All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
September 28, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hi, folks, and welcome.
Great to have you with us once again.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, once again documented to be, I am almost always right, 98.5% of the time.
Still waiting on the most recent opinion audit from the Sullivan Group in uh Sacramento, California, noted opinion auditing firm and using them for years, reasonable fees.
Uh telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882 in the email address is uh Rush at EIBNet.com.
Ladies and gentlemen, uh do you remember in the in the at what point in the nineties was this, Mr. Snerdley?
Uh, was it pre- or post-Lewinski that AP did this?
Post Lewinsky.
So it was in the second term of Bill Clinton.
You you all remember uh AP ran a series of stories picked up by all of the other drive-by media, telling us that lying was good.
Little lies were helpful.
They spared people's feelings.
Uh everybody does it.
Uh and it was just, it's, it's uh it actually has redeeming social quality and value.
Uh if if not done too much, but even, you know, that the within reason lying is actually uh a well-calculated way to get through life, causing yourself less pain and obviously others less pain.
Well, you won't believe this.
What's it been?
About ten days since the was it this past Sunday?
It's four.
So Clinton appears on Fox News Sunday show this past Sunday, the Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday.
So it's four days ago.
And I have here, ladies and gentlemen, in uh in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers uh story.
From our buddies at the Associated Press by Jocelyn Novak.
Is it cool to lose your cool?
That's one of the questions of the week as we evaluate and reevaluate Bill Clinton's finger-pointing knee-poking interview with Chris Wallace on Fox.
The first debate, of course, was whether Clinton had actually lost it at all.
A fullbore tantrum, one conservative columnist called it, or knew exactly what he was doing, but splitting the difference for a moment, the interesting issue becomes.
I kid you not, can I can't say this with a straight face?
Can public anger in politics, business, and elsewhere be a good thing?
Yes, let's have more road rage.
Let's have more threatening of journalists.
You heard what Ailes said?
Ailes came out and said this was an assault or an attack on all journalists.
Uh Clinton was totally over the top.
I'm not kidding you, folks.
We have a story here from the AP on how this is really good.
Uh public anger, politics, business, and elsewhere could be a good thing, is a little tantrum now and then.
Just what's called for.
Well, they went out and they found somebody who agrees with their question and answers it the way they wanted, under the right circumstances, yes, say some analysts of social behavior.
When's the last time uh folks anybody ever told you it was good to have a public display of temper?
When was it when was the last time anybody praised you for doing a smart thing and a right thing by losing your cool?
Well, just as BJs are now not sex, so is road rage a good thing.
Uh low blowing your cool, losing your temper in public, even in business.
Is the uh right thing to do under the right circumstances?
Uh, according to um a senior associate dean at Yale's School of Management, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, it's more important than ever to cut through the clutter.
All of us are so overmanaged these days.
Public figures have platoons at protectors.
It's more important than ever to show authentic, real emotion.
Sonnenfell believes that Clinton's anger was genuine and yet intentionally uncensored.
And he says Clinton has told him personally in the past that when your critics are wrong, you fire back on all cylinders.
Take it on with full force and Don't let up.
In the uh Fox News interview, Clinton pointed his finger, leaned sharply in toward Wallace, poked his leg, all in animated response to the question of whether his administration had done enough to pursue Osama bin Laden.
Oh, speaking of that, have you heard that the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader is demanding the release of the people we're holding in jail for the 93 World Trade Center bombing, Ramzi Youssef and the blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman.
He says that if we don't release these prisoners, that he is urging his followers, Al Qaeda everywhere, to start capturing innocent Americans and putting them in prison.
Now who's responsible for this, ladies and gentlemen?
On whose watch did we put these people in jail?
Sad to say it was Bill Clinton's Justice Department that uh secured convictions against Ramza Youssef and the blind sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman.
Now, if you listen to the Democrats today, they vote a hundred and sixty of them.
In the House, one hundred and sixty Democrats voted against the uh military tribunal uh detainee bill.
Voted against it.
We've got a montage here of a bunch of Democrats whose objective is cut and run, get out of a rock.
They absolutely believe that we are responsible for infuriating these people.
You've heard them say it.
Bush is responsible, we're responsible.
Why do they hate us?
If we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone.
Well, if that's the case, may I hear a chorus from Democrats today demanding the release of Ramza Youssef and the blind sheikh?
Because it's only making these guys over in Iraq mad at us.
I mean, the new uh Al Qaeda in Iraq leader has said so.
And if we don't let these guys out of jail, let them out of prison, why they're gonna start capturing us all over the world.
Uh and and well, we've made them mad.
We have made the Al Qaeda in Iraq leader mad.
He wants these guys released.
Clinton did it.
Now, how does this sound to you?
How does this sound?
To me, it sounds plausibly reasonable if you listen to it from a liberal or Democrat frame of mind.
Not the blaming Clinton part, of course, they wouldn't go that far.
But yeah, yeah, why why put these guys in jail?
Come on, you know, it's only making them matter.
It's only it's only irritating them for let them out.
Let them go, send them home, and and maybe they'll leave us alone.
That's the way the Democrats are approaching all this.
I just threw in the bit about it being Bill Clinton's fault, because, you know, it is.
Uh Clinton's Justice Department, I mean, he didn't care about the World Trade Center bombing, but his Department of Justice did.
They found the guys, they nailed him, and convicted him, 240 years in prison.
That's life for most of us.
I realize some of you who uh uh don't eat trans fats will live longer than that.
Uh but nevertheless Clinton did it.
Happened on his watch.
He's infuriated Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Keep a sharp eye on that.
What if they do start kidnapping Americans?
It's the one thing they haven't really haven't, other than over in Iraq, people, you know, in uh some journalists, military personnel, but what if they do start running around capturing people?
Have you what about this this opera?
The German opera this is folks, this is patently absurd.
Uh the Dutch Oprah, I think it is pronounced, has canceled an opera because of fear it would enrage Muslims.
Now, Roger Kimball writes in the Wall Street Journal today, the spectacle of this suggests that the West's dealings with Islam have entered a new phase.
Yesterday we waited until after the Muslims took to the streets before capitulating today.
It appears we've moved on to preemptive capitulation.
We capitulate before they get mad.
We capitulate before they start protesting.
We capitulate before they start burning things down and waving flags and threatening to whack the Pope and all that.
This is this it is where's this gonna end, folks?
This is not good.
Uh as Mr. Kimball writes, I suppose that depends on how much we really care about the liberty and freedom we champion.
Uh with words, freedom as some wit observed isn't free.
Will we have the gumption to pay the cost?
Jury's still out on that question.
I hope and pray that the answer will be yes.
There is G.K. Chesterton noted nearly a hundred years ago, a thought that stops thought.
And that is the only thought that ought to be stopped.
I'll translate that for you and Rio Linda on another program.
When I don't have well, when I have more time to get on to uh other things.
Four canceled performances of a Mozart opera have reignited an anxious and heated debate in Europe over free speech, self-censorship, and Islam.
Preventive preemptive capitulation.
What a what a great term.
So it see it all fits.
I mean, the Germans understand what the liberals in this country don't make them mad.
Why don't make them all that?
They'll just go nuts, and who knows who they'll be head.
Who knows what action they'll we don't even want to run the risk of it.
So let these guys, Ramsey Yousef and the blind shake out of jail.
Let them out now, or it's we're gonna have we're gonna there's gonna be hell to pay.
In addition, folks, I have I've come up with an idea here.
Uh, you know, I I like to learn from events.
Uh I live in Palm Beach, Florida.
Very uh a very uh uh international population lives here during the season.
Uh we are so upscale here, we will not allow a Starbucks on the island.
Have you heard about this?
Starbucks wanted to open a 18-seat operation at 150 Worth Avenue.
And it looked like it was going to sail through until some people in Palm B said, wait a minute.
We're not gonna have this.
This'll deface the town.
It'll cause more people across the bridge from Westbound Beach to come over.
No, it won't, because it's all kind of Starbucks over there.
We don't want people with body piercings and t-shirts and long maggot-infested hair over here, and so they've shut it down.
There will not be a Starbucks.
That's how, that's how cosmopolitan and European we are, ladies and gentlemen.
But despite there not being a uh a Starbucks, there are still plenty of places in this town where you can go to meet international women, women from Europe, women from France.
Uh so here's what I'm gonna do.
Learning from the Germans here.
Next time I'm in some place that I see an attractive European woman that I might like to go to dinner with, I'm gonna walk up to her.
And I'm gonna ask her out.
I'm gonna say, if you say no, if you refuse to go to dinner with me, the Muslims are gonna get really mad.
Can you run the risk of enraging the Moslems by not going out with me?
Quick time out.
Back after this.
Stay with us, though.
Yeah, I went back to my website.
I wanted to find out exactly when all these stories about how good it is to lie were.
We got it.
We have a um uh uh whole segment on it in the essential stack of stuff, and it ran this October 28, 2005, almost a year ago.
Will we see stories on how healthy lying is?
And we chronicle here on the website all of the stories that came out in the sea, from February through um September of 1998 on how healthy it is to lie.
Cleveland Plain Dealer, they want Clinton to be a saint.
Boston Herald, to tell the truth.
Clinton's troubles get couples talking.
Rocky Mountain News, when if ever is lying okay.
And CNN and Time magazine, the truth about lying.
All of these stories were were oriented around how healthy it can be.
Uh spares people's feelings.
And we uh we wonder if if the same sentiment will be extended towards Scooter Libby.
Because Clinton lied under oath uh in a grand jury deposition, of course.
Well, he's lying about facts.
He had to, the smart thing to do, wise thing, protect the family, protect the daughter, protect uh everything else.
It's a two-way street.
And now we've got this story from the AP, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, an associate dean at Yale's School of Management, saying, Hey, under the right circumstances, blow your top, cut through the clutter.
It's too controlled out there.
It can be it can be a uh really great thing to do out there.
Public anger, politics, business, uh elsewhere.
And uh there's a let's see, who else?
Kathleen Hole Jameson, an analyst of political communication, uh, said that none of Clinton's gestures is necessarily indicative of a loss of control.
What we usually see from politicians are scripted moments or interviews that are puff pieces.
We rarely see a tough one-on-one.
Kathleen, do you ever watch Meet the Press when Dick Cheney's on?
Uh or when Donald Rumsfeld's on somewhere.
Uh, I continue to be mystified.
But at any rate, uh uh, ladies and gentlemen, feel free to blow your top.
Have a little road rage out there.
Uh it's cool.
Therapeutic and uh very helpful.
Let's go to the phones quickly.
George and Charlotte, North Carolina.
Glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Mr. Limbaugh, what an honor your training inspiration.
Just get to the point, will you?
Just get to the point.
I don't need all this praise.
Ah, but I gotta give it to you.
Uh about the story about the AP reporter.
Why is anger okay for Bill Clinton?
Yet when it's uh John Bolton, uh, we can't uh confirm him to his seat because he's been anger.
He's had anger with his uh constituents.
Exactly.
That's an ex that's a that's an excellent point.
We can't have Bolton up there because he blows his stack, he's too angry, he'll make them mad, and so forth.
Excellent point out there, George.
How long did it take you to think that up?
Uh, about ten seconds.
Good for you, I can tell by the way you uh it flowed out there naturally.
Thanks much for the call.
Appreciate it.
All right, audio sound by time, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
We have a montage uh of uh drive-by media, CNN's uh well, not just CNN, there's some other people on here, mostly CNN, some from ABC, uh, one from Fox, NBC.
Uh yesterday at the White House, uh President Bush uh had a meeting with uh Presidents Karzai and Musharraf.
And they came out and they met the media, and apparently there was not a handshake at the end of the uh deal between Musharraf and uh Karzai.
That became the subject that was yesterday's media gravitas.
President Bush hosted Presidents Karzaia of Afghanistan and Musharf of Pakistan at dinner, but could not get them to shake hands.
I thought at a minimum uh we would see a handshake.
These two uh leaders apparently did not even shake hands.
So maybe a handshake, but no hugs.
At the White House, they refused to shake hands.
These guys have no business for shaking each other's hands, some sort of public handshake.
There wasn't some sort of public handshake.
The two rivals pointedly avoided shaking hands.
I was fully expecting President Bush to do what President Clinton did when he had Rabin and Arafat sort of forced them to come together and shake hands, clasp pants, do a three-way, if you will.
A three-way.
Wolf.
What's happening to CNN?
So there you have it.
Clinton.
Clinton and he was able to get a handshake between Arafat and Rabin.
A lot it meant.
A lot, a lot a lot of good it did.
The problem's still not solved.
Total symbolism over substance.
They think handshakes matter.
The substance of what might have gone on in the meeting between these two leaders is irrelevant.
Total symbolism over substance on the part of the um of the media, the drive-by media.
Congress is on track to approve a White House plan for detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects.
Legislation Republicans likely will use on the campaign trail to assert that Democrats want to coddle too.
Who the hell wrote this?
Anne Plummer Flaherty of the AP.
Barring any last-minute hiccups, the Senate vote on Thursday would send the legislation to the president's desk by week's end.
Oh no.
The House approved a nearly identical measure on Wednesday, 253 to 168 vote.
Democrats have said the legislation would give the president too much latitude while when deciding whether the aggressive interrogations cross the line and violate international standards of prisoner treatment.
Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights crowd speaks up once again.
Dennis Kucinich, to show you how bad it was for the Democrats during the 04 presidential primaries, he was said to be the sexiest looking of the bunch.
I think it may have been because he was the only one that was single.
Is that right?
Well, I get strange standards, but nevertheless, that's what they said.
Dennis Kucinich said, this bill is everything we Democrats don't believe in.
You got that right.
They are not interested in protecting the American people.
They're interested in protecting the terrorists.
Here is Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday, a montage of her outrage.
This bill that is here today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States.
Oh.
will produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court.
Redefining the Geneva Convention in ways that lower the treatment standards the conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.
This is a time when the golden rule should Golden Rule.
Keep the tape going.
Be in effect.
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto your troop.
What your CIA agents, your people in the field.
Let me translate that.
The golden rule from Nancy Pelosi, do unto Al Qaeda as you would like Al Qaeda to do unto you.
She could be third in line for the presidency if the Democrats win the House.
Yikes.
And as usual, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Firmly ensconced here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies behind the Golden EIB.
Microphone.
You know this handshake business.
Drive-by media going nuts over it.
Well, we need a way to put this in perspective.
I think I have found a way to put this in perspective.
What is a handshake?
Especially in terms of diplomacy.
I mean, look at Monica Lewinsky.
Monica Lewinsky went well beyond shaking Bill Clinton's hand.
And he still screwed her over.
Where is she today?
I mean, diplomacy is uh much less about pressing the flesh, any flesh, uh, than it is about fixing underlying problems.
And focused here on this uh whether or not there was a handshake for Much Sharif and and uh Karzai's simply ridiculous.
Uh other news here, this is from the Boston Globe.
Uh a last-minute change to a bill currently before Congress on the rights of prisoners at Club Gitmo could have sweeping implications inside the United States.
It would strip green card holders and other legal residents of the right to challenge their detention in court if they are accused of being enemy combatants.
Uh an earlier draft of the bill sparked criticism because it removed the rights of Gitmo detainees to challenge their detentions in federal court.
The changes made over the weekend during negotiations between the White House and key Republicans in Congress go even further, making it legal for non-citizens inside the U.S. to be detained indefinitely without without access to the uh court system until the war on terror is over.
Now I think I think this makes total sense.
How many stories are we seeing about the possibility and the likelihood that terrorists are able to get into the country over the border through Mexico, what have you, or any other port of entry.
We are fighting a war on terror.
That's the thing that distinct distinguishes us between the Democrats and the Liberals.
They don't think there is one, they don't think there should be one, and they think if there is one, then Bush caused it by responding to the 9-11 attacks.
So just keep in mind that the terror detainee bill, one hundred and sixty Democrats voted against it.
Uh that is a sizable, sizable number, and it it spells out perfectly.
And they think they did the right thing and a good thing as far as a campaign issue.
Here's what the president said uh this morning on Capitol Hill after meeting with Republican leaders on this.
I want to congratulate the House for passing a very vital piece of legislation that will give us the tools necessary to protect the American people.
That's the legislation that will give us the capacity to be able to interrogate uh high-valued uh detainees, uh, and at the same time give us the capacity to try people who uh in our military tribunals.
This legislation passed in the House yesterday is a part of making sure that uh we do have the capacity to protect you.
Our most solemn job is the security of this country.
People shouldn't forget there's still an enemy out there that wants to do harm to the United States.
And therefore, a lot of my discussion with the members of the Senate was uh to remind them of this solemn responsibility.
Well, and remember now Nancy Pelosi uh uh called this uh uh something that was uh violence to the Constitution.
Uh this bill does violence to the Constitution.
This is a time she said when the golden rule should really be in effect.
Do unto others what you would not have them do under what?
Do not do unto others what you would not have them do under your troops, your agents, your people in the field.
Miss Pelosi.
You ignorant.
They're already doing it.
It's who they are.
Whatever we do, they're going to keep doing it.
Have you heard the latest from the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq?
He wants to start capturing Americans all over the world, putting them in prison until we release the blind shaken Ramza Youssef from our prisons for their roles in the 1993 World Trade Center.
Should you maybe call for their release, Miss Pelosi, to be consistent.
Should you and Jack Mertha, the Democrat leadership, call for the release, even though Bill Clinton's Justice Department put him in jail.
Call for the release right now of these people so as to send a signal to Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Because like the Germans cancel the opera before doing something that might offend the Muslims and have them go nuts in the streets.
Follow the great lead of our great ally, Germany.
Even though this wasn't the German government, it was German opera.
Still, the arts and croissant crowd, the smartest people among us, a bunch of literary artistic avant-garde elites.
And I'm sure you count them among some of your best friends in a stylistic sense.
So why don't you get out there, lead the charge to let these two guys out of jail and any of their contemporaries that are in jail, let them out of jail so that the guys in Iraq and Al Qaeda will not get mad at us and will not capture Americans.
Let's practice your golden rule.
You ignorant.
What have you?
Here's uh Senator Pat Leakey Leahy yesterday, late on the Senate floor.
Now is not the time to abandon American values.
Stop it.
Shiver and quake.
Reakue that.
I want to make sure I heard what I just heard.
Is it ready from the top?
All right?
Let me hear this again.
Now is not the time to abandon American values and to shiver and quake.
Like we're a weak country.
Stop, stop.
Senator Leahy, with uh all due respect, might it not be more proper for someone like me to urge you to adopt some American values now and then?
How would you feel about adopting some now and then?
Instead of accusing everybody of abandoning them.
I read something interesting today.
I think I forget where it was at op-ed piece, somebody might have been to Wall Street Journal, not sure where.
Try to find it, doesn't matter.
Talks about how nations in the old days used to uh uh calculate their greatness by how much they conquered.
How much land uh that they amassed.
That used to be the like the Roman Empire and the British Empire.
Sun never set on the British Empire.
That's not the case anymore.
Uh nations calculate their greatness on the basis of economic strength.
Now, I'm not condemning that, but uh uh uh accompanying this this new way of calculating a nation's greatness becomes uh uh well accompanies uh a corresponding loss of uh an appreciation for the actual land mass that exists.
And you can see it in um in our lack of concern over border security.
I mean you can see it plain as day in our lack of uh concern over border security.
We are far more interested in whatever economic benefit we think we're getting with weak borders than we are concerned with maintaining our borders.
David Brooks, New York Times, I knew it was somebody.
David Brooks of the New York Times, and it it it's uh it's an interesting piece because I hadn't thought about it that way, but when you listen to these Democrats when you listen to Leakey Leahy talk about abandoning American values to shiver and quake like we're a weak country, we have to rely on secrecy and torture.
What do you not get, Senator?
We have a president who's trying to maintain our strength, who doesn't want to show weakness in the face of an enemy that responds to it by being emboldened and uh and and made more confident.
We're too great a nation for that.
Those are the ways of weakness, those are the ways of repression and oppression.
We are talking about the enemy.
You ignorant fill in the blank.
We're talking about the enemy.
These Democrats are talking about how we oppress the enemy.
They have no concept of American greatness, despite their words.
They have no concept of American exceptionalism.
My gosh, look at the things they wring their hands over.
Here is uh Lou in St. Augustine, Florida.
Hey, Bub, welcome to the program.
Rush, thank you so much for everything.
I've been a fan for 20 years.
Thank you, sir, very much.
But I nearly swallowed my Monte Cristo when I heard uh uh when I heard a re a Democrat invoke the golden rule.
Yeah, let's listen to that again.
Uh grab the Pelosi bite.
This is this is unbelievable.
You ready on a Pelosi bite?
Yeah.
All right, here's now I wasn't asking you, Lou, because you're not gonna play it.
Don't talk, Lou, unless I'm talking to you.
I'm just losing my cool in public because they say it's good to do now that Clinton did.
All right, play it.
This bill that is here today, because it does violence to the Constitution of the United States, will produce convictions that may well be overturned because the bill does not heed the instructions from the Supreme Court, redefining the Geneva Convention in ways that lower the treatment standards the conventions create poses a real risk to American forces.
This is a time when the golden rule really should be in effect.
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto your troops, your CIA agents, your people in the field.
All right, uh, you said you almost uh swallowed your Monte Cristo.
What kind of Monte Cristo are you smoking?
You know, I don't know.
It's a white brown one.
I just picked it up at JP up in uh North Carolina.
Okay, well, so all right.
Well, so it's uh it's large enough if you swallowed it uh we might have to you know take you to hospital like TO.
Right.
Okay.
And because because she invoked the golden rule, explain why you got why that upsets you.
First of all, she made it a double negative.
And the golden rule is not stated as a negative, it's a positive, but even beyond that.
Well, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, come on now, Lou.
The golden rule has its roots where?
As in it's in in uh in Jewish law.
Right, religious roots, right?
Sure.
And Nancy Pelosi is what?
Well, she's from real She's a Democrat.
No, no, no.
She's a Democrat.
Now can you put together on a chalkboard an equation that in anywhere as accurate as Democrats equal religion?
No, I can't.
How how would she know that the golden rule has uh has as is expressed as a positive?
Well, the right has religious roots, it'd be easy for her to misunderstand it.
The reality is that's exactly what Bush is doing with this law.
He's clarifying the way we handle prisoners, which is according to the golden rule.
Oh, that our enemies treated our soldiers as well as we treat our enemy combat.
Well, I know what you're trying to say, but the the the practical result is we're gonna end up treating these people far better than they treat us.
Now, anybody who has a hope, like Pelosi does, that the way we treat these people will affect the way our future prisoners are treated, is just an ignorant back in just a second.
Yeah, I mentioned to you last week that I like the uh ABC series Boston Legal.
And uh episode number two of this season was on Tuesday night, and I just got around to watching it last night.
I TVO'd the thing.
And funniest open smoking my cigar here reminded me of it.
William Shatner, who's uh I guess his career has had a rebirth with this show, actually as funny as as heck.
Uh uh he plays this uh slowly losing it uh senior partner at a law firm, his name's Denny Crane.
The episode opens with two new lawyers instead in Boston, two new lawyers in the New York office arriving in the Boston office.
And uh Crane's out there and he's smoking a cigar in the uh in the lobby, and one of the new lawyers is uptight chick, who comes in and starts calling him uh chubby and uh uh icky and so forth, and then finally discovers he's smoking the cigar and says, Ooh, he's smoking a cigar, and Shatner looks at her with the cigar right just inches from her face.
Bill Clinton gave me this cigar.
You never know where this has been.
She goes, ick ick, ick.
You know, you just don't see this.
Primetime television shows.
Anyway, I have a note here, ladies and gentlemen.
Tony Snow, uh, earlier today in a press briefing, not televised, I don't think it was televised, briefing the press.
Tony Snow said last night, let me uh let me take on last night's meeting in several ways.
First, contrary to some of the early reports, there were handshakes in advance.
You had the two presidents in the Roosevelt room together before going into the Oval.
This is uh Musharif and Karzai.
Warm handshakes extended all around, some preliminary chatting and joking before they went out to the Rose Garden and they uh went off to dinner.
So there were handshakes last night.
As I say, it's it's it's it's what a what a thing to make a big point of.
Especially as Wolf Blitzer did.
I thought that like Bill Clinton engineered a handshake between Rabine and Arafat.
Yeah, and a lot of good it did, Wolfster.
I mean, I'll repeat it.
Monica.
Monica Lewinsky went well beyond shaking Clinton's hand.
And he still screwed her over.
So the, you know, the symbolism stuff is uh particularly when it when it comes to diplomacy, uh, is is hardly relevant.
Now, I have to comment on before I forget this.
The poor situation or the situation involving poor Janine Pierrot, the former Westchester County District Attorney, she's running for uh uh attorney general, state of New York.
Her opponent is Andrew Kumo.
She actually wanted to be governor.
She has a husband problem.
Uh husband has been convicted of uh uh tax fraud, spent time in the big house, even though it was a sort of a playground big house in Florida.
He fathered a love child some twenty years ago.
Uh I just I have a lot of respect for Janine Pierrot, and she's smart as she can be, and she's very tough.
Uh but this guy apparently has uh recently been sleeping around on her again, she thinks, and she wanted to get evidence of it.
It's guys like this.
Janine Pierrell's husband is why we have women like Gloria Allred.
So she wanted to, uh they're calling a case a love bug case because she wanted she wanted to plant a listening device on their boat to gather evidence that uh that he was philandering.
And she talked to Bernard Carrick about it uh when he was a New York police department, whatever he was doing, uh, and he said, I'm not doing this.
They they got Giuliani's office involved and wanted she wanted somebody to go plant the bug.
And it never happened.
Now the Justice Department, well, the the the U.S. attorney's office uh in New York City is is she's the target of a federal investigation, even though the bugging never happened.
Um it's hard to understand.
Had the bugging happened, it would have been still been legal.
Do you know that you can plant a bug in your house?
I mean, you could people do this all the time.
You know, you could people that have security cameras in their house is no different than planting a listening device.
If you have a camera with a microphone on it, you're already doing it, ostensibly you're doing it to make sure somebody doesn't steal from you or you're monitoring the kids or what have you, but you can do it to monitor a spouse.
The problem would have been had she succeeded in getting the bug planted on the boat, and then had her husband brought this uh sweet little honey on board the boat and recorded their conversation, that would have been a problem because uh you bring a third party into this, and and that's where the third party has an action.
You can't do this with but it never happened.
And yet she's the she's the target.
She admitted all this yesterday in a uh in a press conference.
And it's just I just I I with all of the leaks of sensitive government material out there, why in the world this is a federal case is mystifying to me.
Uh there were two Democrats that voted for the detainee bill, both of them running for election, Harold Ford and Sherrod Brown in the uh Senate.
Interesting, isn't it?
▲
Export Selection