All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 14, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
November 14, 2006, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, look at this, uh, folks, the Iranian strongman.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today, earlier today, that Iran uh would soon celebrate completion of its nuclear fuel program and claim the international community was ready to accept it as a nuclear state.
He then said that Israel has no right to exist.
But hey, what's the big deal?
We're gonna ask these guys for help, along with Syria in Iraq.
If we take my advice, we'll also ask the North Koreans to chime in, maybe give us some assistance greetings.
And uh welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are, another three hours of broadcast excellence straight ahead on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Yep, the Iran nuclear program near complete.
Uh good news in America.
And try this.
This is from Al CNN.
The headline alone, gunmen grab up to 150 from Baghdad Research Institute.
Gunmen, uh clad in Iraqi national police uniforms, kidnap between 100 and 150 people at a government research institute in Baghdad Tuesday.
You mean that's they got a government research institute going over there?
I thought place was burning up to hell.
Anyway, uh oh, it was is that what it is?
It's a stem cell research.
They're you they're they're looking at stem cell embryonic stem cell research and a cloning.
They're looking, they're looking at cloning over in a oh man, how far they've advanced.
Well, but why why the use of the word gunman?
I mean, these are terrorists, aren't they?
This is uh this is I'll CNN gunmen grab up to uh gunmen, bombers, kidnappers, gunmen, gunmen.
Uh every every word here possible to describe these guys, bombers, gunmen, uh kidnapping.
You don't find a word terrorist in this uh in in this story.
Hmm.
I guess there aren't any terrorists now that we're getting out.
You see what the Democrats are doing to Jack Mirtha?
They're swift boating the guy.
This is incredible, ladies and gentlemen.
Here for the Washington Post.
In backing Mirtha, Pelosi draws fire.
Her ethics vow is questioned.
House Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi's endorsement of John Mirtha's bid to become the House Majority Leader sent off a furor yesterday on Capitol Hill critics charging she's undercutting her pledge to clean up corruption by backing a veteran lawmaker who says um they say is repeatedly skirted ethical boundaries.
You know, this is the fight between Stenny Hoyer, who probably win this thing anyway, and uh and and Mertha.
But I mean, this this this group crew that came out and they were they were involved in uh all kinds of charges against Republicans during the campaign.
Our old buddy Melanie Sloan says Pelosi's endorsement suggests she's interested in the culture corruption only as a campaign issue, has no real interest in true reform.
Uh crew is identified here in the Washington Post as a Democrat leaning group.
Really?
It's amazing what kind of honesty you can get after the election in all quarters.
Uh it's it is shocking to me that someone with Murtha's ethics problem could be number two in the House leadership.
Uh now at issue here is Mirtha's relationship with two defense lobbyists.
Paul Magnio Ketty of the PMA group, a former aide to Mirtha, and Robert Kit Mirtha is his brother, and was a senior partner at KSA Consulting from 2002 to 2005.
He gave all kinds of uh donations and cross, you know, money changing hands, earmarks for influence and so forth.
Uh talked about the AB scam case.
Say Murtha was not indicted.
His conduct was cleared, but he did meet with FBI agents posing his Arab sheikhs, and after refusing bribes on several occasions, appeared to leave open the possibility of.
I guess this is not enough to campaign against the guy as a member of Congress.
It it just he can't be a member of the Democrat leadership now.
He's he's not that corrupt.
He can have all these corrupt deals and still get elected to Congress.
Nobody's gonna say anything about this before the election.
But woe and behold, when they're gonna talk about making him number two in the House of Representatives on the Democrat side.
Well, we can't have that.
So uh there's a certain level of corruption the Democrats will accept and tolerate and even promote.
But when it try to get too high up in the Democrat administration, they're swift boating the guy.
Democrats are swift boating Jack Mirtha after the election.
And then the Los Angeles Times, Janet Hook, power struggles unraveled Democrat unity.
Pelosi may have another problem as the crop of freshly elected Democrats, including many younger ones who campaigned to the right of the party line, came to Capitol Hill for orientation Monday.
They encountered a leadership dominated by mostly liberal old school Democrats.
Well, who was it that predicted this was going to happen?
Cardoza, a uh leader of the conservative coalition in the House known as the Blue Dogs, warned that Democrat cohesion would suffer if the liberals in line to head many of the chambers key committees don't take party moderates into account.
We have to try to build a consensus.
It's not going to be an automatic top-down way, or we'll have conflict on the floor.
Uh these guys better be careful.
You know, or they're going to be two-year wonders.
Uh but anyway, so now all of a sudden, right of center new Democrats are getting their first look at well, come on.
Who do they think we are at the Los Angeles Times?
Are we to believe that these neophyte conservative Democrat candidates didn't know who was going to end up running the House if the Democrats won it?
This story is written as though these bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, eager beaver, conservative Democrat freshmen arrived in Washington yesterday.
Time for their big orientation.
All of a sudden, the Stubb discovered a bunch of socialists are going to run the place.
And now they're out issuing warnings to the socialists.
You guys, you guys better accept us.
We're the moderates in here, and then we're gonna.
Pelosi's credibility on reform could be damaged with Murpha.
That's also in this LA Times story, the same thing as the Washington Post.
Come on, you have to have taken her seriously about this in order for her her credibility to be damaged.
What when I hear a Democrat say we're gonna have whatever shit, the cleanest, uh the most ethically pure uh uh uh uh caucus in the House in the history of the come on, it's it's it's you take what these uh people say and and expect the opposite.
I mean, for crying out loud, everybody's acting surprised.
Who in the world took her seriously?
Voters who voted for uh Robert Menendez, they take her seriously on corruption?
How about uh voters that vote for Dingy Harry?
Did they take Nancy Pelosi serious on uh on how about the people that voted for Congressman William Jefferson, Democrat Louisiana?
Did they take her seriously?
And then here in the Washington Post, a choice for Democrats, Stenny Hoyer should be the new House majority leader.
They uh refer to Mirtha as, quote, a force against ethics.
So the uh the Washington Post has given up George Allen now in the crosshairs.
It's Jack Mertha in the crosshairs.
He's qualified to be in Congress with all these sleazy deals.
He's he's qualified to be a Congressman from Pennsylvania, and he's he's by the way, he's qualified to be the conscience of the House on the Democrats' cut and run and deployment strategy.
He's good enough, and he's clean enough and he's pure enough to get the Democrats on the table as wanting out of Iraq.
But when he wants to go into the leadership, he's too corrupt.
Just can't, and they think they are fooling people with all this.
Quick time out.
We'll be back.
Lots more straight ahead today.
The EIB network in El Rushboa, brief pause, back before you know it.
I've been sitting here trying to think, how many years ago was it that I warned of this?
It has to be.
We're into our 19th year near here, uh 19th year in the EIB network.
Uh this has to date back to 89 or 90.
So basically 16, 17 years ago.
It was during uh the often heated uh abortion debates, and I remember saying, and many of you who have been with us from the outset will remember this as well.
I said that what's going to happen as we start deciding who lives and who dies based on the convenience of the living.
We're already aborting future liberals, as it turns out, uh because pregnancy is a disease, it's an unwanted tissue mass, uh, in fact, it's it's a health risk.
I mean, all these arguments were advanced.
And uh then we we started saying, you know, you know, these uh these elderly people that have these various diseases, especially uh diseases where they they they they lose uh uh mental capacity.
They don't even know they're alive, but they're just burdening the health care system, and we know that if they could tell us that they they they would prefer to be dead, so we'll uh we'll find a way to euthanize them.
And uh uh then this discussion expanded with uh all these new genetics discoveries, uh, such as being able to discover Downs syndrome in the womb and present that option to parents.
Do you want a child with Downs syndrome?
Do you want a child with autism?
Do you want these sorts of things?
And all of this, I cautioned, I said, this is this is we're gonna need a whole batch of really quality ethics people in medicine and science to deal with these things because it's gonna I remember my exact words.
It isn't gonna be long before you get pregnant and you go to the OBGYN, and he tells you, well, we've just done the tests, and your your your son uh is going to be uh have a tendency to be overweight, have freckles, and have red hair.
And the parent wouldn't want to do that to a child.
Overweight and red hair with freckles.
Why?
Oh no, let's let's let's uh terminate this pregnancy, and we'll try again and hope we get a different DNA mix.
And everybody pooped.
Oh, come on, Rush, people aren't that callettes.
That's not gonna happen.
Well, it is happening.
Finally it's happened.
This is a long time, but it's a C I told you so.
Controversy has erupted.
This is over in the U.K. over a new technique offered on the NHS over there, which screens embryos for over 200 inherited diseases.
Doctors are heralding the test as revolutionary for the diagnosis of genetic disorders.
Critics are warning that the groundbreaking technique is another step towards the creation of the designer baby.
They fear extended genetic screening may eventually be used to create babies chosen for physical characteristics such as blue eyes or blonde hair.
Josephine Quintival of Comment on Reproductive Ethics said, We are venturing into the unknown with extended genetic testing because we know so little about the field.
That is story number one, and it's in the uh Daily Mail in the U.K. Next story from the Daily Telegraph.
In the UK, babies designed to be free of disease.
Two babies have become the first in the world to be born after their mother underwent a screening process pioneered in Britain to ensure that they were clear of an inherited disease.
Freddie and Thomas Green Street's parents both carry genes that made it likely that their kids would be born with a rare form of cystic fibrosis, a debilitating inherited condition from which their first daughter suffers.
But the new technique allows embryos to be screened and only the healthy ones used for IVF.
Screening has been uh used regularly in the past for people having uh IVF, but doctors at Guy's Hospital London have refined the procedures so that a much wider number of inherited diseases uh can be detected.
Using the technique known as pre-implantation genetic haplotyping.
Uh PGH for short, doctors can develop tests for up to six thousand conditions.
Mrs. Green Street defended her decision to reject the imperfect embryos and criticism that the technique would lead to designer babies.
She said that she and her husband Jim didn't want to repeat the experience of carrying for a seriously uh caring for a seriously ill child.
Opponents of genetic screening argue that disabled babies can have a good quality of life, and screening for any reason is the start of a slippery slope towards parents choosing eye color or other characteristics.
Uh, folks out there, when I am right, I'm right, and I'm right most of the time.
And that's what angers people out there who don't listen to the program.
That kind of bombast.
That's what we heard yesterday, right?
That kind of uh uh uh that's people have to talk about how great you are.
Well, it isn't bragging if you can do it.
Here's the next story outrage, as church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth.
This also from the UK Daily Mail, a church of England, has broken with traditional dogma by calling for doctors to be allowed to let sick, newborn babies die.
Christians have long argued that life should be preserved at all costs, but a bishop representing the National Church has now sparked controversy by arguing that there are occasions when it is compassionate to leave a severely disabled child to die.
And the the Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, who is the vice chair of the Church of England's mission and public affairs council has also argued that the high financial cost of keeping desperately ill babies alive should be a factor in life or death decisions.
The new policy from the church has caused outrage among the disabled.
Well, too bad, disabled.
This has been coming.
It's been coming for years and years and years, and they're just now getting brave enough to openly admit what uh what what they uh what they think is proper here.
And this is all based on the convenience of the living.
And it's it's just, folks, it's it's what I said many, many, many moons ago.
It's just going to end up the uh continuation of the cheapening of life, the degrading of the uh quality and sanctity of life.
Uh and it who knows where this stuff is going to end, but it it's certainly on a fast track, and it's heading down that track, and there's there's really not much to stop it out there, uh, especially in Great Britain.
I mean, with the society they have there, and uh uh much probably the same thing here.
Um, because all of this is going to be cloaked in compassion.
All this is going to be cloaked in uh love and uh devotion and uh and caring, and uh we only want to do the um the right thing here.
Keep a sharp eye on this, because I mentioned to you long ago that this is headed your way and it is.
Alreuters today says Al Qaeda is trying to acquire the technology that would enable it to use a nuclear device to attack Western targets, including Britain.
Uh, this, according to a senior British official on Monday, we know the aspiration is there.
We know attempts to gather materials are there, we know the attempts to gather technology are there, the senior foreign office official told reporters.
These comments at a briefing came days after the head of Britain's domestic spy agency said that Muslim extremists were plotting at least 30 major terrorist attacks in Britain, which could involve chemical and nuclear devices.
Now, is this news to anybody?
Once again, this is news that everybody who's had the guts to face it has long known has been one of the objectives of these creeps.
This is obvious Al Qaeda seeking nuclear weapons to use against the West.
But fortunately, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to be protected now.
Because we have elected Democrats to run Congress, and they know how to talk to these people, and they know how to make deals with these people, and they know how to tell these people that we don't mean them any harm.
And in fact, Pat Leakey Leahy, the incoming Judiciary Committee chairman, has an idea.
He wants to give Al Qaeda habeas corpus rights.
He wants to, he wants to ditch the um the foreign surveillance uh legislation the president negotiated before the election.
And if he doesn't ditch it, he wants to, he wants to add a provision, and that is that grants Al Qaeda prisoners of war habeas corpus rights.
Uh that that will, of course, make uh everything better later.
The terrorists will find out we mean them no harm, that we have friends, they have friends in high places in Washington, D.C., who understand their rights and are going to do everything that they can to see to it that their rights to explore for nuclear materials are not discovered by prying evil spies in the Bush administration or Republican agencies of our government.
Patrick Leahy has let it be known, he's let the terrorists all over the world know it, that he and his Democrats are their protectors.
They will do everything they can to see to it that secret activities undertaken by Al Qaeda are not discovered.
And in this effort, Al Qaeda will understand how compassionate and worldly we are, and how we intend them no harm, that this was all Bush's fault, that if Bush hadn't been elected, there would have never been any terrorism.
Battle is shaping up between Democrats and the White House over the Military Commissions Act signed into law last month by President George W. Bush.
Senator Leakey Leahy is expected to take over Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee, and the California Daily Journal reports that Leahy is drafting a bill to undo portions of the new law in effort to restore habeas corpus rights for uh enemy combatants.
That's prisoners.
Uh ladies, enemy combatants, uh terrorist prisoners that we capture.
This is all part of the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
And I just, I'll tell you what, I want to commend the people of America who voted for these Democrats because you are visionary.
You are so far-sighted, you see so much more than all the rest of us.
You understand why these uh Al-Qaeda people hate us.
So you've installed in power in Washington, the um the equivalent of their buddies.
Their supporters, people like Patrick Leahy and the Democrats, Jack Mertha.
First, we're gonna cut and run, and we're gonna get out of there, and then we're gonna grant these people all kinds of secrecy and privacy rights, so that whatever they're doing to try to find nuclear components for their terrorist weapons will not be discovered.
That just wouldn't be fair.
It wouldn't be right to learn those things.
Highly trained broadcast specialists in America's real anchor man.
Holding forth from the EIB's Southern Command.
Here's the money quote, by the way, on the uh I want to go back to this baby story because this says it all, and it makes my point from a couple three weeks before the election all over again.
This is uh this is a quote from a parent who's going through this screening to determine whether or not her uh embryos contain flaws, if you will.
Unless you have lived with a child that has a terrible disability or disease, you can't speak about it.
So, once again, we have the introduction of the innocent suffering victim, in this case, the parent of a child who suffers from something.
And we are supposed to identify not with the child's suffering.
We are supposed to identify with the suffering of the living who are made inconvenient by this.
And you can't comment, folks.
You can't say a word unless you've been in her bra or her shoes.
You have no right.
You can't comment on the ethics, and this is the way the left shuts down debate.
They shut down argument, and they attempt to discredit anyone who would be critical of what they do by claiming you have no shame.
You have no you would enforce suffering on people.
You should die, you should get the disease, you should find out what it's like.
You are evil, you are the devil perturbed.
And it is to stifle debate.
And most people who lack any guts at all, who lack any courage at all, will sit around, okay, okay.
I don't want to offend you.
I really don't want to offend you.
If if it's that bad, then yes, I and I have no right, you're right.
I I have I have not walked in your shoes or won you brought.
I do not know how.
It must be food.
I I won't, I won't say a word.
Well, I'll tell you what.
Uh let me make this personal.
I'd say virtually 99% of the people who criticize me on a day to basis, day-to-day basis have never, ever hosted a radio talk show, much less the most listened-to radio talk show.
And until you do, you have no right to comment on what I do and how I do it.
You think that would fly.
How about if Bush said, you can't comment on me?
You ever been here?
You ever sat in the Oval Office?
You ever been one door down the hall from where Clinton and Monica got it on with the cigar?
You ever been in here and done this job, you can't comment on what a who the hell do you think you are.
They try that, you can't comment on the military unless you haven't been in boots on the ground.
You haven't been to Vietnam, if you haven't killed communists, if you didn't kill the Viet Cong, you have no right to talk about.
And they shut off and they stifle debate on virtually everything this way, particularly on these medical and health issues, and these are ethical questions that confront all of society.
But now we've got the creation of a new set of sympathetic victims, the parents of children who are disabled or diseased.
We're not supposed to feel bad for them.
No, we're supposed to kill them.
And we're supposed to not even let them uh be born.
Because they wouldn't want it anyway if they could tell us.
They're screaming in the womb anyway.
Don't birth me.
If we were just smart enough to understand it, like if we were just smart enough to understand the dolphins.
When they cackle at us, so this is what we're becoming.
What what this parent, when she says, unless you've lived with a child that has a terrible disability or disease, then you can't speak about it.
There is no truth other than that, which I declare, and you don't you have any you have no right to question me if you've not personally experienced the same thing I have.
So that's that's where we're headed.
And the de and this is actually it's not new.
Democrats have been using this technique in uh in ads all over the and and they're they're championing of certain victims for causes.
Christopher Reeve comes to mind.
There are countless of these of these examples.
And I want to I want to make one more uh point.
You know, last week, maybe it was the week before.
You know these days are running together.
They're gonna go on by very fast here, folks.
It's you realize Thanksgiving's uh a week from Thursday.
Man.
Anyway.
Had this story about whether or not conservatism and liberalism are genetic.
Is there conservative gene?
Is there a liberal gene?
Well, guess what's gonna happen here, folks?
I'm gonna be the first to warn you.
I'm gonna be the first to predict you.
All of this genetic science and all this genetic research will eventually lead to the discovery of the gene that determines whether or not a child is going to grow up conservative or liberal.
And if the majority of the uh scientific community happens to be liberal, they will find a way to eliminate the conservative gene and they'll wipe us out, and we won't even need elections to lose.
We just won't be born.
Doctor walks in, you know what?
We just discovered.
Your kid could grow up to be Rush Limbaugh.
No!
Yeah, you've got the gene.
No, I will not hear Your kid could grow up to be Ronald Reagan.
I refuse.
That's an insult.
Not my baby.
Yes, we've identified the gene.
Well, I want an abortion right, and so conservatism will be aborted.
The liberals are aborting themselves unintentionally when they discover the genes.
And and then if there might be some conservative uh scientists out there and so forth and so on, but uh they of course will play it by the book.
Uh they'll play it ethically.
So it's all hitting uh, ladies and gentlemen uh down the road.
I don't think this is gonna happen our lifetime.
Uh but who cares about anything beyond our lifetime?
We're also selfish.
Who cares a rat's rearing about our kids?
If we did, we wouldn't have voted the way we did on Tuesday.
Who cares about the future?
We all want it now, and everybody that comes after us is on their own, right?
Well, this will lead to conservatives being wiped off the face of the earth via genetic research.
So enjoy it while you can.
Hank in Hollywood, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Thank you very much, Mr. Limbaugh.
Megadetos to you.
You bet, sir.
Thank you.
You know, I was uh I'm glad that you talked about this.
Uh I'm the father of a 15-month-old daughter.
My wife is currently pregnant right now, about two months.
And last pregnancy, three months into the pregnancy, we had this test done, and you know, my wife called me at work, said, you know, they said our child was gonna be have Down syndrome and and all these other things.
And I picked up the phone, she was crying hysterical.
I picked up the phone, I called the doctor's office.
I said, How dare you tell a pregnant woman this?
I said, How do you know anything?
I explained this to my wife that they don't know anything, it's only three months, they're not able to predict anything.
Uh as it goes, 15 months later, my child's fifteen months old.
She's perfectly healthy, everything's within range, motor skills are perfect, weight is perfect.
She's a beautiful child.
Actually, a friend of mine just got pregnant, and I told, you know, his he told me that his wife and him were going for that test.
I said, listen, don't account for that test.
Hold it.
Wait, I I'm gonna make sure I understand.
Because I thought the Down syndrome test was infallible now.
No, it's absolutely not infallible.
A matter of fact, it it could be just very well flawed.
So they told you your your daughter was gonna have Down syndrome and gave you the choice, or I guess you didn't give us the choice, no, but informed my wife that there was a high probability that the child was gonna have down syndrome.
And I interjected and I told her, I said, listen, dear, just calm down.
There's no way they can tell.
It's only three months into the pregnancy.
There's no way.
And I and then I proceeded to call the doctor's office screaming at the nurse.
And she's totally she has she has no down syndrome.
Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely not.
There's nothing wrong with the nothing wrong with my child.
She's actually a beautiful baby girl.
Good.
And hopefully be able to grow up uh as bright as you.
Well, um that would be accomplishing something.
I I wish her the best.
Um they they hate me for those kinds of comments too, Hank.
Um, we look at the bigger.
Look anyway, well uh well, I I uh I I've learned something.
I think this is probably gonna cause a spate of calls.
Any of you guys in there heard stories like this, misdiagnosis, a prediction of you have none.
So I I I thought this stuff um amniocentesis.
I thought it was, I thought it was pretty much 100% or very close to it.
Uh but, you know, having not procreated, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not that.
In fact, I'd have no right to talk about this because I don't I don't I don't I don't have kids.
Back in just a second.
Your guiding light.
The triumphs of confusion, murkiness, tumult, chaos.
Multiple explanations for defeat and all that, even the good times, L. Rushbow behind the golden EIB microphone.
One of the and I I've I bought it for a while, but I don't anymore.
One of the one of the popular explanations for the uh Democrat victory last Tuesday was that uh, well, you know, Americans that want to vote conservative.
Uh conservatism didn't lose, Republicans lost.
Uh look at all those conservative Democrats that won.
People want to vote conservative.
And I understand people saying those kinds of things to themselves to uh uh make sure they don't lose all hope and so forth, but I I'm beginning to think that that's uh misleading.
I I think I think it's almost a false hope situation.
I don't think that's what happened at all.
Uh maybe in a few isolated cases around the country uh it was, but I I I don't I don't think there was anybody voting for anybody or anything in this election.
I think it I think what turned this election was a bunch of people out there, you may be one of them, mad as hell, not gonna take it anymore, and throw it a bunch of people out for whatever reason.
Well, yeah, I could say it was a temper tantrum.
American people had a temper tantrum, but it probably is a good way to describe it.
Uh just it was it was uh throw the bums out.
We got some new bums now, replacing the old bums.
But it was it was it was a throw the bums out sort of situation.
I mean if people wanted to vote conservative, they could have.
I mean, uh let me let me rephrase it.
I refuse to believe that enough Americans don't understand who and what Democrats are.
I refuse to believe that enough Americans do not understand that the Democrat Party is the far left as liberalism personified in this country.
They knew when they were voting for Democrats what they were voting for.
So how can you say Americans want to vote conservative when they voted for a bunch of liberals?
And I'm I know they voted for some new conservative uh uh freshman uh uh Democrats in the House of Representatives, but a lot of those, a lot of those uh uh Democrat uh incumbents, you know, everybody in the House is up every two years, held on.
So I I mean I think people vote conservatism when they're given a reason to, but apparently keeping liberals out of power is not enough of a reason to get people to vote.
Conservative.
Well, Rosh, you can't weren't the conservatives on the ballot on the Republican.
I know, but there were liberals out there all over the place.
And uh they've ended up being empowered, and I just refuse to believe people didn't stop to think about that.
At any rate, get this.
This is this is almost you just to get to the point, all you can do is laugh.
International atomic energy experts.
Now that is an oxymoron.
We're talking about people like Mohammed Al-Beradai and Hans Blicks and this this motley bunch.
They say they have found unexplained, unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran.
And they've asked Tehran uh Tehran for an explanation.
This unexpected.
They've been telling us all along that they're getting closer and closer and closer to having their nuke program just today.
Achhmadini Jad came out with his latest proclamation, and now these wizards at the uh IAEA have found unexplained I I guess they they figure that the Iranians are being honest with them all along.
Uh the report prepared for next week's meeting at the 35 Nation IAEA also faulted Tehran for not cooperating.
Really?
With the uh agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have led to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms.
Who wrote this?
This is all AP.
This is one of the most uninformed, ill-informed, stupid pieces I've ever.
Every sentence in this thing is a howler.
Who are we talking about?
We are talking about the terror masters of the world.
Have you also heard this?
Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with Al Qaeda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden.
This is in the UK Daily Telegraph.
Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Tehran.
The revelation will deal a major blow to Tony Blair's hopes of establishing a new partnership with uh with Terra.
No, it won't.
Tony Blair's a visionary.
He's become a flip-flop visionary.
Why he wants to have a new partnership with Tehran.
Just right out of the uh the Iraq study group.
In fact, I if the IAEA wants to really find out uh uh uh the explanation for this unexplained plutonium and enriched uranium traces at nuclear waste facilities in Iran, just ask somebody at the Iraq Study Group.
They have a great relationship.
If you want answers from our new partners Iran, just go ask somebody in the Iraq study group to ask them where this stuff came from.
We'll get to truth.
Joyce in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Welcome to the EIB network and nice to have you with us.
Megaditos, Rush, uh, from a reform former socialist European.
Really?
Well, it's great to have you in the audience.
I'm sorry.
I'd say it's great to have you in the audience.
Oh, thank you.
Thank you.
Um I was calling to try to find out what your thoughts are on Mike Pence as a uh possible uh presidential candidate in 08.
Um I I think he he could be our version of Clinton.
He's a good looking, smart Yeah, uh I uh I'm I'm not thinking anybody presidential eight.
This is the way down the pipe where Rudy has uh formed his exploratory committee.
Uh-huh.
Uh McCain is positioning himself to be the only guy who wanted us to win in Iraq.
I mean, that's what he's doing.
Right.
Yeah, because everybody what he knows is by 2008, the question's gonna be all over who lost Iraq and the is it be Bush or gonna be the Democrats?
McCain can say, we never lost.
Never if you listen to me.
More troops, more troops, more firepower.
You're a sailor.
So that's that's what he's setting himself up as.
If for Pence, I love Mike Pence.
I do too.
I I think and we need guy w let him let him do his his time in the house.
You know, let it let him get to the leadership there and and and let him uh uh let him lead, let him show his stuff.
Uh I we're gonna need people like Pence in the House of Representatives.
I he's uh he's modified a little bit, I think his uh his immigration plan.
He'd come up with a compromise immigration plan uh uh to sort of uh uh oppose the uh the McCain Kennedy bill, uh which was amnesty and so forth in the Senate, but no, Pence is uh Pence rising star.
Yes, he is.
And like I said, I think he could be maybe not in 08 then, but later on he could be our version of Clinton.
Well, what's the women I can do?
What is that?
What do you mean, version of Clinton?
You mean with internship?
Oh, no, no, no, not as far as politics.
You know how everybody always said Clinton was so charismatic, good looking, appealed to women, um, etc.
I think he has the same qualities.
Hell they say that.
They say that about Mertha.
They say it about Henry Waxman.
They say it about every Democrat.
They're not gonna they're they're never gonna say that about a Republican or No, they aren't, but we will.
The conservatives.
Well, uh anyway, your your your assessment of uh your your your sharp eye on Pence is uh well focused.
Uh uh Joyce, thanks for the uh for the for the f the uh I'm trying to read something here, folks, while closing out this second for the call.
A quick what I'm reading here is that the Ohio 15th Congressional District race, the Democrats demanding well, I'll give you the whole story a little bit.
It's typical.
She's she's trailing by 3,000 votes, and she's running TV ads.
Uh claiming that every vote must be counted and so forth.
Uh Just typical Democrat stuff when they lose.
Back here in just a second.
All right, sit tight, folks.
As usual, at the end of the first hour, we have uh only scratched the surface here.
▲
Export Selection