We got broadcast excellence heading your way for yet another hour on the most listened-to radio talk show in America, the Rush Limbaugh program, the EIB network.
800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Larry Sabato, who says he knows that George Allen used the N-word, sent an email to the Associated Press yesterday saying, I didn't personally hear George Allen say the N-word.
My conclusion is based on the very credible testimony I've heard for weeks, mainly from people I personally know and knew in the 1970s.
Sabatoe was a classmate of George Allen's at the University of Virginia in the early 70s, said that he knew Allen had used racial slurs, but declined to say whether he had witnessed them.
Now he says he hasn't heard them, personally has never witnessed Allen using the N-word.
Should that constitute or require an apology?
The detainee bill, terrorist detainee bill, military tribunal bill, United States could detain even more foreigners as enemy combatants under legislation Congress will debate this week after a last-minute change in the bill, lawmakers said yesterday.
Democrats complained that Republicans quietly made several changes to the bill defining procedures for trying foreign terrorism suspects after an agreement last week between the White House and the so-called dissident Republican senators.
Carl Levin of Michigan, top Democrat in the Armed Services Committee, said there are significant changes.
Republican Lindsey Graham, a key negotiator on the bill, said enemy combatants would now include those who provided money, weapons, and other support for terrorist groups, as well as those involved in actual operations.
Graham said the term enemy combatant would also apply to those fighting a U.S. ally.
We're making sure that an enemy combatant can be defined as something other than frontline troop.
We want to make sure that giving material aid and support to terrorism would put you in the enemy combatant category.
Well, this is a sort of a reversal of opinion here for Senator Graham, who's now sounding very, very aggressive about this.
Do you hear about this Arizona 9-11 memorial?
The Republican candidate for governor of Arizona says the state's recently dedicated 9-11 memorial ought to be torn down, calling it an insult to America because of wording that he says criticizes the U.S. and fails to adequately honor victims and military personnel.
The monument was supposedly put in place to remember the losses of 9-11, an evil attack on our nation that killed thousands of innocent Americans, said Lynn Munsell on Monday at a rally near the Capitol.
Instead, it reminds us of American failings, American mistakes, real and imagined, before and after 9-11.
This memorial is a tribute to moral relativism.
The 54 laser-etched inscriptions on an arc that circles the structure include many from a September 11th, 2001 timeline, while others trace events following the terrorist attacks.
The memorial includes quotations like, you don't win battles of terrorism with more battles.
Right below an inscription noting that President Bush addressed the nation the evening of September 11, 2001 is one stating that an unidentified terrorist leader addressed the American people in 2004.
Unidentified terrorist leader.
That would, of course, be President Bush.
The Democrat governor, Janet Napolitano, defended the memorial as a tribute to 9-11 victims, and first responders said some inscriptions are being taken out of context.
Of course, that's what a liberal would say.
This one of the reasons they're having trouble filling a hole in the ground in New York, folks, is because the memorial crowd got hold of this and wanted to rip us apart for taking the land away from the Native Americans, all of the syphilis and typhoid and other diseases, racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, environmental destruction that white Europeans brought to this land when they came here and discovered it, i.e. conquered it.
Just despicable.
There's a vibrant hate America outfit out there, and they seek to get themselves heard in the most offensive ways and forums.
Washington posted a Bush and Clinton team's debate pre-9-11 efforts.
Now, I mentioned earlier in the program, ladies and gentlemen, that the Washington Post, three days late, is now starting to examine some of the lies told by President Bush, or President Clinton rather, on Fox News Sunday.
Jay Carson, spokesman for Bill Clinton, rejected Rice's contention, quote, every single fact that President Clinton stated in his interview is backed up by the historical record, including the 9-11 Commission report.
Everything President Clinton said was flatly correct.
It was not.
Everything he said was a lie.
He never issued, for example, a finding, a presidential finding, authorizing the FBI or the CIA or special forces to take out bin Laden.
He never did it.
He went on television Sunday Live through his teeth, said he did that, but the CIA and the FBI couldn't ascertain it for sure that it was bin Laden on any of these things, the USS Cole, and so they didn't take any action.
A flat-out lie.
Full, flat-out lie.
The Washington Post starting to tear down some of these things, as in this sentence.
This is Peter Baker writing the story.
Some of Clinton's statements on Fox have drawn scrutiny.
He said that after the bombing of the Coal, I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, launch a full-scale attack search for bin Laden.
We needed basing rights in Uzbekistan.
September 11th Commission, though, found no plans for an investigation or invasion rather of Afghanistan or for an operation to topple the Taliban, just more limited options like plans for attacks with cruise missiles or special forces.
And nothing in the panel's report indicated that a lack of basing rights in Uzbekistan prevented a military response.
Clinton also asserted that the Bush administration didn't have a single meeting about bin Laden for the nine months after he left office.
In fact, the Bush team held several meetings on terrorism through the interagency group known as the Deputies Committee, and one on September 4th, 2001, through the Principals Committee composed of cabinet officers.
What Clinton may have been referring to was the fact that he never had a meeting with his CIA director through the course of his administration.
Then there's David Ignatius, a columnist in the Washington Post, the big question Democrats are bucking.
He is frustrated.
He is really frustrated.
Ignatius is the point of his column is the Democrats have it all right there.
It's all just there waiting for them, but they can't come up with an answer.
He writes, this should be the Democrats' moment.
If they can translate the national anger over Iraq into a coherent strategy for that country, but with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next.
They act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the sands of Anbar province if the United States pulls down its troops.
Alas, that's not the case.
That's a problem with Iraq.
It's not an easy mistake to fix.
An example of the Democrats' fudge on Iraq was highlighted yesterday by post-columnist Dana Milbank in his description of retired Major General John Batiste's appearance before the Senate Democrat Policy Committee.
Senators cheered his evisceration of Rumsfeld, but they tuned out his call for more troops and more patience in Iraq and his admonition, we must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge.
So the guy, the Democrats, they held unofficial hearings on the Iraq war, and they brought in one of their favorite ex-generals, Batiste, retired Major General John Batiste.
And he told them the exact opposite of what they wanted to hear, and they ignored it.
He was laying out what's necessary for victory, and all they heard him say was he hates Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld has to go.
Ignatius writes, here's a reality check for the Democrats.
There's not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq.
Why?
The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequence for America and its allies.
Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear most from congressional Democrats, whether they call it strategic redeployment or something else.
Now, when Ignatius, a hardcore lefty, starts expressing all of his frustration with the Democrats' lack of a plan here other than get out, this column is an advice column.
Hey guys, I'm trying to help you.
You got to listen to us out here.
You're playing this all wrong.
Got to take a brief time out.
We'll do that and be back.
Your phone calls, audio soundbites.
What else is available in the snack of stuff right after this?
Okay, back to the audio soundbites.
Let's go to CBS News this morning.
Hannah Storm was talking to Senator Joe Biden of Delaware and asked this question.
This report, this national intelligence estimate, I mean, it was issued back in April.
And the president said it was leaked for political reasons with the midterm elections approaching.
You think that's the case?
You think that this will have an impact on the election?
I think what will affect the elections, Hannah, is when the people pick up their newspaper on November on Election Day that morning, if there's still the carnage in the streets of Iraq, then it will be clear that they have concluded this administration's policy has failed and there will be a political price for it.
Well, except Bush isn't on a ballot.
Ding bat.
Not only that, does it sound like he's rooting for carnage on Election Day?
Does to me.
Sounds like he's rooting for carnage in Iraq on Election Day.
Hey, even if there isn't Senator Biden, the papers will put the pictures in there for you if you just ask them.
The pictures don't have to be of the day before.
The pictures can be from anytime they want them.
You want carnage in Iraq on Election Day?
Fine.
Call the New York Times.
Leak that there's carnage in Iraq and they'll run it for you.
You know that.
You don't even need me to tell you this.
Time Magazine's Mike Allen in this appearance on CNN this morning sort of reveals the truth.
I don't know if he intended to do this.
Miles O'Brien says each party taking away something from this NIE report.
Does that surprise you?
You can see Democrats have Cheshire Cat grins on their faces as they say top of the morning to each other today.
When you look at this four-page document, most of this document makes the points that he makes, that freedom is the antidote to terror, that the U.S. must win in Iraq, and that there are people that want to kill us.
There are also three sentences in here, which are surely the sentences that your viewers have in their morning papers and been seeing on TV, which make it clear that there are significant voices that believe Iraq is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
So what he says here, a four-page document, most of the document makes the points the president makes.
Three sentences make the point the Democrats make.
And those three sentences are what's in the newspaper.
No kidding, Sherlock.
We're dealing with this, nevertheless.
But as I, you know, we ought to do this.
We ought to try to find previous national intelligence estimates.
By the way, another point needs to be made here, folks.
This is the same bunch, the same group of agencies that the Democrats are just creaming all to hell because of their reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
You see how they selectively love or hate government agencies, intelligence agents.
They love them now because they think it makes their point, makes their case.
But back in the run-up to the Iraq War in the days shortly after it began, why, that was stupid.
Bush massaged these people.
Can't trust what's in the intelligence reports.
Why, it's Jimmy.
The Bush administration puts that stuff in there that they want to.
Cheney tells them what he wants in there and they put it in, and it's not the case.
These intelligence estimates are really worthless documents because it's either or.
On the one hand, it could be bad.
On the other hand, it could be good.
They cover their bases.
It's CYA.
Nobody's going to stick their necks out on this stuff, especially now.
So basically, the whole thing cancels itself out, and you can throw it away.
The final analysis, it is meaningless.
Mike in Indianapolis, glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Well, who's your dittos from the land of the Democrat dark horse in 08, Evan, son of a birch by?
I just wanted to see that.
I've been watching this George Allen mess where the Democrats keep trying to tar and feather him.
And I can't help but thinking if it isn't the same thing they did to George W. Bush when he was the governor in Texas.
They know, anybody with half a brain knows that McCain and Giuliani are not the frontrunners for the Republican nomination in 08.
And I think they know Allen is, and that this is just trying to make something stick so they can hit the ground running when they have to attack him in 08.
Well, there's no question they're going after George Allen because he's potential presidential material.
And they're going after him because he's the one pure conservative, Reaganite conservative in the mix.
Mitt Romney, a close second, by the way.
I don't know about these polls that show George Allen leading anything, but make no mistake, the Democrats want the Senate, Mike, and they think Allen is going to try to defeat him here, and they do both at the same time then.
If they take him out in his race for re-election to the Senate, he can wave goodbye to his presidential perspirations.
And they're trying to get Jim Webb elected to the Senate.
They're trying to take over.
So it's about both, but the immediate objective is Allen's Senate seat in 06.
This is Monty in Lawrence, Kansas.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
Good talking to you.
Hey, I was just noticing on Fox that there was an article or a recent breaking news item about SIDGO pulling out of the relationship with, or 7-Eleven pulling out of the relationship with SIGGO.
Yeah.
And I also saw a couple of days ago that there was like 1,800 stations that were no longer going to be dealing with SIGGO.
And I was wondering if your crackstaff might be able to get enough information to figure out how big an impact that is for SIGGO and if that could actually make an impact on anything.
Well, you know, ever since Hugo Chavez came to the United Nations and had a Bill Clinton-type meltdown, the possibility of a boycott of Sitco was raised, even on this program.
And I must tell you that I got quite a few emails from Sitgo gasoline station owners who pleaded with me not to urge a boycott.
And I said, don't worry, I don't do that.
I don't do boycotts.
I don't tell people to tear up their credit cards and send them to Washington, and I don't give out phone numbers.
But they were scared to death because they're saying, look, we have nothing to do with the government of Venezuela.
Venezuela, these are independently owned stations.
And if you tell people to boycott, I'm just an entrepreneur and I'm just trying to make it in this business.
I own the station.
It's me.
And I'm going to be the one that gets hurt if there's a boycott.
So I found that interesting.
I haven't heard about 1,800 Sitco stations going dark or changing companies.
I have heard about the 7-Eleven business, 7-Eleven, by the way, located in Dallas.
And that doesn't surprise me.
There's a lot of heat out there still.
But look, in the long haul, in the long term, it's not, I don't think, going to hurt Chavez.
There's no oil producer that's going to be hurt.
They're going through a down cycle right now.
OPEC is panicking because the world oil price is plummeting, hovering around just a little above, just a little below 60.
Gasoline in Southeast Missouri is $1.80 a gallon today.
It's going to keep plummeting.
There are surprisingly large gasoline reserves and stocks all over the world.
But this, as you know, is cyclical.
I don't think oil would have to drop down to a $30 range for some of these guys to feel a financial hit.
And if it did that, it wouldn't stay there long.
Oil is still a good business to be in.
And I don't know how much harm, you know, Chavez is going to be able to sell this oil and gasoline somewhere if 1,800 Sitco stations here change ranks.
We're his number one customer.
We're still going to buy his oil, regardless of those stations.
The U.S. is going to buy his oil.
Well, do you think this will have an impact on the oil prices or anything?
Or who's going to benefit?
I mean, what company are they going to go with?
I couldn't tell you.
A lot of impact out there.
Unfortunately, I couldn't tell you because I've not heard this.
And I would have to get in touch with people who are in this business to find out if, let's say hypothetically, that I don't know how 1,800 Sitco stations could just change because if they are individually owned and if they're, I don't know who they're contracted with, but let's say it happens.
Hypothetically, I'd say all 1,800 of them say, you know what, screw Chavez.
We're going to become ExxonMobil.
I don't know how that happens.
I would have to talk to people who know.
But 1,800 stations in a nation of how many gasoline stations, I don't think that there's a significant impact there on the price of gasoline per gallon at the pump that's worth talking about.
All of that is tied to the world oil price and the per barrel price.
And if 1,800 Sitco stations decided to go ExxonMobil or a variety of others, wouldn't change the price of oil on the world markets.
Back in mere moments.
Media still breathlessly awaiting the Dallas Cowboys press conference featuring head coach Bill Parcells, which is supposed to have started at, well, 20 minutes ago, and it's late.
They just sent a guy out to say it'll be a couple of minutes.
Back to the audio soundbites.
I play this Hillary bite, ladies and gentlemen, from a press conference yesterday to defend her husband and attack the Bush administration.
See if you notice something in it.
It's very subtle.
I'm a guy who reads between the stitches at a fastball.
And something about this is different.
I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States, he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.
When is the last time you heard Hillary refer to Bill Clinton as her husband?
I was thinking about this.
The only time I can remember, and I'm sure it's happened since, it has to have happened since, but I'm not sure, heard it.
But in a big national forum, it was on the Today Show when she announced to Matt Wauer that there was a vast right-wing conspiracy out to get her husband.
And this vast right-wing conspiracy has been out to get her husband since even before he started running for president.
This is not, I don't know what it means, but this is not accidental.
This is not just ad-libbed comments.
This is a reason when she uses the term my husband.
By the way, poor media, Bill Parcel says, I don't know what happened in his press.
I don't think I know everything that happened.
I just read that on the closed captioning.
I'm not able to listen to it.
Moving on to audio summers, you got to hear this stuff from the punk.
Terry McAuliffe, back, by the way, hired by Hillary to run her non-existent campaign for the presidency.
Last night on Hannity ⁇ Combs, Dick Morris said this about Bill Clinton's angry response to Chris Wallace.
What you learn about him very quickly is the extent of his indignation is directly related to the truth of the accusation.
The truer it is, the more I didn't have a relationship with that woman.
Yeah, we know.
I mean, and Morris, by the way, had a column in the Hill newspaper yesterday that refutes line by line, as we did on this program, the lies that Bill Clinton told.
And makes the point, all you got to do is get him agitated is just telling the truth.
Confront him with a question that contains truth in it about his failures as president or shortcoming goes ballistic.
You have to understand this about Clinton, folks, and a lot of Democrats.
And this is a good way to say it.
When he goes to Davos, Switzerland, or when he goes to, like, he's in Dublin today.
He's at Dublin and it's like 1,000 or 5,000 pounds or dollars to get in, hear him speak.
He was at the Ryder Cup over the weekend, which is, I think, one of the reasons we lost if the players saw him.
But the guy runs around like a king.
He surrounds himself with sycophants.
He doesn't run into questions like he got from Chris Wallace.
None of the liberals do.
They never do.
Not from the drive-by media.
And so they're just, they surround themselves with insulation so that Clinton can run around as a king.
Everybody is fawning over him.
He's a rock star and so forth.
He lives that lie.
And he runs around and believes all this blarney that he has created for himself about his unassailable legacy.
Well, the punk kind of indicates this.
The punk attacks Fox News here.
He was on with Tucker Carlson, Chatsworth Osborne Jr. last night on MSNBC.
And Chatsworth Osborne Jr. said to the punk, why is it that every time somebody calls the Clinton people to account, they all of a sudden start screaming, you're a right-winger, you're part of the conspiracy against us.
Why can't you evaluate criticism on its own terms?
Why do you need the name calls?
I know Chris Wallace.
I have appeared on the Fox Sunday show many times with Chris Wallace.
Let me be crystal clear.
Roger Ailes pays his paycheck.
He is a tool for the Republican Party, and that's fine.
I still go on his show.
I still like Chris, but he is what he is.
You know, Terry, you were a commentator once for Fox News.
You took a Roger Ailes paycheck.
Did it make you a tool of the Republican Party?
Ding-bant?
You notice how these guys generally they circle the wagons to defend media people.
But on the Chris Wallace, I don't know what his, I do not know what his political leanings are or were, but I will guarantee you that if he was one of them and if he was one of these libs, they have driven him off the reservation.
This kind of stuff is going to open his eyes if they weren't already.
And that's not a comment on him.
I'm just, this is.
It's bad lines are drawn there.
The liberals and the media are both together on their agenda.
The Democrats and so forth make no mistake.
Hell, folks, let me give you an example of this before we go to the next bite.
You remember yesterday, the woman, the reporter at the Infobabe that asked the question of Hamid Karzai that drew this brilliant response from Karzai?
Her name is Jennifer.
Well, Jennifer Lovin is her name, AP.
And a subscriber to RushLimbaugh.com sent me an email, found out who she is, researched her.
Jennifer Lovin is married to a guy named Roger Ballantyne, who is president of Green Strategies.
That's a consulting firm specializing in energy and environmental issues, was previously deputy assistant to President Clinton for environmental initiatives and chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force.
Jennifer Lovin's husband was.
He also sits on the board of directors of Solar Electric Light Fund, along with actors Ed Begley Jr., Larry Hagman.
Jennifer Lovin is a reporter for the Associated Press.
And her story today begins this way.
White House's release of previously secret intelligence assessment depicting a growing terrorist threat gives both parties new ammunition in the election season fight over the Iraq war.
No, it doesn't, Jennifer.
It slams the door on the Democrats and the drive-by media.
For Democrats, the report furthers their argument that the 2003 Iraq invasion has inflamed anti-U.S. sentiments in the Muslim world and left the U.S. less safe.
No, it doesn't say that, Jennifer.
It doesn't say that.
The American people deserve the full story, not those parts of it the Bush administration selects, said Edward Kennedy.
The cherry-picking was done by you people, Teddy.
The New York Times.
Anyway, just to show you, this is agenda journalism, an activist Democrat reporting for the Associated Press.
And she was back at it today.
And I watched a little bit during a commercial break of her question and answer session with Tony Snow.
And it was like yesterday never happened.
It was like none of the other aspects of the national intelligence estimate came out.
It was like only that one sentence was still there.
Total activist Democratic Party, AP, just confirms it.
All right.
Now, we just heard Terry McAuliffe last night with Chatsworth Osborne Jr. on PMS NBC suggest that Chris Wallace takes a paycheck from Roger Ailes.
He's a tool of the Republican Party, and that's fine.
I still go on his show, still like Chris, but he is what he is.
Last night on Fox News with John Gibson, the punk appeared.
And Gibson said, Steve Cole of the Washington Post, no friend of the Bush administration, wrote in February of 2004, and I quote the lead graph, between 98 and 2000, the CIA and President Clinton's national security team were caught up in a paralyzing policy dispute as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against bin Laden in Afghanistan, unquote.
This is essentially what Chris Wallace was asking.
Why were you caught up in paralyzing debates instead of doing more?
I don't think they were caught up in paralyzing debates, nor did Bill Clinton.
Why he reacted because the Washington Post, and I disagree, sometimes you're right, and you think they might be in with Fox News too.
But just because some reporter or journalist writes that doesn't mean it so now the Washington Post is in bed with Fox News.
According to Terry McAuliffe, paranoia, panic has set in, but we're not through.
Gibson asked another question.
Terry, you're telling me the Washington Post's former high-placed editor, Steve Cole, is the same as Fox News.
You would say he's in league with Fox News in some kind of a plot against Bill Clinton.
I'd not say a plot against Bill Clinton, but I'll tell you this, I'll hold the Washington Post, New York Times, and many other newspapers in this country liable for not doing a better job exposing the weapons of mass destruction allowing us to go into a warner.
Baby, this is the guy going to run Hillary's non-existent presidential campaign.
Man, they're out there attacking their buddies.
They're out there attacking their fellow soldiers, their fellow travelers.
Clinton East is, by the way, in full attack mode.
Madam Albright at the National Press Club yesterday on Secretary Rice.
Ask Secretary Rice how much attention they paid to terrorism in the first eight months.
Ask them how many meetings they had about terrorism.
Well, people have looked that up, madam, and they had quite a few.
They even had a big one on September 4th of 2001.
They were actively involved in it.
They were having meetings.
You got to remember, Madam Albright, that there was this little problem in the aftermath of the election, which caused the Bush administration to take a while to find and fully fund various cabinet posts and so forth.
But how come it is unseemly, as it was said yesterday, for Condoleezza Rice to respond with the truth to Bill Clinton?
And it isn't unseemly for Madam Albright to come out and make her little vatled charges here.
Yes, Mr. Snerdley, program observer wants to make a point.
What is it?
Yeah, well, good point.
Snerdley says, so what's the point about having meetings?
How many meetings did you people have in the Clinton administration?
You didn't do anything.
How many meetings did you have?
How many times could you get hold of Clinton?
You couldn't find him or he wouldn't return to Cork because he's in a golf course, Madam Albright.
You know, this is funny.
The Cowboys, by the way, this is media day for Parcells.
Coaches do it on different days.
Bill Cower meets the media on Tuesday, the players off day.
Some coaches do it on Wednesday.
Some coaches do it every day.
So they have a regularly scheduled press conference with the media.
I think the Cowboys, Wednesday may be the only day, but I'm not sure.
Anyway, media hyping it.
Dallas Cowboys press conference on Terrell Owens coming up momentarily.
They ran for half an hour.
And then Parcells comes in and sits down.
And he was no different than the police captain out there today.
No, we're not confirming it.
I don't know what happened.
Parcells eventually stormed out of there.
Left the press conference earlier than normal.
He told them 20 different ways.
He didn't know anything.
He said when he finds out, he'll let them know what he thinks.
Until then, he's not getting interrogated.
He says, I'm trying to get my football team ready for a game against a team in Tennessee on Sunday.
By the way, coach, you could give them the whole week off and they could still beat Tennessee.
But nevertheless, I'm trying to get my football teamer.
You're asking me about this TO because I don't know anything about it.
And yet the whole press conference was hyped as the answer.
Whatever happened to T.O. press conference that was going to happen today?
That was supposed to happen at his house.
Yeah.
Okay.
No, it's going to happen at 3.30 Eastern Time.
All right.
All right.
Well, fine.
Whoopi-doo.
There's still...
You know what all this...
Parcells doesn't?
The coach doesn't.
I guarantee you the coach knows what happened.
The coach of the team.
Maybe they're giving him plausible deniability.
Maybe they haven't told him.
I don't know.
Somebody knows, and they're still figuring out how they want to deal with this because the cops gave them the cover.
Say, hey, it's not a criminal investigation.
It's medical.
That invokes HIPAA.
Medical privacy can't divulge anything.
So it's up to the team and the player to do that.
I want to go back to this Hillary Clinton soundbite, ladies and gentlemen, because there's one other thing I missed in this.
Not just in the fact that she refers to my husband.
Let's listen to it again.
I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team...
Stop the tape.
It's right there.
In the old days, in the old days, Hillary Clinton would have said, I'm certain that if my husband and our national security team and everything was theirs, blue plate special, buy one, get the other free, whatever that was called in their administration.
Hillary's Healthcare Task Force, it was, you know, her secretary, her attorney general, our policy.
None anymore.
I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team, it's not a, it's a minor little thing.
You know, I predicted this too.
I warned you people about this many, many moons ago.
In fact, we've got the soundbite where I warned you, and I'm not going to play the bite, but I want to find it so I can find out what the date was.
Number 17, it was June 5th, 1990.
Go ahead.
Play number 17.
June 5th, 1998.
Over eight years ago.
If we can save the lives of our children by raising the cost of cigarettes to five or six bucks a pack, why not save the lives of our children even more with, say, Big Macs and Whoppers?
Obesity is the first teal to drop.
Then we'll have the next things to go, grease, all these things that add up to heart disease and obesity.
The pattern has been established with tobacco, and I fear that the same thing is now underway with foods that others in government are going to say lead to these horrible examples of obesity in the United States.
June 5th, 1998, eight years ago, sorry for the quality of that archive came from.
That had to be coming from a cassette.
Nobody uses cassettes anymore, but we at the EIB network use cassettes.
Nevertheless, eight years ago, have you heard, ladies and gentlemen, what they're going to do in New York?
Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting artificial trans fatty acids.
In other words, no more hydrogenated cooking oil.
The city health department unveiled a proposal yesterday that would bar cooks at any of the city's 24,600 food service establishments, restaurants for those of you in Riolinda, from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance commonly listed on a food label as partially hydrogenated oil.
Artificial trans fats are found in some shortenings, margarine and frying oils, and turn up in foods from pie crusts to French fries to donuts.
Doctors argue that trans fats are unhealthy in nearly any amount.
They're actually, and if there could be a serious fine, cooks would be forced to discard old recipes, scrutinize every ingredient in their pantries.
A restaurant could face a fine if an inspector finds the wrong type of vegetable shortening on the shelves.
I'm not.
This is the Associated Press David Caruso.
They're going to ban trans fatty foods, trans fatty acids in partially hydrogenated cooking oil.
Cooking oil police along with the smoked Nazis.
Absolutely right.
24,600 restaurants affected in New York City.
Back after this, ladies and gentlemen, be right with me.
All right, here's Parcels, folks.
This is how the press conference on Terrell Owens ended.
Can I answer the question?
When I find out what the hell is going on, you will know.
Until then, I'm not getting interrogated for no reason.
And he got up from the table and he stormed out of there back to practice.
Not going to be interrogated.
When I find out what the hell is going on, you know, you got to ask the question, why do a press conference if your answer is going to be a no-no?