salvos, and that's because he's heard it all before, uh, albeit with different words, but he's heard it all before from Democrats and liberals in this country, ex-presidents included.
Back.
Open line Friday resumes in just a moment.
All right, speaking of that, speaking of the detainee bill.
It's fascinating to go through the newspapers today.
The New York Times, Kate Zernicke, uh writing about this, writes in a totally confused fashion.
Um her point is that Bush dropped some demands.
And there's this interesting close.
She says Democrats have put their trust in Senators Graham McCain and Warner to push back against the White House.
And Thursday they signaled that they intended to continue cooperating.
Come on, Kate, are you blind?
Are you new at this?
Do you actually think the Democrats have been hiding behind McCain to push back at Bush?
Maybe on this one thing, but for crying out loud, who is it that's le This is I the the the the denial these people are in.
I don't think they consider criticism of Bush eat I don't give if they call him a Nazi, uh Hitler like or what uh Bush kills, wanted the levies to fail in New Orleans, whatever.
I don't think they think that's out you uh outrageous or unusual at all.
They they they must so agree with it that they don't even consider it criticism.
The Democrats have stated they want no part of a Fight that makes them look softer on terror.
You know, they're they're they're hiding behind McCain.
What is what is this trust?
Democrats have put their trust if they put their trust in McCain, McCain sold him out.
The Democrats are now exposed on this.
Now it's the Democrats that have to say, ooh, uh well, uh well, we'll support it or not.
This wasn't part of the post-Labor Day scenario.
The New York Times editorial disagrees with its reporter.
The editorial says Bush was the real winner here.
This is bad.
And at Times wants Democrats to do something on this.
They write the Democrats have largely stood silent, allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting.
It's time for the Democrats to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election.
The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess.
So the editorial board thinks Bush clearly won the McCain sold out, upset that Democrats are being uh silent on this.
LA Times, Julian Barnes, and Richard Simon, their opinion is Bush bows to senators on detainees.
Meaning Bush lost.
Okay, let me ask Julian Barnes and Richard Simon a question based on the New York Times editorial that Bush won, and Kate Zernicki in the New York Times that Bush lost, or Bush won as well, but it's sort of confusing.
If you two guys at the LA Times think that Bush lost on this, then that frees the Democrats to pass it, right?
If McCain won, if McCain prevailed here and got what he wanted and Bush lost, then the Democrats can sign it, right?
Well, let's see if that's actually what happens.
Because I told you people that all of the stuff about Bush caving and the White House caving was a myth.
And it was a myth.
They've probably both made some compromises here, but the Bush administration got what it wanted in terms of being able to interrogate these people, and they're going to specifically define how.
There are nine things they're going to define here that specify what can be done.
Waterboarding is supposedly not one of them, but we don't really know that for sure yet.
Regardless, I mean, if.
If you people at the LA Times think Bush lost, then it's easy for the Democrats to support this, right?
We'll see it in the Washington Post.
The abuse can continue.
They are really unhappy at the editorial board of the Washington Post.
The bad news is that Mr. Bush intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain suspects.
He'll do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions.
Nobody else is saying that.
Everybody else is saying nope, we're going to do this under terms of U.S. law.
McCain's bill, the American Detainee Act, or whatever it's called, but the Washington Post doesn't believe it.
So if you um if you take a consensus of the uh drive-by media, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Bush won, and they ain't happy.
We'll be back.
We've got sound bites to support this in the next hour.
Be right back after this.
Stay with us.
Los Angeles Times has done even more analysis of their recent poll with Bloomberg, and they're just stunned at the mood of the American people regarding the economic economy or situation.
▲
Export Selection