My innocuous little story, asking Dawn to go get me a cigar and her refusal, my having to go get it myself, and then showing her the box of the cigars I want and her steadfast refusal to do it.
She got 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 be 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 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 unplugged get up here and 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 anchorman.
Doing the job traditional news organizations claim to do.
Open Line Friday means that when we go to the phones, the show's yours.
You can talk and ask anything you want.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You know, I don't want to leave you hanging.
If you were listening the end of the first hour, I didn't really give myself enough time to do this.
But yesterday, yesterday, Bill Clinton got involved in all of this by suggesting that we need to talk to terrorists and others.
We need to talk to these countries that are threatening us and so forth and so on.
And Dean Karianis up at the website, rushlimbaugh.com, sent me something last night.
It's an Amir Tahari piece from March 5, 2005.
And let me just read you the excerpts of it because, you know, this falls into the category of just who it is that Democrats look at as the enemy.
All this talk about Ahmadinejad and Chavez and so forth, 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 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 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 Khatami 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 Magis, 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 Tahari asks, well, who are the guys that Clinton identifies with?
Well, there is, of course, President Mohammad Khatami, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called 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 Khomeini, 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 democracy, but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed and dismissed the prime minister.
Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed.
And what that meant that the U.S. got rid of parliamentary democracy that did not exist is not clear.
And the story goes on.
I didn't know.
I did not remember 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?
What actresses and models are there to entertain the attendees?
And if there are any attacks on the United States, those are reported.
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 Franks to prove it.
Yeah, Barney Frank was there.
So I don't, this column by Amir Tahari was not in a newspaper.
I don't think it was.
He has a column in the New York Post, but this was at his website, Benadar Associates.
And I did not know any of this, and I wanted to share it with you because it's all in context here of just exactly when you talk about Democrats and liberals.
You know, Bill Clinton is 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.
But when he's in a different country, I mean, he goes to Saudi Arabia.
He goes to Dubai.
United Arab Emirates rips this country a new one.
Comes back, says something entirely different to different audiences.
Dangerous stuff, really is.
And the liberals, you know, John Kerry, the same type of mindset.
Al Gore, the same thing.
And they all blame George W. Bush for the problems of the United States, not our enemies and certainly not themselves.
I've been going through the newspapers for show prep today.
It's funny as it can be.
The New York Times in a news story, the New York Times in an editorial, and the L.A. Times in a news story, and the Washington Post in an editorial, with their versions of who won and who lost on the military tribunals legislation that was agreed to yesterday by McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Warner, and the White House.
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.
He was with us last half hour for about a good 13 minutes or so.
This was the last question and answer.
Now, I want to ask you about France.
Chirock has again said no to sanctions or very weak ones 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 no guarantee that it will come to the right result, even with the very aggressive diplomacy that President Bush and Secretary Rice and I and others have been engaged in.
And this will tell us a lot about whether the Security Council can be effective in helping us against 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 going to do everything we can, but we'll find out just how effective the Council is going to be.
All right.
Now, 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 going to happen here.
We're not promising success.
It's going to be a huge test, but we're going to 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, folks, is a big, bold question mark.
Maybe two or three question marks.
I found that answer fascinating.
We're not guaranteeing anything.
I mean, it's going to be a real test of our diplomacy.
But then over here, we've said the policy is the policy.
So I don't want to interpret this any further.
I think you probably can as well as I can.
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 an average citizen here in Middle America, outside the Beltway, not in New York today, analyzing from afar, just as are you.
Terry San Diego, your next Open Line Friday.
Hi.
Rush, it's great to speak with you.
Thank you.
A little off topic.
Open Line Friday.
Wait, wait, There's no such thing as off topic on Open Line Friday.
That's the point.
Great, great.
I just thought I'd give you a call and tell you about something that you might find a little interesting.
Okay.
Fortunately, my son, I'm the father of three highly competitive boys.
Thank God they're competitive.
How old are they?
12, 6, and 3.
The 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.
Unfortunately, my two older boys are in one of the best public school systems in the country.
And what threw me this year was...
That's a relative term, by the way.
Best public school system is this year.
Relatively.
I'm the product of a Catholic education, so I can't really compare from personal experience.
Either way, my oldest son threw me for a loop this year when he came home, and he said something about his fantasy football class.
Now, I had no idea there was such a thing as a fantasy football.
Wait, wait, wait.
The six-year-old?
No, the 12-year-old.
12-year-old.
What grade is that?
Seventh.
Seventh grade.
That was junior high for me.
First year of middle school now, I guess it is.
Fantasy football class.
What?
Fantasy football class?
A whole class?
Or is it a segment of a class?
No, it's actually a class.
It's an elective that he took.
And on Back to School Night, I was still baffled to what the heck it was all about.
And in the back to school evening where the parents are briefed on each class's 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 teacher actually laid it out very, very well.
It teaches these kids.
It's a class of 39 boys, obviously, since it's an elective.
It teaches these kids how to not only read spreadsheets, but to create spreadsheets, how to analyze statistics, how to see trends in statistics.
It's just, it's amazing what he was able to extrapolate out of fantasy football and make it very teachable, useful for these kids' future out of this subject.
It's just fascinating to me.
And I was wishing that NFL or one of ESPN could come and do a special on this because it's a really neat class.
I see, I misunderstood.
I thought you were going to 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, do they also follow through on the real purpose of fantasy football and gamble in this class?
Well, see, I'm back to school night.
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 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 commission of the paper football league.
The name of my team was the Limbaugh Laxadives because my front office was so full of it.
But I was, yeah, 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 great for my son.
My son is a very ardent student.
He does very well in all of his classes, but he plays football himself.
He plays lacrosse the other half of the year.
And, you know, he gets to put his brain to work at something that he enjoys instead of something that is.
I know you like this.
I can tell you like the idea.
And I'm somewhat intrigued by the idea of using statistical information and data that these kids are naturally interested in to teach them statistics, analyzing how to use spreadsheets and file databases and this sort of thing.
But I think you ought to look into this further out there, Terry.
You need to find out if Vegas power brokers and forces are involved in this.
And this school could have made a deal just to create some future bookies down the road that Vegas could hire and use to their own advantage.
I mean, this is an early start on all this.
And 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.
Winning what?
Wait a minute.
Winning what?
The overall, his team's overall performance is ahead of the other groups in the club.
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, I know what your point is.
It's not a winning is the like I said, it's real.
You know, that'll be a real test.
I'm going to tell you something, Terry.
That's going to be a real test because I know the public school system and there aren't any winners allowed because that humiliates the losers.
And 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 posted.
That's exactly right.
We do the thinking.
You do the listening.
It's a great combination.
El Rushbo and the EIB network.
I have to tell you, the email on this cigar business is still pouring in.
It's just incredible.
And it's running the gamut.
I've lost the ability to keep track of who's ahead, me or Dawn, on this thing.
You've been catching up a lot.
Ever since I said you're running 10 to 1 against you with all these women saying, I'd get you a cigar.
I'm getting all kinds of people now.
Never cease to be amazed at the innocent little things on this program that cause a firestorm out there.
What are some of the women saying to me?
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.
Others are saying, I'll get you a cigar.
I'll get you anything you want.
I've never met a woman like that in person.
I only hear that from people I don't know.
I never have.
Honest to God.
This came up the other day.
Well, some time ago, a woman was calling in.
Remember the story we had about 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 she's at the stove or doing other things for dinner, which I don't even understand that.
But the answer was fix his drink and put his bowl of peanuts on the other end of the kitchen 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 amazing.
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's incredible.
That's been my training with women from the early days of feminism.
I don't have an application sturdily, and that's the point.
Demanding it just makes it worse.
So this is all foreign to me.
But in an email, when it's just people I don't know, I'll get you a cigar.
I'll get you whatever you want.
But as I say, Dawn, your team 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.
It won't get you a cigar.
I mean, puff it in your face.
Thank you, sir.
But anyway, after this moron from Venezuela was up here, and Charles Schumer was on Fox News this morning, and I think he mentioned he said, well, This is like the state of how the U.N. is.
Yeah, let's play.
I've got the bite.
We played the bite.
Audio set up by three, Mike.
Go grab the bite.
And you listen to this with me here, Jerry.
Tell me if this is the one that you're talking about.
You ready to go up there, Mike?
Yeah, 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.
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 really shows you something about the UN.
All right.
Is that what you heard?
Yes, yes.
All right.
So what's your comment about that, Jer?
Okay.
Well, after Ochucky made that remark, I wonder if they'll go ahead and nominate Ambassador Bolton for the ambassador for the United States.
Okay, interesting thing.
Schumer has changed his mind about Bolton.
But that's not the problem.
I did not ask Secretary or Ambassador Bolton about this when he was on because, A, I knew he's not going to answer questions about his confirmation process, his nomination process.
He's just not going to do it.
I didn't want to put him in that position.
But last night, Robert Novak posted a column.
It's at Human Events Online or humanevents.com, and I'm sure it's in a couple of other places.
Let me give you the upshot of this as it relates to the Bolton nomination.
As you know, he's serving under a recess appointment, and he's got to be reconfirmed by the time Congress adjourns for the November elections or his term will expire in December.
And 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-year 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 Chaffee, 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 opposition.
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-Kestro 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 UN would be bad news for the Secretariat.
According to UN 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 UN.
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 to normalize relations, end the embargo, and this sort of thing.
Bolton, fiercely anti-Kestro.
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 the apparent likelihood that the Democrats aren't going to have enough votes to stop a cloture vote, meaning they're not going to be able to muster 60 votes against him.
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 reelection, which was a dead heat up to the last moment.
And Chaffee said, it's not about Bolton.
He actually said this.
Chafee said, I want a letter to the president, and 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 where that's.
The reason why Chafee is 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 did not oppose him coming out of committee and therefore permitted a floor vote.
Bolton lost that.
But I think the more Bolton is seen, the more respect he has.
And this is just pure partisan politics and petty policy things with Chris Dodd.
I know Novak says it's all about Cuba policy, but the opposition that Christopher Dodd has to Bolton is so virulent that I would think there's more to it than that.
Brian in Wilkesbury, Pennsylvania.
Hi, and welcome to the EIB network.
Mega deals, Russ.
It's good.
Pleasure to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
The point I want to make is Chavez is up here heading on oil and making a big deal about it when several months ago, he, speaking from the Altech Nations, made the comment that they should reduce production and keep oil above $80 a barrel.
So he's handing out free oil, but he's one of the people who wants to keep the price of oil high to keep his money flowing.
Right.
That's typical.
I mean, he's free to give his own oil away or sell it at cut rates to a small group of people in liberal enclaves of the United States, Harlem and Massachusetts.
It doesn't affect what he's doing.
He's probably still making a little profit on it, even at the reduced price.
But of course, he wants to keep the oil price up.
That's his source of revenue.
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 that creates problems for everybody in this hemisphere.
And remember, we are his largest customer.
We are the largest customer of Venezuelan oil.
It cuts both ways.
If he cuts us off, we've got to go elsewhere.
If we cut him off, at this point in time, the world oil price is going down because demand is going down, which has all the experts scratching their heads in puzzlement.
But I don't think he would ever cut us off.
I mean, he depends on it too much.
You don't cut your number one customer off.
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.
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, 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 Czernicki, writing about this, writes in a totally confused fashion.
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 leaked?
The denial these people are in.
I don't think they consider criticism of Bush.
I don't care if they call him a Nazi, a Hitler-like, or what Bush kills, wanted the levies to fail in New Orleans, whatever.
I don't think they think that's outrageous or unusual at all.
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 hiding behind McCain.
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, 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 the 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 silent on this.
L.A. 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 L.A. 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, supposedly not one of them, but we don't really know that for sure yet, regardless.
I mean, if you people at the L.A. 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 take a consensus of the drive-by media, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Bush won, and they ain't happy.
We'll be back.
We've got some 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.