All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 29, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:38
January 29, 2007, Monday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, welcome back, my good friends, your tune to the most listened to radio talk show in the United States.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program from the Limbaugh Institute for advanced conservative studies.
Standing on principle, fearlessly forging ahead, regardless of the reaction.
One of the few places I might add that is happening.
At the EIB network, there is no caving and there is no crying.
800 282-2882, if you want to be on the program email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Snerdley, did you tell me that a guy called requesting the Hillary Clinton then and now bites, and he's at a college, and he's got 30 people in his dorm waiting to hear this.
Well, then let's get to where is this?
Do you happen to recall?
Well, he doesn't know where it is, but uh could be any institution of higher learning across the fruited plane.
If you missed this in our first hour, be advised that we're going to continue to play these for you to the point that something you may get tired of hearing, but but you understand this.
We are reaching new tune-in factor each and every day.
Every day we play these, every time we play them, they're going to be people who have not heard them before.
So and I'm not going to overdo it, but I just want to warn you because Mrs. Clinton, now having gotten serious about her presidential candidacy, was in Iowa over the weekend.
We have four sound bites here.
The first two are Mrs. Clinton explaining to Iowans how she got tricked into her vote for the Iraq war, how her vote was misused by the president, that if she knew today what she knew then, she wouldn't in any way, shape, manner, or form have uh voted the way she did.
Uh and then we have two bites from March of 2003, right before the war started, when she's talking to people from Code Pink, the anti-war group, uh, and and you'll hear such a contrast that you'll you will be able to conclude only one thing that Mrs. Clinton was lying through her teeth.
And I, you know, I know that sounds harsh to say, folks, and it you're afraid it might drum up sympathy for her, but there's no other way to characterize this as you will hear for yourself.
Uh, and another thing you have to remember is that there's a reason that she thinks that she can get away with it.
And that is that her buddies in the drive-by media will not draw contrasts to what she's saying now and what she said then.
So we're going to play these first two bites back to back, and then we'll play the next two bites back to back.
Up first, Mrs. Clinton in Des Moines this past weekend.
I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies.
So he took the authority that I and others gave him, and he misused it.
And I regret that deeply.
And if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.
There are no do-overs in life.
I wish there were.
I acted on the best judgment that I had at the time, and at the time I said this was not a vote for preemptive war.
And the president took my vote and other votes, and basically misused the authority we gave him.
All right, now, you you that's explanatory.
Self-explanatory doesn't need any nitpicking, parsing, or analysis.
Next two bites, March 7th, 2003, before the war.
She is talking here, and this is this is cell phone audio.
Uh uh, but she is she's talking here to uh code pink.
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being uh put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm.
And I have absolutely no belief that he will.
I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.
If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming.
I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision.
But I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.
With respect to whose uh whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein.
I didn't, I just do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems, were it not the United States leadership.
And I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing.
And we did it alone as the United States.
And we had to do it alone.
And so I see it somewhat differently.
He'll forgive me for my experience and perspective.
Hey, uh your college students, anybody else, do you want me to analyze these last two bites for you?
I mean, I don't think I have to.
Uh she basically says Saddam's not going to disarm on his own.
He would have been more forthcoming.
Uh she ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence that she had available, talking with people whose opinions she trusted.
She tried to discount political or other factors that she didn't believe should be in any way a part of the decision.
I'd love to agree with you, Code Pink Babes, but I can't, based on my own understanding and estimate of the situation.
My own understanding.
She did not say President Bush is telling us, and the intelligence community is she's my own assessment and my own understanding of the situation.
Contrast that with what she said in Iowa over the weekend, where she had pretty much said I was lied to about all of this from Bush, and he misused my vote.
I only gave him the vote for to after he exhausted diplomatic options.
And of course, then she went on the next bite say look at I don't think we can depend on the world to get rid of Saddam.
My husband couldn't depend on the world to save the Kosovar Albanians.
We had to go in alone.
We're the only ones that could.
He couldn't get a UN resolution.
Well, the UN had 14 anti-Saddam resolutions that they were ignoring.
So there's this is this is who she is, and she's getting away with this other than here on this program and elsewhere.
And by the way, this audio that I played for you is at YouTube.
It's there.
If we found it, anybody could.
The drive-by's, ladies and gentlemen, of course, will totally ignore it.
They ignore anything that might damage Mrs. Clinton's chances here, or at least illustrate her in a in a really bad light.
I don't know how you conclude anything other than the fact that she was lying through her teeth on Saturday.
And we know why.
She's facing a really militant anti-war voting block in Iowa as she gears up for the Hawkeye Cawkeye.
It's very Democrats there are very anti-war, and she's got this albatross around her neck of having voted for it.
So she seeks to lie and pretend that she, the smartest woman in the world, by the way, was deceived.
She's the smartest woman in the world, and she was tricked.
That is not something it recommends her for dealing with really bad guys if she gets elected.
If Bush can trick her, I guess nobody else will lie to her.
The terrorists will be honest with her and our enemies, Kim Jong-il, will tell her the truth.
They just can't trust old Bush.
So it's really something for you people on the Democrat side who uh do have a concern for ethics and honesty and so forth in the White House.
Uh, and if you do have any national security concerns at all, you can't just uh ignore this.
What was that song, Maria, Mariah, Mariah?
Call my country Mariah.
John Kerry could rewrite and sing that song.
Pariah, pariah, I call my country pariah.
He got in on the action over the weekend too, does it again, another botch joke, calling America an international pariah, while he was uh at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he was on a panel with the former president of the terrorist state of Iran, Mohammed Khatami, and this is what he said.
Americans have an unfortunate habit of seeing the world and other people exclusively through an American lens.
What?
And judging their aspirations through that lens.
What?
We have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East, in the world, really.
I've never seen our country as isolated as uh much of a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.
We should be less engaged in this neocon rhetoric of regime change and more involved in uh building relationships and living up to our own values so that people make a different judgment about us.
You know, th there is so much psychologically wrong with this, or well, factually wrong and psychologically dangerous, uh, and very troubling.
Uh we should be less engaged in neocon rhetoric of regime change and more along the lines of building relationships.
You know, the main argument that uh that people have on my side of the aisle with what we're doing in Iraq is we're spending too much time building relationships.
We're building too much time, spending too much time building up a relationship rather than kicking the butt of the enemy.
Which is what the American people want.
Living up to our own values, seeing everything through an American lens.
How do we living up to our own values?
He would he would have to support what Bush is doing.
Our own values of freedom, Republican democracy, and this sort of thing, which is what we're trying to put together in a rock.
And then the killer is so that people make a different judgment about us.
This is a guy who lives in fear of what people think of him and is willing to be whatever he has to to get that approval.
I'm gonna tell you something.
It's not just it's not just his policy matters that that uh causing him to say these things, and uh he's not alone, by the way.
Uh it this is a liberal tradition to go across the oceans on foreign soil, call your country the worst place on the planet, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter again, Jimmy Carter again, John Kerry has done it again.
It's a liberal tradition, go overseas and trash the country.
And of course, Kerry's well, I'm not trashing a country, I'm trashing the leaders of the country.
You this don't understand Limbaugh is just stupid.
Right.
Well, Kerry's got this hang up, folks.
The American people rejected him, and he just can't deal with it.
You didn't realize what a gift you had in John Kerry.
You didn't realize what a brilliant elitist, smartest guy we could have had in the White House ever.
You rejected him.
And if you reject John Kerry, you're not worth the only difference between you and a bagged dog do-do do is the dog.
Uh or the bag.
And then so he's just he's got a chip on his shoulder about having lost the election and being rejected by the American people, and so America is a pariah.
Up next, we get back from Woodstock to Botox.
Don't go away.
And we are back, El Rushbo, talent on lawn from God.
Yes!
What a great weekend it was, ladies and gentlemen from Woodstock to Botox.
John Kerry, Jane Fonda, the darlings of the anti-war sixties, after 40 years and lots of Botox, after hitting the jackpot, marrying wealth, now reliving their gory uh glory years in an anti-warpful little faux paw there from Woodstock to Botox.
So we got we've got these anti-war statements from Jane Fonda, the uh Jeff Spicoli, uh uh uh Sean Sean Penn uh Tim Robbins, I think.
Uh but we you know, we can't we can't do this kind of patriot patriotism is patriotic sound bites without first, ladies and gentlemen, starting the proceedings with the national anthem.
The pockets red, the markers in the air, they move to the heart, and the heart was still there, no sin.
Say God's Clinton in Iowa joining the national anthem in progress when she realized the camera was on her, uh, sort of like Clinton and the Ron Brown memorial.
You know what, Hillary, by the way, I guarantee you here's what's here's what's gonna happen.
After our program today showing these uh then and now uh Hillary sound bites.
Somebody in drive by meeting will ask her.
Somebody somewhere like what what what how well Mrs. Clinton, what about what you said in 2003 versus what you Said in Iowa over the weekend.
Here's her answer.
I bet almost verbatim.
This will be her answer.
You know, when I decided to run for president, we knew there would be a tax.
I just didn't think they would start so soon.
That's what she will say.
She's not gonna say anything, and they will they will they will let that answer go.
I knew there would be a tax.
I knew when I ran for president to be a tax, I just didn't think they would start so soon.
All right, here, ladies and gentlemen.
Let's move on to uh Jane Fonda.
Jane Fonda uh came out of mothballs to bash her country this past weekend.
Thank you so much for the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited vengeful administration.
I haven't spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years, because I've been afraid that because of the lies that is have been and continued to be spread about me in that war, that they would be used to hurt this new anti-war movement.
But silence is no longer an option.
She's here today with her two little children, my grandchildren.
I'm very proud that they're here, but I'm so sad that we still have to do this, that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War.
That we've made the same mistakes, blindness to the realities on the ground, hubris and arrogance and dealing with a people and culture far older than we are, and that we understand so little.
Carelessness and thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed.
We are rebuilding the country.
It's in better shape than it was when Saddam was running it.
There are fewer people dying in Iraq than when Saddam was running it.
But what is it that we're uh lies about Jane Fonda 34 years ago?
Was that picture fake?
When she went to North Vietnam, sat at an anti-aircraft gun, and pretended to be shooting down American fighters.
Was that Photoshop?
No, it couldn't have been photoshopped.
That was before Photoshop.
Up next is Sean Penn.
Uh and by the way, uh these these next bites, I think this is well, this one particularly, this is this is the one that's uh uh he's talking to Democrats here, maybe even Hillary.
Our fellow Americans are dying as we're standing here today.
We're gonna send our Congress this message.
We've heard the excuse.
If I had known then what I know now.
Well, we're here to tell them now what they have to know in 2008.
And if they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we're not gonna be behind those politicians.
We're here, and we're gonna be in local districts, and we're gonna push this until this resolution is binding, the money stops, and the troops come home.
So he's aiming right at the Democrats here.
He's telling them don't give us this toothless non-binding resolution garbage.
You gotta defund, or you're in trouble with us.
Here now, Tim Robbins leading this crowd, a venomous crowd crowd in a in a chant of impeach Bush.
This past November, the American people sent a resounding message to Washington, D.C. and the world.
We want change.
We want this war to end.
And how did Bush respond?
Twenty-one thousand five hundred more will risk their lives for his misguided war.
Is impeachment still off the table?
Let's get him out of office.
Let's get him out of office before he starts ruling from a bunker.
Let's get him out of office before the only one on his side is his dog Barney.
Mixon, Richard Nixon, talk to the walls.
Bush is talking to God.
But it's not a God I recognize.
And we are not surprised by that.
So the left reliving its glory days from the Vietnam era.
Uh clearly telling us who they are and what they are about.
Uh Jane Fonda, all of them, John Kerry on foreign soil, uh, Talking about his own country being a pariah.
In the meantime, ladies and gentlemen, the uh Rasmussen poll indicates that John Sidney McCain is losing ground with the electorate.
And fast.
Rasmussen reports has the details from their polling of 800 likely voters on Monday and Tuesday of this past week.
McCain now viewed favorably by just 25 or 52% of American voters, down from 56% earlier this month and from 59% in December.
They are suggesting that McCain is tanking because of his uh vibrant and vocal support for more troops in Iraq.
Uh and that he could quickly turn this around if he would reverse field and reverse his position on that.
We'll get to a lot more phone calls.
I got, you know, I didn't intend to get totally sidetracked by Hillary Clinton today, but public demand required playing these bites over and over.
Let me try to get to some other stuff when we come back.
That's what we try to do here on a daily basis, and that is make the complex understandable.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network.
And I tell you, folks, it was amazing.
The Liberals have an underground railroad from the Beltway to Baghdad.
Well, I mean, I'm I really uh headline today, Pelosi back from Iraq.
The day-by-day news flashes from the Middle East were riveting.
Friday, flash, Nancy Pelosi lands in Iraq.
Saturday, flash, Nancy Pelosi lands in Pakistan.
Sunday, flash, Nancy Pelosi lands in Afghanistan.
You imagine if Newt Gingrich had used the war as a series of photo ops.
But oh no, this was heralded as a big fact-finding mission.
But Rush, but Russ, that's what it was.
A fact-finding mission, right?
Uh well, if it if it was not a stunt, uh, but a search for new insights.
But what he doesn't want any new insights.
She came back from Afghanistan.
Listen to this headline.
Pelosi Karzai discussed troop increases.
Wait till Sean Penn hears about this.
The Afghan president told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that his security forces need to be stronger as the two discussed possible U.S. troop increases on Sunday, days after the Pentagon extended the tour of 3200 soldiers.
Harm Karzai stressed his desire for increased training and equipment for Afghanistan's fledgling army.
Pelosi uh and Karzai discussed plans announced last week by the Bush administration to ask Congress for 10.6 bill for Afghanistan.
Uh when she met with uh Maliki in Iraq, she didn't even bother to tell him of the status of the resolution.
She said, I don't need to tell him the status of the resolution.
He knows he can look at the election results here.
He knows what's going on in this country.
I didn't have to tell him this.
But I think Mrs. Pelosi should tell us.
What opinions did she have before the trip?
What did she learn on the trip?
And how, if at all, this new information has changed her mind.
Now, don't hold your breath on this, folks.
You'll die.
Because this will not happen.
Uh by the way, on Sunday, Speaker Pelosi was in Afghanistan while at the same time Prince Charles was in the United States in Harlem.
Now here's the question.
Did Prince Charles learn as much about our inner cities as Ms. Pelosi learned about Afghanistan's outer cities?
I think here this is the grim reality.
The trip was a photo op.
It was a trip that attempted to build credibilities.
Uh, and it's a hedge.
In case the mission succeeds, she can claim it was her pressure.
That turned the trick.
That she went over, she met with these people, uh, that they open up to her and this sort of thing.
But you know darn well this is a photo op.
Uh and it's it is is clear to me that that uh trying to turn this as a hedge in case everything backfires and we win.
Imagine that.
In case every plan of the Democrats have backfires and we win, she needs a hedge.
By the way, a couple of scandal-related stories.
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and two other prominent Democrats have failed, this is in USA Today, to disclose that they are officers of family charities.
This is in violation of a law requiring members of Congress to report nonprofit leadership roles.
Rahmanuel of Illinois, uh, the fourth ranking House Democrat, Senator Evan Bye of Indiana, also, along with Miss Pelosi, did not report that they serve as family foundation directors according to financial disclosure reports examined by USA Today.
All three foundations are funded and controlled by the lawmakers and their spouses and do not solicit donations from outside sources, which means that in addition to good works of the foundation, it's a tax move.
A lot of wealthy people do this.
Set up a foundation.
The XYZ Foundation, fund it with a couple of million.
You get to take two million dollars off your taxes the year you fund it, but you only have to give away 5% of it every year.
So rather than dole out charitable contributions and add them up over the course of year, just set up a foundation and then dole it out as you wish.
You can't use it yourself unless you cheat, lie, steal, and try to, but legally you can't.
But you do get the full whatever deduction, whatever, whatever amount you fund your foundation with, and that's why there are so many of them.
And of course, people do this, they want to make it look like they're doing good works.
God, it's tax policy.
And it's legal.
I'm not a it's not a tax dodge.
It's just uh anybody can start a foundation.
If you if you want to start a foundation with $10,000, you can do it.
You know, you could you could have Bow Snardly Foundation.
And if you put the word foundation behind your name, wow, what a great philanthropist.
Doing such great work for the poor thirsty, downtrodden, hungry, and bored.
Anyway, what's the big deal about this?
Filing a false report, and that's what this is.
When you don't report that you head up the foundation as you're supposed to report.
Filing a false report could be prosecuted as a felony, but these prosecutions are rare, of course.
Uh, last year, then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist failed to report his role in a family charity, updated his disclosure form.
He was not punished.
Uh, let's see, how long has it been here?
Pelosi spokesman is oversight.
Yeah, it was an oversight as she had not listed her position dating back to 1992.
Folks, it's just a 14-year oversight.
That's all.
14, maybe maybe 15 year oversight.
It's that's it's really nothing.
Uh, and then Dingy Harry in the Los Angeles Times again is aiming at Dingy Harry.
It's hard to buy undeveloped land in moving, uh, booming Northern Arizona for 166 dollars an acre, but Harry Reid effectively did just that when a longtime friend decided to sell property owned by the employee pension fund that he controlled.
In 2002, Dingy Harry paid 10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Claire Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor.
Las Vegas lubricants distributor.
Wow, the Cation location, location.
Does that conjure up some neat pictures?
Dingy Harry doing business with Claire Haycock in the Las Vegas lubricants business.
Also has been his friend for 50 years.
The payment, $10,000 gave Dingy Harry full control of a 160-acre parcel in Bullhead City that Dingy Harry and the pension fund had jointly owned.
Reed's price for the equivalent 60 acres of undeveloped desert was less than one-tenth of the value the assessor placed on it at the time.
Six months after the deal closed, Dingy Harry introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricant dealers who had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies.
I read that again.
Thank you.
Six months after the deal closed, Dingy Harry introduced legislation to address the plight of lubricants dealers who had their uh uh had their uh uh had their supplies disrupted by the decisions of big oil companies.
It was an issue that the Haycock family had brought to Dingy Harry's attention in 1994, according to a source familiar with the events.
Now, if Reed were to sell the property for any of the various estimates of its value, his gain on his $10,000 investment could range from $50,000 to $290,000.
It's a potential violation of congressional ethics for a member to accept anything of value, including a real estate discount from a person with interests before Congress.
A long story.
The LA Times has done a lot of stories like this on the uh apparent uh uh questionable ethics of Dingy Harry.
And of course, this will be uh ignored as well, other than what it has appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
Scientists from the UK Times here, scientists say rising greenhouse gases will make climate change unstoppable in a decade.
See, was it last year or the year before I read that uh we can't stop it, it's too late.
Was it last year it was curtains, uh doom city, uh we had no chance.
I remember in 84 watching uh this week with David Brinkley, Alan Oppenheim, environmental wacko scientist on saying we've only got twenty years to uh reverse this.
If we wait 20 years, it's too late.
No, 20 years and 84 in 2004.
Now it's 2007, and we got 10 years to save the world.
Ten years to save the world.
Meanwhile, in much of Central and Western Florida tonight, there is a freeze warning.
And the citrus growers are a little concerned out there.
Now, where we live here on the ocean won't get below 40 because of the ocean temperatures, but you have to go far inland where there is a freeze warning from 3 a.m. to 8 a.m. tomorrow.
In South Florida.
And by the way, I looked at the almanac.
Do you know what the record low temperature was for yesterday?
Was something like 38 or 39 back in 1930 something or 47.
It was years and years and years ago.
The freeze line, by the way, if you want to look the freeze line in the North American continent's moving south.
Wasn't all that long ago that uh citrus growers down here did not have to worry about freezes.
It's really relatively recently that this um had to happen.
So the stark warning here comes from scientists who are working on the final draft of a new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And I guess this is the last warning.
This is they really mean it this time.
We're not kidding around.
This they really, really mean it this time.
Ten years.
Ten years, and we are out of here.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg feels isolated on the Supreme Court.
Poor baby.
Details and phone calls coming up.
So much to do.
I'm gonna have to do a lot of this stuff tomorrow.
I just I end up spending more time on Mrs. Clinton than I intended.
And it was because of uh popular demand.
But Ruth Bader Ginsburg feels isolated on the Supreme Court.
We divide, this is a quote of hers.
We divide on a lot of important questions, but we we have had the experience of growing up women, and we have certain sensitivities that our male colleagues lack.
She said she dislikes being all alone on the court nearly a year after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor.
Now, folks, this is nothing short of shocking that this concept came out of this woman's mouth.
What does this have to do with the law?
It suggests the old canard that the Constitution's a living breathing document, and as such, it is to be manipulated to suit the needs and whims of the Times and the judges.
Positions on legal questions should never be affected by somebody's personal experience.
Instead, it should be by what the law requires.
If women have certain sensitivities that render them differently qualified for the bench than men, then wouldn't those who have had abortions be vested with certain sensitivities that other people lack?
How about crime victims or any other host of special classifications?
This is this is this is Syria.
And by legitimizing this, the drive-by media fails to question the idea that different people are going to come to different decisions based on their life experiences.
And in the process, Justice Ginsburg undermines the important idea that justice should be completely color and gender blind.
She feels alone on the court.
Because she's the only woman that what the hell was feminism about?
Man, folks, it's falling apart right around us.
Unfortunately, the effects are not.
Seems the structure is New York Times, women feeling freer to suggest vote for mom.
Theory of this is that women don't have to fear being identified as the mommy party anymore because national security is the top issue.
How can that be when you got a guy in the LA Times saying 9-11, no big deal?
We're exaggerating.
What national threat?
What national security threat?
We don't have a national security threat.
Isn't that the idea the left puts forth?
And by the way, anybody, please tell me.
Any of you out there, when you see Hillary Clinton, do you think mom?
Speaking of Hillary.
One more soundbite.
Davenport, Iowa Town Hall meeting at the Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds.
This is Mrs. Clinton.
Well, the question really is we face a lot of dangers in the world, and in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of evil men.
You know, people like Osama bin Laden comes to mind.
And what in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men.
Now, folks, I don't care who you are.
There's one name that flashes to the front of your mind.
And that name flashed to the front of everybody's mind.
So Mrs. Clinton, when asked by reporters to whom she was talking about, said I was thinking about uh how our leadership for the last six years um hasn't really produced results.
Yeah.
I represent New York.
Yeah, yeah.
We went to war in Afghanistan to destroy those who attacked us.
And I was in Afghanistan two weeks ago, and we still haven't either captured or killed Osama bin Laden.
Right, right, right, right, right.
Then a reporter finally said, All right, when you referred to evil men, did you mean your your husband?
Oh, come on.
I don't think anybody in there thought that.
Everybody still thinks it.
Everybody But you know, here's the thing.
Uh what in her background equips her to deal with evil and bad men?
It's a good question.
Bush tricked her into voting as what she's saying, she got tricked by Bush.
She really wasn't, folks.
If you go back and listen to what she said in 2003 before the Iraq war started, but she's saying she got tricked by Bush.
Uh who else would trick her?
Uh who else would be able to deceive Mrs. Clinton?
Kim Jong il would probably everybody would be able to deceive her.
She's so susceptible to being tricked.
But the real answer to the question, what in her background equips her to deal with evil and bad men?
I mean, the right answer would be uh would be feminism.
Uh quickly, Don in Westland, Michigan.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello.
Uh Rush Mega Ditto's from Michigan where evidently global warming hasn't reached us yet.
Well, hang tough, sir.
It's coming.
I've been a conservative all my life.
But I want you to know you're a breath of fresh air.
And today's world.
I served in Vietnam 1966-67 with the intent to win the war.
And as you know how that war went.
I just in my lifetime have looked over the my my 60 years here and realized that there's been the Korean War, which was a draw, a line and pull-out war.
The Vietnam War, where we drew a line, but then eventually had to pull out.
And now we're in this Iraq situation where it's just a pull-out.
And my question to you is how do you bring resolve back into a nation?
Uh well, I believe that the American people respond to leadership.
I think that's why we have our system.
We elect leaders.
That's what we think we're doing, particularly high national office.
So we would very easily bring back resolve if we just go in.
You know, just the American people want the enemy to suffer.
They want the enemy to be defeated here.
A show of resolve coupled by the action that would accompany it to bring this off would bring back resolve.
Now that leftists would they're never gonna be on board, sir, but they're always gonna be outnumbered if there is uh leadership that provides that resolve.
Winning, it just takes care of so many things.
We learned something very big today, folks, and that is that Harry Reed, Dingy Harry, is in the uh back pocket, maybe even the big the front pocket of Big Lubricant in uh in Nevada.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
See you tomorrow, folks.
▲
Export Selection