All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
September 28, 2006, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah, yeah, I know.
I'm just looking at the soundbite, Russ.
Something is not making sense.
Oh, there it is.
Okay.
Hi, greetings, ladies and gentlemen.
Nice to have you back with us.
Great to be back with you, Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man with talent on loan from a god.
And telephone numbers 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
I don't really need to delve into the details of this story.
The headline says it all.
New hope for Democrats in bid for Senate.
New hope?
New hope?
Wait a minute.
I thought it was a sure thing.
It was a sure thing, wasn't it?
Some weeks ago was a sure thing.
They're going to win 70 seats in the Senate.
They're going to win 400 seats in the House.
Now there's new hope.
What is this?
New hope?
I think the purpose here is try to buck up the Democrats and to influence news coverage.
And it has to be oriented around the national intelligence estimate.
George Allen's problems are highlighted in the story.
Gas prices falling and so forth.
And of course, that leads to a discussion of is there a conspiracy to lower gas prices to affect the outcome of the election.
But the bottom line, the way I read this, we've gone from a sure thing to new hope.
You want to hear Bill Schneider on CNN talking about the gas prices?
This is rich.
Oh, guess what?
Snerdler and I were just watching CNBC.
Why do you watch CNBC anyway?
Well, you're just flipping around in there.
Of all the things you can, why CNBC?
Do you swallow fuddle stock prices or something in there?
Well, we're watching it, and got the sound down low because I can't talk to him if the sound is up.
But he can hear it.
I can't.
It's just sort of rumble in the background.
And Infobabe is introducing a guest to talk about the scandal at Hewlett-Packard.
You know, the CEO spying on board members out there to try to figure out who was leaking to the media.
And these poor people have to testify before Congress.
Why should they have to testify before Congress?
I can understand if, you know, if some law enforcement agency wants to pursue these people, why do they have to go testify before Congress?
Well, anyway, they have to.
And lo and behold, who did they go get as a guest to talk about this but our buddy Jeffrey Sonnenfeld.
Jeffrey Sonnenfeld is a senior associate dean of management at Yale.
He's the guy featured in our first story today who's just concluded research conducted in the last four days that indicates it's perfectly good to lose your temper in public, to have a little road rage out there, especially in politics or business or at home.
We live in such a controlled atmosphere these days.
Everybody's wound up so tight.
It's good to just let it all go and share your emotions.
Much like after Clinton was lying through his teeth in Lewinsky and everything else, we got stories from the AP for months on how healthy lying is.
Now we're hearing how healthy it is to blow your stack.
And it's actually a good thing.
And this guy is CNBC analyzing whatever's going on with H ⁇ P. At any rate, we have an astounding report from Bill Schneider at CNN.
CNN's latest poll shows that here, just listen to it.
I don't even want to poison your mind with it beforehand.
Just listen.
Gas prices have been going down.
Does that mean Republican prospects are looking up?
The drop in gasoline prices seems perfectly timed for the midterm election.
Democrats insist the issue will still work for them.
Do people believe the economy is doing better?
Actually, they do.
In early September, 44% said the country's economy was in good shape.
Now, 59% feel that way.
Hang on.
Some people believe the fix is in, that President Bush deliberately manipulated gas prices to help Republicans.
Energy experts poo-poo the idea.
The bigger question is this: if Americans are feeling better about the economy, why aren't Republicans doing better in the polls?
The reason why gas prices in the economy are not having a bigger political impact?
One word, Iraq.
So they've gone out and they've tried to.
The bottom line here is that gas prices have dropped because Bush fixed the prices, and the economy's good, but the economy no longer matters as an election issue.
CNN's polling data proves it.
So Democrats can do a big sigh of relief.
Yep, the economy is doing great.
Economic growth doing great.
Gas prices are coming in.
By the way, gas prices are at $1.77 in Southeast Missouri today, just eight miles from the town I grew up in.
I grew up in Cape Girard.
No, I got a website that tracks this stuff.
And I've got $1.77 in two different gas stations in Jackson, Missouri, which is eight miles away from where I grew up in Cape Girardo.
$1.77.
But of course, it doesn't matter.
CNN and Bill Schneider did a poll.
And the economy is not an election issue anymore.
Isn't that amazing?
It has nothing to do with your vote at all.
All right, Terrell Owens spoke yesterday.
I've been reading about this.
I have been reading about people's analysis of what happened here.
A lot of contradictory things out there.
Police report, somebody lie in the police report.
The cops lie in the report.
Did T.O.'s friend and publicist Kim Etheridge lie in her press conference?
Is TO not telling the truth?
And people are lining up at all the camps.
Some, what would you go, suck-up reporters saying, I believe T.O. Others are saying, got to get him help, got to get him counseling.
Others are doing expert analyses with psychiatrists and psychiatrists who have not treated T.O. You can even find, if you look in the right places, people going out and talking to doctors and what is hydrocodone?
What is this generic Vicodin?
And I have experience with that stuff.
And to be quite honest with you, folks, I'm frankly amazed at how much ignorance there is about this stuff.
Actually, I'm not.
I know what media is, and I know how surface they are, and I know how really uncurious they are.
But the way he was reportedly taking hydrocodone, which is all the same stuff.
Something said hydrocodone just a little bit less than oxycon.
It's all the same stuff.
Oxycontin, hydrocodone, they're all equally addictive.
In terms of the drug, it's quantity that determine, you know, like there are people, there are people who can take 35 pills and not have anything happen.
There are people who've been taking this stuff for 15 years and need that.
You develop a tolerance and resistance.
It's one of the rotten things about these.
There are people that can take 40 and 50 of these things a day.
If their pain is that severe and they've been on them for years, you need that much.
And somebody could...
But now, Owens had been out long enough, 35.
35 of these things in somebody who has not had a history of taking the, yeah, that would be devastating.
There's so much of this that's relative that is not being explained not just about that, but about all aspects of this.
Something happened in there that caused 911 to be called.
And when 911 got there, you have to understand 911, the rescue people, when they show up and somebody tells them there's an empty bottle of pills over there, and we got a guy who's a little delirious.
And by the way, here's another thing.
I'm going to tell you about the effect of these two, genuinely two pathways that are created with an opiate, which is what a pain pill is.
It's codeine or it's all opiates.
It's really, it's all in the heroin family.
It's just this different, some of it's synthetic.
The hydrocodone is synthetic.
It's made in the laboratory.
Oxycodone, hydrocodone.
It's all the same stuff in terms of its effect, what it does, its addictive qualities and all that.
If you have ever taken these and they zone you out and make you dizzy and you just put you to sleep, you probably will never, ever be addicted to these things.
But some people take them and it's like taking amphetamines, like taking speed.
It gives you energy.
It gives you euphoria.
It gives you all there's those are the two different impacts.
We don't know what the impact on Terrell Owens is.
I just, like I said yesterday, I find it hard to believe that after suffering a broken leg in Philadelphia, that this is the first time he's taken the things.
So I'm not saying anything other than this when I say that, though.
The idea that you'd have an adverse allergic reaction to it when it's not the first time you've taken the stuff doesn't compute with me, even with these supplements.
But I don't know what the supplements are.
But if he's, anyway, if fire rescue shows up, they see an empty bottle of pills, and the woman who called them is there.
And somebody's, I mean, the police report says somebody, I guess it was hers, trying to take two pills out of his mouth even after they got there.
They don't have time to judge whether or not they're being lied to or not.
They're going to ask questions.
Did you try to hurt yourself?
Yes.
Did you take everything in a bottle?
Yeah.
That's all they're going to hear.
And bam, off to the hospital you go.
They're not going to sit there and have a debate and get into a little social encounter group.
Are you sure?
They're not judgmental.
These are lifesavers.
They head out.
They see evidence of a problem.
They got a 911 call.
Bam.
So the day afterwards, none of that happened.
No, I just stashed some of them away in a drawer for a rainy day or what have you.
The delirious, didn't know what I was saying.
And so, well, the fire and rescue people don't have time to weed through that.
They ask questions, and if they get the answers that they need to hear to take action, they do.
And that's what happens.
So anyway, I don't need to play this T.O. soundbite stuff.
But regardless, I just, I've been reading all this, and I've been listening to all these various analyses of this.
And this is just another example of how the fact givers, the information providers, those in the drive-by media who dig deep and find out what's going on, what the facts are, what this does, haven't the slightest clue.
And in this case, it just is further evidence that in anything else they do, there are a lot of incompletions, a lot of holes, and a lot of testimony from so-called experts that ain't right.
And it's not just in this story.
It's in a bunch of stuff.
As we already know, quick timeout.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
And we are back serving humanity simply by showing up El Rushball, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
Mark in York, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Mega Didn't Rush.
I wanted to make a quick point watching the news last night and watching about Tokyo Rose dying, and it made me think they were saying that she was convicted for treason just for telling our troops they shouldn't be there, they should go home.
And it made me think that we'd get rid of 95% of our Democratic Party for treason.
Well, you know, it's a wonderful thought, and it's something we could have dreams about.
But in terms of reality, it isn't going to happen.
You know, there is some activity out there that is inarguably treason.
Whoever's leaking all this stuff, there are people that are doing their best to defeat the country's policy at war.
Was Tokyo Rose's conviction overturned?
Really?
That's right.
She was pardoned by who?
Gerald Ford pardoned Tokyo Rose.
Was she still alive when she was pardoned?
So it wasn't a posthumous pardon.
I had forgotten it.
She just died this week.
Tokyo Rose assumed room temperature this week.
Well, here's the thing about this.
You know, you can talk about whether the Democrats engage in treason or acting like Tokyo Rose.
When Snerdley and I were in his office here at the top of the hour break, before he flipped over to CNBC, he was watching C-SPAN.
This guy has a life.
And Ted Kennedy was there debating the torture bill, the detainee bill, the military tribunal bill, whatever you want to call it.
And Ted Kennedy had this chart.
I mean, they're not giving up.
They're still arguing the vote on this.
It's 4 o'clock this afternoon.
And he's not shouting anything.
I think he knows he's going to lose, but he's got his little blue chart up there on the easel.
And he's talking about all the things that in his amendment with Diane Feinstein would not be permitted.
And there's about five or six things on the list.
Waterboarding is one of them and so forth.
And he ended up saying, by saying, we need to do this, Mr. President, to send a message to the world that we are going to protect our troops.
And in the process of protecting our troops, we are going to see to it.
We protect our troops by making sure that we do not engage in these kinds of activities against our enemy combatants and those in our prisons.
And I'm sitting there in my, I just looked at Snerdley and I said, does this buffoon, does this ignorant not realize that it's already happening?
They're already doing far worse than what Senator Kennedy wants to delete from this bill.
They already behead, they torture, they slowly slit throats.
There is nothing humane about what they do.
They mutilate bodies as a way of killing people while people are alive.
Then they set them afire.
They already do it, even with all of this torturous debate that we've had for two years since Abu Ghraib hit.
If the terrorists don't get the message that we're a bunch of softies and nice guys, after two years of listening to the Democrats, nothing will get them.
But what in the world are they thinking?
Under what tree did the apple fall that they don't understand who it is we're dealing with?
His little chart was entitled Protecting American Troops.
The way troops protect themselves is to kill the bad guys, Senator.
We don't wait for him to get captured and then hope against hope because of the way we treat our prisoners that they will in kind.
Where are these people coming from?
They are not stupid.
Well, they are stupid.
They have to be.
There's no explanation.
They're liberals.
That's it.
They're just liberals.
And they have an arrogance and a condescension about them that makes them believe that they have this power with the very essence of their souls and their countenance to make other people nice and good people.
And it's just the world is filled with evil.
And there hasn't been a liberal yet who's been able to repair it.
Liberalism does not cure evil.
Liberalism, in fact, gives it comfort now and then.
Liberalism promotes it.
We have an existing enemy.
They are, without question, they are unarguably evil.
Liberals refuse to see it.
They refuse to admit it.
And when they do acknowledge it might be the case, it's Bush's fault.
And they think the way around it is to get Bush out of there.
And we get Bush out of it because Bush is making them rabid.
So they figure if Bush is doing this to us, he's doing it to everybody.
Europe hates us.
The terrorists hate us.
We hate Bush, so it must be Bush.
So get Bush out of there, put us in there, and it all will be sweetness and light.
It's exemplified by this literally idiotic story I shared with you mere moments ago from the San Francisco Chronicle.
They went out and got some experts.
And the experts agree.
I'm still stunned by this.
The experts say that even if we leave, it won't necessarily mean the jihadists will stop.
Really?
In other words, they think there might be a way of winning the war if we leave.
Then the experts say we're kind of screwed because we got problems if we stay, and we got problems if we leave.
And we can't leave because that's not going to stop the jihadists.
As though this is some new revelation that nobody's ever thought of before.
This is dangerous stuff for these people.
All right, back to the phones.
People have been patiently waiting here.
We'll go to San Mateo, California.
This is Chris.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the broadcast.
Thanks, Rush.
To say 4,000 foreign fighters have been killed in Iraq to me begs the question of how many homegrown terrorists have been killed there.
And I also think the admissions vindicates the flypaper concept, which was a primary facet of why we went there in the first place.
No question about that.
That's a good question, too, about how many homegrown.
You know the real question to me, how many homegrown are there?
We know that the Saddam Baathist party had some remnants.
But my guess is that most of this is import.
Most of this is from Egypt.
Most of this is a lot of Saudi Arabia.
We know some probably from Iran.
4,000 of them dead.
And these guys are announcing it.
And by the way, this comes on the heels of the letter that was released, intercepted it a while ago, that the new al-Qaeda leader in Iraq is sending messages back to Zarkawi and bin Laden in their cave that they're in trouble.
And now here comes this guy announcing 4,000 foreign fighters dead.
And it's probably understated anyways.
I'm sure it's understated, but I don't know.
This is my, your question is really good because I think most of them are foreign.
Your fly paper example is exactly right.
This has attracted a bunch of them there from other countries.
How many of them are native Iraqis?
And of course, see, that's the problem with the word insurgency.
And the media has been using the insurgency term since it began because it connotes an uprising among Iraqis against our presence.
And that probably is not nearly the case as these death statistics indicate.
But maybe these guys wouldn't know how many homegrown terrorists are dead because they're maybe different factions, different groups.
But it still is an interesting number.
It's an interesting question.
Is that it?
Oh, no.
The other day you played Greg Kinn's Jeopardy, and you asked, you wondered where he was.
He's a local modern classic rock talk show host or a radio host out here.
And from what he says on the air, I think he's a conservative.
Yeah, right.
Well, I love that one song of his, Jeopardy.
We play that as a bump now and then.
And I just, I never, I don't know what happens to these aging rockers if they don't get hepatitis.
What happens to them?
And it's great to hear that.
I got some emails saying he was doing radio out there, but he didn't say he was a talk show host.
I thought he was a DJ.
It doesn't matter.
But he's conservative.
Not surprised.
It's a way to succeed in radio.
Chris, thanks for the call.
I appreciate it.
To Atlanta.
And Scott, yes, sir.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Rush, it's an honor and a pleasure to be on your show.
I've been listening to you for about 10 years, and it's the first time I've ever been able to get through.
I'm glad you made it.
Thank you.
The reason I'm calling is I'm just, I'd like to challenge the conservative base to not accept the term Iraq war.
I think it's a negative term for our benefit.
I think that the term Iraq war means that that's the only war we're fighting.
And I would argue that it's not a war.
It's a battle no different than Midway, although it may be taking longer.
Normandy or Ewo Jim or any other battle.
This is a battle in a major frontal war.
And I think it bolsters the point you've been making on your show today when this battle ends.
This has long been a problem, one of semantics.
The liberals have tried to divide them.
The liberals are responsible.
The Iraq war is totally unrelated to Afghanistan.
There were no terrorists in Iraq.
There was no reason to do this.
Al-Qaeda was everywhere in the world, but Iraq.
Bush went to Iraq anyway because he's an idiot, and he had some personal grievance that he wanted to wipe or get Halliburton in their oil or what have you.
But it's, look, it's in the lexicon.
It's all war on terror.
And there was some polling data the other day with the share.
I forget what the polling company was, but a good percentage, a little over 50% of the American people don't separate the two.
You know, when a pollster goes out there and does this on purpose, makes your point.
They go out and ask questions about the war on terror and then the war in Iraq and all these other things as though they're two separate issues.
And this latest poll did the same thing in their questions, but the results came back and indicated that people think of them as the same thing, at least a majority of the people in this poll.
And I wish I could remember what it was, but I don't.
Here is an Associated Press story.
Are you aware of a group called the Fighting Democrats, the Fighting Dems?
You are, Mr. Sternley, okay?
Let me see you pass the test.
Who or what are the fighting Dems?
He's exactly right.
Exactly right.
A bunch, that's actually a bunch of Democrats, war veterans, who decided they were going to run for Congress this year.
The old put a Democrat in a war uniform and they rise to the, like John Kerry.
The fighting Dems, turns out, according to the Associated Press, are not a collective powerhouse after all.
For months, the Democratic Party has trumpeted the congressional candidacies of several dozen Democrats who served in the military six weeks before the midterm elections.
Only a few have a fighting chance to win.
Most of them got picked off in the primaries or dropped out or trailed their Republican opponents in fundraising.
Many of the fighting Democrats are little-known political novices who don't have the financial backing of the party's campaign committees, which buys ads to benefit those they think can win.
And yet it was those committees that went out and recruited these guys.
It's Carl McCall all over again.
It's Maynard Jackson all over again.
It's Kwa Easy Mfume all over again.
Go out and recruit these guys and then don't back them up.
Speaking of Kwaizi Mfume, I had heard the other day that he had endorsed, what's his face, Michael Steele.
And it was not Kwaezi Mfume, it was Kwaezi Mfume's son, one of his progeny, who had endorsed Michael Steele.
The Washington Post today says that Senate candidate Ben Cardin received the critical endorsement yesterday of Democratic primary opponent Kwaizi Imfume, whose blessing came, nevertheless, with a wagging finger and a blunt warning about the lack of diversity among candidates for statewide office in Maryland.
Imfume cautioned that the Democratic Party had much work to do to energize black voters.
The Democratic nominees for the top four jobs, he noted, look no different than the ticket 50 years ago, which was right before the civil rights movement.
Kwaeezzi.
What an indictment.
What a thing to say.
The Democratic Party doesn't look any different today than it did 50 years ago.
Kwa Easy, can I ask a simple question?
You say here that the party has a lot of work to do to energize black voters.
Now, those of us who have been watching elections all of our lives don't think you're right.
It doesn't seem to require any energizing to get blacks to vote for Democrats.
Now, maybe it takes some energizing to get them to turn out to vote.
But what in the world are you complaining about, Kwaeezi?
88, 92% every presidential race, the black vote goes to the Democrats.
Just got sour grapes here because he didn't win the primary against Cardin.
Imfume.
The challenge of the opportunity is to build a bridge.
Wait a minute.
Who is this Steele talking or is this Imfume?
Yeah, this is Steele.
Michael Steele says, the challenge of the opportunity is to build a bridge to communities the Democrat Party has taken for granted.
And has my choice of nominee decided to tell to wait, he said during an afternoon event in Largo.
I'm here to say you don't have to wait any longer.
You can join power by joining me.
He's right about that.
For all the talk of diversity and all the complaints of Democrats that blacks aren't getting ahead, it's the Democratic Party itself that holds them down.
And it's Democrat voters that do it in primaries and so forth.
And yet, it's the Republicans who are racist, sexist bigots.
Here's George in Austin, Texas.
Hey, George, welcome to the EIB Network.
Hey, Rush, it is great to talk to you.
I've been talking to you since the mid-80s.
I listened on KSDO right after Roger Hedgecock's show.
Thank you, sir.
I hope to engage you in a dialogue Oriented towards solution about Islamofascists.
It seems to me there are two probable success lines that we could pursue.
One of them is impractical and we don't want to pursue it, and the other one seems too namby-tamby.
If we take an overwhelming military approach, we say if there's any more terrorist activity, we're going to start taking out your religious sites with tomahawk missiles.
If you continue, we take out the next one, the next one, the next one, until finally we send one down the chimney at the Kaaba in the middle of the Grand Mosque.
That's not a good solution.
The other one is to solicit support from.
Why not?
Why not?
Because you're not going to solicit a lot of support from the rest of the.
I mean, if it wins, I guess it's worth the alienation that we would suffer.
Who is the enemy?
The enemy is Islamo-fascist.
All right.
It is not Islam, is it?
No, no, no.
Here's.
You said you wanted to have a dialogue, and I'm dialoguing with you.
Yeah.
Good.
Because I know what you're going to ask me.
I know where this is going, because I'm host.
You're going to ask me what I think we should do.
Well, that's not going to be a good idea.
So I'm trying to combine all of this into one discussion.
You just suggested sending a bunch of tomahawks into mosques, down chimneys, or whatever, where these people are.
That's not a good plan.
No.
Okay.
The other thing that we can do is...
In World War II, it's how we would have done it.
I'm sorry.
In World War II, it's how we would have done it.
Well, you're dang right.
We would have.
Well, in the old days when we used to win wars, that's what we did.
We went out and killed the enemy and broke their stuff.
I understand.
And we weren't worried about...
Now, wait a minute.
We weren't...
We weren't worried about whether or not it was going to make them mad like we are now.
If we did the argument.
And this is today.
Do you think that is a practical solution for today?
Hell yes.
You think if you're in a war and if the objective is to win it, yes, but we're worried about angering these people as though they're, you know, totally in a war war.
We're angering whoever's left after we get done with the tomahawk approach.
You see what I'm saying?
We're going to alienate ourselves and the rest of the political global community.
We already are.
But what does that matter?
What does that matter when we're talking about our national security?
What does it matter when we're talking about stopping these attacks on us and every other innocent person around the world?
What does it matter what people think and who we anger?
They're already mad at us.
That's what it matters.
If it is possible to do this by soliciting the support of the moderate Islams to impose their majority will over these minority radicals, then that's probably the best way to go, isn't it?
Wait, George, you've been paying attention lately.
The Germans just cancel an opera.
They just cancel an opera out of fear it would make the Muslims.
The Muslims aren't even mad yet.
Well, except that they are, but they so we had preemptive capitulation.
We gave up before we even did what we thought would make them mad.
And we were just the Germans just trying to put on a little opera.
So if you think that it's a minority of militant Islamists who can be talked to by the moderate Muslims out there, they're scared to death too.
Where are the moderate Muslims who are out there demonstrating in the public that these radical minority has subverted Iran and their religion?
I am told that they are there, but that they are scared too.
These people have everybody intimidated.
They're too scared to turn in the people who are subverting their religion.
I tell you, maybe you're right.
Maybe if we said, maybe we adopted a policy of we're going to start taking out these madrasas who are fomenting hatred against us, and we're going to take out mosques where we know that these radical Islamist fascists are operating, and we're going to destroy one after another until we get some quote-unquote here.
Look at all it takes is for the Pope to quote a centuries-dead emperor, and they destroyed a bunch of churches and synagogues.
It took less than that.
It took a silly picture of Muhammad with a bomb on his turban.
Stop interrupting me.
Sorry.
My point is this.
Why is it okay for they to blow up our churches?
Why is it okay for them to blow up synagogues?
Why is it okay for them to riot in the streets over cartoons?
And we have to cancel operas, and we cannot bomb their mosques, and we can't kill them where they are because it's going to make them mad, and it'll make us look bad.
Rules of engagement.
Who sets those?
That's the deal.
We need to protect you.
The rules of engagement are set by the doctrine of political correctness.
And they have been since the Vietnam War.
This is making me mad.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with me.
It's bad news for the radical Shiite cleric, Muktada Muki al-Sadr.
It is being reported by the New York Times that Muki has lost control of portions of his militia.
They are splittering off into freelance death squads and criminal gangs.
The question of how tightly Muki holds his militia, which is one of the largest armed groups in Iraq, is of critical importance to American and Iraqi officials.
But as Muki has taken a more active role in the government over there, as many as a third of his militiamen have grown frustrated with the constraints of compromise and have broken off, often selling their services to the higher bidders, said the official who spoke to reporters in Baghdad on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak publicly about this.
So let's see.
We got 4,000 dead foreign fighters as announced by al-Qaeda in Iraq today.
We have Mookie's thugs refusing to answer to him.
The news coming out there doesn't sound good for these guys.
The way I read it, of course, you know, who am I?
Michael in Highland, Illinois.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hi.
Hey, Rush, great to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
The guy from Texas, he's out of his mind about, you know, talking about alienating people after we bomb them.
We dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, and they're one of our best allies.
I know.
I know.
I mean, hey, the recipe is there.
Wars have been won traditionally.
I mean, there's a war college, and we have West Point Annapolis and the Air Force Academy.
They teach guys how to win wars over there.
And it really hasn't changed.
You win war by conquering territory, driving them off the territory, killing people, and breaking things.
Exactly, I don't know what he was talking about.
I mean, I was in the military for years, and you don't go in there to product of the political correctness.
We can't do what we've normally done in the past to win wars.
By the way, we dropped two nukes on Japan.
That's true.
As you know, two atomic bombs.
Now we're dropping leaflets on the Hizbos.
It takes a lot of rest.
Hey, by the way, my name is Maurice, not Michael.
What's that?
The name is Maurice, not Michael.
Oh.
Hey, it was great talking to you.
Thank you, Maurice.
It's great to have you on the program.
It's not my fault.
Screener's screwed up.
Get it right from now.
I'm tired of being humiliated.
I'm not going to sit here and cover for the mistakes of subordinates who can't get it right anymore.
I'm just blowing off steam, according to Sonnenfeld of Yale, who says that doing what Bill Clinton did is healthy and helpful.
It clears the air.
It reduces blood pressure.
It's good to have this kind of rage in business and in politics.
Research conducted, by the way, establishing this in just four days after Bill Clinton's appearance on Fox News Sunday.
Just checking the email, ladies and gentlemen.
Dear Rush, stop being mean and getting mad at people.
Contrary to the AP story, it isn't cool.
Signed, Jonathan.
Jonathan, cram it, pal.
▲
Export Selection