All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 1, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:46
November 1, 2006, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
It is the award winning Rush Limbaugh program, the most listened to radio talk show in America.
Into our nineteenth year of broadcast service.
I am your host, uh highly trained broadcast specialist Rush Limbaugh, America's real anchor man, America's truth detector, America's Doctor of Democracy, all combined and one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
All right, we're going to replay the uh interview uh that uh we aired earlier in the first hour today that I recorded with President Bush this morning.
Uh some people say, No, no, no, don't do it today.
You need to wait till tomorrow.
I can't wait till tomorrow, folks.
The uh the momentum and the and the inertia uh indicates do it today.
News is going to change between uh today and tomorrow, and if it warrants uh news warrants, we'll play it again.
Uh there's no restriction uh on on the number of times that we uh we can play it.
One quick note.
Uh drive by media starting now to take a look at the intelligence factor of the um uh military.
Uh Department of Defense has announced that the education levels of men and women in the military is greater uh than the public at large.
Troops are more educated than the public at large.
The Heritage Foundation did a huge study on this, and I'll send the link to that up to uh Cocos so that we can put it on the website for you.
Ninety-nine percent of the um enlisted personnel have a high school diploma.
In the officer corps, ninety-seven and a half percent have college degrees.
Uh further slamming the intent and the theories and the thoughts of one John Kerry.
All right, here's the first part of the interview uh earlier today with President Bush.
He was in Washington at the White House.
Mr. President.
Hey Rush, how are you?
I'm never better.
It's uh thrilled to have you on the program today, and and many times many thanks for making time for us.
Thank you, sir, for giving me a chance to visit with you.
How are you doing?
I'm doing great.
I really am.
I'm uh you know, uh, when you've been doing this as long as I have, uh you you you you you get to you feed off the crowds and feed off the enthusiasm and uh you like a contest, and we're in it, we're in a really important contest.
And so I'm doing fine.
It's it's kind of like uh it's uh it's it's good it's a it's a reminder of how I got here in the first place, and that is go campaign hard and tell people what's on your mind.
That's what I'm doing.
Well, you uh you have maintained optimism uh throughout uh many people uh I guess in the opposition press, the opposition party are incredulous that you are optimistic about the uh outcome next Tuesday.
Why is that?
Why are you optimal?
What do you know that they don't?
Well, I I first of all I uh I fully understand uh that here in Washington people are uh trying to proclaim the election over with.
But I've had that experience before.
That's what happened in 2004, and it's what happened in 2002.
And so one reason I'm optimistic is that I trust the will of the people and not the national punditry.
Uh secondly, I I know that we're right on the issues, and the issues two main issues are low taxes and winning the war on terror and protecting the American people.
And so I I believe if our candidates continue to talk about the strong economy based upon low taxes, and an administration in the Congress that was willing to give professionals the tools necessary to protect them, we'll win this election.
When you go out on the campaign trail or um when you're in your private moments, do you think of the consequences of governing uh with a Democrat majority in either the House or the Senate when it comes to things like tax cuts uh and the war on terror.
No, I really don't.
Uh think about the idea of having a Democrat-led house in the Senate, because I don't think it's gonna happen.
Uh I I do believe, though, that there is a big difference of opinion in the two uh between the two parties.
Well, every tax cut we passed, which has helped this economy grow, was opposed by the Democrat leadership.
The people that would assume power are the very ones who oppose giving letting people keep more of their own money.
And then when it came time to fight in this war on terror, we had votes on whether or not uh we should be able to listen to Al Qaeda or an al-Qaeda affiliate making a phone call in the United States and the overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against that bill.
Or when it came time to question detainees that we picked up on the battlefield, the overwhelming majority of House and Senate Democrats voted against that bill.
So there's just a different mindset rush.
There's a different attitude about how to protect the American people.
My attitude is give the tools the professionals the tools and to stay on the offense and fight the enemy wherever we find them and defeat them overseas so we don't have to face them here.
Well yeah but you've got as you just said you've got a you've you've got a sizable uh majority of people not a majority but sizable number of Democrats who are trying to stop you from even finding these people.
Let me go through a list of things.
The New York Times uh some other national newspapers have published classified secrets of the United States during wartime everything from blowing up the uh financial tracking program that you had to trying to destroy the Patriot Act to trying to destroy your foreign surveillance act.
The leakers haven't been identified they haven't been punished.
The American people are outraged about this Mr. President because this they consider this they remember nine eleven and and they know that this is uh uh not just a mere episodic event in their lives and they want to know when these people media and leakers are going to be held accountable for this action that to them is an attempt to sabotage and undermine victory over this enemy.
Yeah well I I share the concerns of the uh of of the people who wonder why there are leaks which tell the enemy how we're conducting the war against them.
I obviously as the commander in chief uh rush I am deeply concerned about our secrets being made known and there's a Justice Department task force or Justice Department group that are in the process of gathering the information necessary to find whether or not they can find the leakers.
But you you talk about the fact that some people don't want to give us the tools necessary to fight the war all that means is we got to win on November seventh.
Now I recognize some people don't think we're in a war.
I I know we're in a war and I know there's an enemy that still wants to strike us.
Matter of fact I spend a lot of time thinking about how best to protect the American people and the idea that you know some in Congress don't agree with me I accept but they should not deny the tools necessary to this government to do our most important job.
And that's the fundamental issue in this campaign.
And so when I say that to the US why I'm optimistic because when I spell it out to the people I'm in front of they fully understand.
People come up to me all the time and say, thank you for protecting us.
And my answer in this campaign is, I'm going to continue to protect you, but I need a Congress that understands the stakes.
You riled the press court at one of your press conferences at the White House when you intimated that their work in Iraq has sometimes advanced the cause of the enemy.
There's a recent example of this.
CNN recently aired video that they got from terrorists.
They reached out to these terrorists, and according to accounts, the way they got the tape from terrorists was to promise the terrorists a fair show.
shake.
This video showed terrorists taking pot shots, assassinating U.S. soldiers in cold blood what do what are your thoughts as the commander in chief when you s when you see this and when you hear about this are that we face an enemy that will kill innocent people they murder to achieve their objectives and they use propaganda in order to do two things one uh proclaim their might and secondly to discourage us and
uh I am you know obviously the idea of their propaganda being uh displayed uh is is something that I bothers me in the sense that I don't want the American people to become discouraged.
One I want them to understand the stakes in this war and two that we're going to win this war and not to be discouraged about the violence and the propaganda they see.
Now listen there's obviously some of the violence is not propaganda but these uh tapes that they put out are all aimed at shaking our confidence.
Osama bin Laden himself has said that it's just a matter of time before the United States loses its will and retreats.
Let me let me give me a second here Rush because I want to share something with you.
All right.
I am deeply Concerned about a country, the United States leaving the Middle East.
I'm worried that rival forms of extremists will battle for power, obviously creating incredible damage as they do so, that they will topple moderate governments, that they will be in a position to use oil as a as a tool to blackmail the West.
People say, What do you mean by that?
I say if they control all resources, they say they pull uh oil off the market in order to run the price up, uh, and they will will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies.
And you couple that with uh with a country that doesn't like us with a nuclear weapon, and people will look back at this moment and say, What happened to those people in two thousand six?
And those are the stakes in this war we face.
On the one hand, we've got uh a plan to make sure we protect you from immediate attack, and on the other hand, we've got a long-term strategy to deal with these threats.
And part of that strategy is to stay on the offense.
Part of the strategy is to help young democracies like Lebanon and uh Iraq uh be able to survive against the terrorists and the extremists who are trying to crush their hopes, and part of the democracy is the for a freedom movement, which will help create the conditions so that the extremists become marginalized and unable to recruit.
Well, that is extremely visionary, and I one of the things, if I may make this personal, one of the many things I've admired about you is that you see down the road twenty or thirty years.
You just illustrated that uh with your comment, what if uh down the road twenty years we look back to this time and uh and and twenty twenty hindsight realized we blew it.
You're not uh as far as sounds to me, you're not going to let that happen.
You're gonna do whatever it takes to secure victory.
I am, and I fully understand the nature of this enemy.
One, they're great propagandists.
Two, they uh they they truly believe they can cause us to retreat by inflicting enough damage.
Uh three, they are lethal, but I also understand they have no vision, they have no ideology.
They c they uh I mean they have an ideology, they just can't convince people that their ideology makes sense, and I also understand that we're inflicting damage on them, that we're on the hunt, that we're bringing them to justice, that if you're al Qaeda, you know the United States of America is breathing down your neck, and we will continue to do so so long as I'm the president.
And Iraq is a tough fight.
The interesting debate on Iraq here, Rush, is that some say Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror.
My answer to them is listen to Osama bin Laden who says our objective is to defeat America, which will disgrace America, which will embolden the uh terrorists, which will then enable them being al Qaeda and extremists to have safe haven just like they had in Afghanistan, and we're not gonna let them do it.
No matter how tough it gets, the United States of America must remain firm and resolved to protect a generation of young Americans, and that's precisely what I'm gonna do as your president, and that's precisely what I'm telling the people on the campaign trail.
Mr. President, we hear a lot of uh things from troops in Iraq, uh both uh troops that are there and troops who have returned uh to a man and woman, they are shocked, they say, when they get back here, turn on the news and look at the reporting of how things are going.
They think there are tremendous successes that have taken place in Iraq, not just governmentally over there, but military successes that uh that aren't being reported.
And it uh it frustrates them, and I think that's uh they're they're a large voting block.
They and their families as they come back and watch, I think they're gonna be active in this election as well.
Let me say something uh about our troops, Rush.
I am I guess amazed is the proper word at how courageous our troops are.
And I am uh amazed at the fact that they are uh so capable, and that they volunteer in the midst of this war to defend us.
And these troops deserve all the support of the United States of America.
And they understand as well as anybody that we are making progress in Iraq.
And they know when they're when their comrades are out there fighting that they're bringing enemies to justice.
They see that firsthand.
Uh the enemy has got an advantage in that by killing innocent people, it looks like they're winning, because this gets on our TV screens.
We have taken a measured approach to talking about casualties, but I can assure your listeners, our troops are on the offense, and they're after an enemy, And they're when they find the enemy and the enemy confronts, they uh they we win.
They can't beat us on the battlefield.
The only way we can lose this is if we leave.
And uh our troops are the other thing people say, well, you know, it's a long slug, and therefore it's gonna be hard to maintain morale in the military.
One, it is gonna be a tough fight, but I will tell you something.
Our military, the morale in our military is high because these young men and women understand the stakes.
Reenlistment rates are very high, and recruitment rates are strong.
Which all says to me we got an amazing country when we got when we got people who put on the uniform and say, put me in, I want to go fight for this country.
Yeah, and then they turn around and get insulted uh uh routinely.
John Kerry's not the first.
Uh he's just the latest, Mr. President.
We don't really have to focus on him.
You've spoken about Senator Kerry.
He's now trying to uh laugh this off by saying he was talking about you.
Yeah.
Uh but uh clearly uh he has a Vietnam era mindset back when we had a draft that if you didn't have a college deferment, you got drafted, and that's the that's his thinking on who comprises military members that they're basically uneducated rubs.
But it's not just Senator Kerry.
Uh we've had Senator Durbin who has impugned interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah.
Uh through throughout this war effort, the Democrats, uh some Democrats have have have done their best uh to impugn the people who are volunteering, offering their lives and sacrifice to defend this country.
They have questioned their motives, they have questioned their backgrounds and so forth, and frankly, Mr. President, the American people are outraged by this because John Kerry's just the latest.
This is not the first.
Anybody who is uh uh who's in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words, and our troops deserve the full support.
They uh of uh of people in government.
They people here may not agree with my decision, I understand that, but what I don't understand is uh any diminution uh of their sacrifice.
We've got incredible people in our military, and they deserve full praise and full support of this government.
Uh, secondly, what they deserve is a plan for victory.
And we have a plan for victory.
Our victory, as you know, is uh really to help the Iraqis win.
To help the twelve million people help to to help Iraq realize the dreams of twelve million people who voted to help the political process and help the security process and help the economic prox process, and we're doing just that.
It's not easy work because there's an enemy that still tries to derail the process or trying to foment sectarian violence.
On the other hand, it's necessary work.
And my problem with many of the Democrat voices in Washington is they have no plan for victory.
This is an essential part of the war on terror.
And I believe responsible leaders must come up with a plan for victory in order to achieve peace, and yet the only plan I hear is one, let's get out of Iraq before the job is done, which would be a disaster for a future generation of Americans.
All the getting out of Iraq rush, all that would do is embolden an enemy and dash the hopes of millions who count on the United States to help them secure freedom.
And getting out of Iraq would make the country less secure.
One of the interesting things about this war that is different from previous wars, is in previous wars it it's you know, you could leave the battlefield and the enemy would stay close to the battlefield.
In this war, if you leave the battle, the enemy follows us home to America.
And that's one of the lessons of September the eleventh, and that's one of the reasons why we will win in Iraq.
I repeat, the only reason we could lose in Iraq is if we leave.
And therefore, we've got kids sacrificing in Iraq, and when they hear you know, politicians say, get out before the job is done, that's discouraging to them.
And it's discouraging to the Iraqis, and it's encouraging to the enemy.
That's why my voice is so loud in saying to our troops, what you're doing is noble and important, and you're going to win, and history will look back and thank you for your sacrifices.
He's on fire.
We'll be back and continue after this.
You know, speaking of apologies, did you hear what Charlie Rangel called the vice president?
He called him an SOB, except he used the words.
And Congressman Wrangle has come under attack from the Republicans.
Uh as someone who wants to slash funding for troops on the battlefield just a day after he called Vice President Cheney a son of a VIH.
Uh A vote to send a Democrat to Congress is a vote to make the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a man who has suggested cutting off funds for our troops on the battlefield.
Wrangell has said, hey, you gotta be able to pay for the war, don't you?
Talking about what he might be able to do as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
Republicans are simply responding to that.
He also said there's not a tax cut that he has seen that he wants to preserve.
Um Wrangell did not take back his comments yesterday, even elaborate on them.
He said the vice president is a son of a B.I.H. But I shouldn't have said it, even though I just said it again.
I thought he should be flattered.
There's certainly no animosity in it.
Some people just have that as part of their personality.
And of course, yuck, yuck, you've kept funny as hell, but we're no demands for Wrangell to uh apologize, ladies and gentlemen.
The apology parade continues backward part two, the president in a moment.
Thank you and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Uh we're here, the prestigious Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies back to the closing five and a half or six minutes of today's interview with President Bush.
I must ask you about North Korea because I find this uh fascinating.
Sure.
The people uh your critics have been demanding uh bilateral talks, just the United States and North Koreans, and you've been telling them we did that and it didn't work.
Right.
And you have been insisting that we have six party or multilateral talks to deal with the North Korea uh North Korean nuclear problem.
Uh North Korea sets off their so called nuclear test, and now all of a sudden, after you maintaining the six party talks idea as being key to solving the issue, it is North Korea who appears to have blinked, and you have been proven correct in your assessment of how to play with this or play this thing.
Uh it's a stunning development that has been greeted with silence, Mr. President.
It really has you th this you stared them down, the United States started.
Let me not make this personal.
United States stared them down.
You stuck to your guns as you do on everything, and the way you think it uh is best to be handled is going to happen.
I think that uh yes the the news that North Korea wanted to come back to the six party talks is very positive.
Uh I want your listeners to understand this that I made the calculation, having watched what happened during the last uh attempt to have bilateral relations with uh North Korea that that if it didn't work then it's not gonna work now.
And the second part of my calculation was it's better to have more than one voice saying to the North Koreans there's a better way forward than you attempting to have a nuclear weapon.
And some of those voices are the voices of the Chinese, for example, or the Japanese.
And it's and the South Koreans and Russians, obviously, and it's that combination of voice, saying loud and clear to uh Kim Jong-il that there's a better way.
It will make it more likely we can solve this issue peacefully and diplomatically.
And now the task is to and when the North Koreans come back to the table is to make it clear that our intention is to help them move forward so long as they give up their weapons in a verifiable way.
Our objective is to rid the Korean peninsula of any nuclear weapons threat.
And it was good news.
Uh the announcement of Monday was good news, and we will pursue the opportunities ahead of us.
But the key is to make sure that the North Koreans, when they sit at the table, look around and see more than just the United States.
That they see other parties who who can either help them succeed or you know, or cause them to become isolated.
Does this mark any kind of a shift, uh dramatic or otherwise in our relationship with China?
Uh our relationship with China is a very complex relationship, and it's an important relationship.
Obviously, we have an economic relationship, and we're trying to put that relationship in a in in a position where our Americans can realize that trade is a f is not only free but it's fair.
Uh one great opportunity for China Rush is for to encourage China to develop a society in which there are savers.
Uh in other words, a society in which there's a pension plan and or a uh let me rephrase that, a society in which there's consumers because now there's a society of too many savers.
Uh And the reason why they're saving so much money is because there's not a pension plan or a legitimate health care system.
And so therefore people hoard the money they have in anticipating a bad day.
If we can encourage China to become a country of consumers, you can imagine what it would mean for U.S. producers and manufacturers to have access to that market.
You know, an interesting statistic is India, for example, has got 350 million people in their middle class.
That is a significant opportunity for U.S. uh firms to sell into those markets, which means better U.S. jobs.
And so one, there's an economic relationship.
Secondly, there is the security relationship.
How do we work together to make sure the Far East is secure and peaceful?
And obviously the issue we're now dealing with is North Korea, and it's in both our interests that the Korean peninsula be nuclear weapons free.
And the Chinese understand it's in their interest.
And so we found common interest here to be able to work together.
And the more we're able to work together, the more likely is the future president will be able to be able to maintain the peace.
One really important issue in the Far East is for our your leaders to uh listeners to understand how important it is for there to be a United States presence in the Far East.
The you know we we serve as a we serve as a uh is uh it's a way to make sure that there's stability and stability in the Far East obviously is essential for the United States in the long term, and therefore that's why we'll have a presence there uh and should have a presence there for the long term.
Mr. President, we've got to let you go, but I uh before I do so, I have to share something with you.
When I announced uh yesterday when the schedule was firmed up that I'd be talking to you today, I got uh tremendous, I would say inundated uh with emails from people asking me to tell you that they're praying for you.
Yeah.
So I wanted to uh I wanted to pass that on.
My answer to those who say they're praying for me is one, thank you, two, I'm grateful, and three, it matters a lot.
And it's a remarkable country where people from all walks of life and all faiths pray for me and Laura, and it's made a significant difference in my life, and I'm grateful.
Mr. President, thank you for your time and all the best.
Look forward to the next time we speak.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
President Bush uh on the phone with us this morning at about 1045 to 1105.
Uh and he was uh he was on a roll, and that's why we uh wanted to play it twice.
Some people say you gotta you you have to uh you have to play this in the first hour because that's the uh hour that the armed forces radio get.
We did.
We got well, we got most of it in the first hour.
It's uh started at uh at 1233 Eastern time.
But nevertheless, um revved up and fired up, and in the last segment, as you heard was about North Korea, and and let me restate because Mrs. Clinton went to the council on foreign relations yesterday and made a speech that was one of the biggest disconnects.
I know why she did it, is because of the audience, a bunch of egghead diplomat elites there, and she's just trying to get their support.
But to rephrase all this North Korea business, the president has been under pressure to go in there and talk to the North Koreans one on one.
In other words, elevate the North Koreans to a certain status that uh they they warrant discussions alone with the United States.
The president has said, well, why should I do that?
We did that in the previous administration, and look where it got us.
It got us nowhere.
They got nuclear weapons that they're testing.
The same people that said we needed to get the whole world behind us before we went into Iraq, are saying he needs to go in there and do it alone in North Korea.
He said, Nope, we're not gonna go in and talk to them until we have multilateral, i.e., many nations as part of the negotiating team.
And key, by the way, to that was China, which is why I asked him about it.
So the Chinese have blinked.
The North Koreans blinked for whatever reason, and they're going to discuss.
And the reason is that the the the test, if it was nuclear, I guess they've assumed that it was, did not get Kim Jong-il what he wanted.
It didn't get him respect.
It didn't, it didn't produce a bunch of fear, it made a bunch of his allies mad at him.
Uh, First and foremost, uh China.
So he said, all right, we'll talk in the six-party way.
Six party talks.
Yesterday, Mrs. Clinton, the Council on Foreign Relations, called for a broad reform of U.S. foreign policy that would include better cooperation with other nations and bilateral talks with enemy nations.
Criticizing President Bush's foreign policy from Iraq to Afghanistan and North Korea to Iran.
Mrs. Clinton called for a more internationalist approach to foreign policy in a speech at the CFR.
First and most obviously, we must by word indeed renew internationalism for a new century, said Mrs. Clinton.
We didn't face World War II alone.
We didn't face the Cold War alone, and we cannot face the global terrorist threat or other profound challenges alone either.
We must value diplomacy as well as a strong military.
We should not hesitate to engage in the world's most difficult conflicts on a diplomatic front.
Direct negotiations are not a sign of weakness, they're a sign of leadership.
Um if you give away the store, it's a sign of weakness.
If we if if if in engaging in diplomacy, your objective is not to win, then you may as well not do it.
We have seen over and over again.
Diplomacy didn't win the Cold War, Mrs. Clinton.
Diplomacy didn't win World War II.
Diplomacy didn't win World War I. Diplomacy hadn't won any war.
Because diplomacy prevents the engagement of the enemy.
It just appeases and prolongs.
But I don't know what she's talking about.
We went to the United Nations and we did everything everything we could to get them to join us in Iraq.
We know why they didn't go.
Saddam had paid off a bunch of Security Council nations via the oil for food program.
And they had a personal financial stake in it, or an international financial stake in seeing that Saddam survived.
But we did have a coalition of partners that uh that went in there.
Now we've got we've got these multinational internationalism that she so desperately desires in dealing with North Korea.
For some reason she thinks that still ought to be bilateral.
So they're all over the board here.
But I'll tell you, Mrs. Clinton made this speech because of and you people uh know who is the CFR.
You know the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's just a smaller domestic version of the UN, in a sense.
And she was strictly speaking to this audience.
These are the people who believe purely and totally in diplomacy.
They don't think in anything else, and so she was just trying to impress them with her smarts and her world view and all of that, because uh for a democratic uh candidate for president, you gotta get this groups, not endorsement, but you gotta get them on your side.
And most of the big drive-by media members are a member of the Council on Foreign Relations as well.
Your phone calls are next after this brief time out, so don't go away.
You people want to hear something odd.
I know this has nothing to do with anything that we've been talking about the last couple of days, but it's from ABC News website, their health section.
Here's the headline.
Government tells singles no sex until you're 30.
This is the United States government.
Uh critics say the new guidelines are about morality, not health.
If you're single and in your twenties, the federal government wants you to steer clear of sex.
For the first time, the federal government's telling states they can use grant money to encourage adults as old as 29 to remain celibate until marriage.
Those are the new rules of the Department of Health and Human Services $50 million abstinence education program.
HHS officials say it's not a requirement, just another option for states to combat what they call an alarming rise in out-of-wedlock berths.
Uh this ain't clear signal that they're using uh these resources, taxpayer dollars to promote an ideological agenda, uh, said James Wagner, president of a group whose top goal is a society that views sexuality as normal and healthy.
Uh Wagner says this is nothing to do with public health, these is a bunch of ideologues.
The guidelines let states use federal grants to identify groups of people between the ages of twelve to twenty-nine who are most likely to bear children out of wedlock.
Uh Wagner says, whatever happened to conservatives that were against big government, if this isn't a waste of taxpayer dollars, what is uh well there's nothing in here about whether Lewinsky's count is sex or not, but most people today don't think they do, so I don't know if you have anybody ever been born as a result of a Lewinski.
I mean, this is just a pr this is a lot of uh out of wedlock births.
Anyway, I don't care because I'm not under 30 and the guidelines aren't about me.
All right, Mike and Hilo Hawaii, welcome to the EIB network.
Aloha diddles rush.
Thank you.
It was wonderful to hear from our president via the EIB today.
I just wanted to get back to the Kerry comment.
Uh Rush.
A couple of years ago, if I remember right, Dick Army had a slip-up while talking about Barney Frank, um something about his last name.
And uh even with the apology, the Dems and the media said no, no apology.
It was because it was what it was in his heart in the lip speaker.
I remember that.
I do re I don't remember that.
I don't remember what uh what Barney was discussing.
I don't know either, but you know, they even with the apology, they said no, the heart speaks what uh what the lips speak what's in the heart.
Right.
They didn't want to speak by the way, th uh, Mike, thanks for the call uh the phone call.
Speaking of apologies, our uh uh radio station, our affiliate big affiliate uh in Los Angeles, KFI, AM640, uh pursuant to their top of the hour news, uh John Kerry has given an apology to military personnel.
Have you seen that?
No, KFI is reporting.
At least I have an email that says this.
That uh John Kerry has given an apology to military personnel.
Well, wait for him.
I have lost my televisions uh here, ladies and gentlemen.
The entire EIB technical setup is uh falling apart on us today.
And you've you've seen nothing about that in there.
Well, I got an email saying at KFI pursued a top of the hour news, which is almost an hour ago now, so uh I you know I'm sorry, I should have verified this.
Uh it's it's uh I'm gosh, I don't want to be uh.
See.
Ladies, and I'm going to apologize in advance if this email that I got from someone that I trust who only makes two mistakes in every ten emails.
Um hundred emails, I'm sorry, two mistakes every hundred emails.
Uh if this is an error, then I'm apologizing in advance for putting out this news.
We'll find out.
Uh John in Frederick, Maryland, welcome to the EIB network.
Hi.
Hey, Russ, there's there's a large cross-section of people in this country that work hard, go to work every day and put in an honest day's work who've never been to college.
And I don't think it's really uh I think Carrie's com comments are more of an insult to anyone who doesn't have the luxury for whatever reason of going to college and getting a degree and making big bucks.
There's a lot of us who are caught out here, and we don't need to be laughed at by Kerry.
We do the jobs that Carrie doesn't want to do it.
You know what, John, I'm glad you said this, because I'm here to tell you they and the liberals are laughing at you every day.
I don't care whether you live in a blue state.
They have the part and parcel of being a liberal is condescension.
It's looking down on the plebes.
They are the specials, they are the elites.
You don't have what it takes to make proper decisions and to navigate life in a successful.
That's why we need liberals.
That's why we need big government.
What do you think it is that motivates these people?
They think all of us are stupid idiots.
And Kerry just that's why I say why are they backing down from what he said?
Because they all believe it.
Yeah, if his email is correct, and uh for your email is correct, and he apologized to the soldiers, so what?
He still owes the rest of us an apology.
He's making fun of everybody who doesn't have a degree like himself.
I agree.
Well you think his degree got him anywhere, it's his marriages that got him places.
Now look at you're you're way more successful than Carrie is ever gonna be, and you don't have a degree.
That's true.
And I'm well, I do think it's relevant.
If I had a degree, how much of pollution in my mind would have occurred that would have needed needed to be cleansed.
But at any rate, uh if if this email is correct, and if what's his face is apologized.
This I guarantee you it's not because he wanted to, it's because the party said we and our buddies in the media can't shut this down.
We were gonna try to kill it today, but we can't shut it.
You're gonna have to take this off the table.
You're gonna have to do it.
After that defiant statement yesterday and that defiant press conference where he apologize to no one.
If he has apologized, or if he does, man.
Uh it's that's I'm gonna be interested to see the fall.
The Democrats will praise him and they'll be glad he's gone.
But boy, this is this is a tough fee.
Well, I gotta go.
We'll be back here in just a second.
John Kerry has not apologized.
It's a misleading Reuters story that has nothing new in it.
John Kerry has not apologized.
▲
Export Selection