All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 21, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:53
February 21, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And welcome back, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, sophisticated people, understand satire and parody.
You're here at the EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh behind the golden EIB microphone at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There are no graduates and there are no degrees because the education never stops.
Telephone number, if you'd like to join us, 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBnet.com.
Catherine in Ventura, California, hang on.
I'm coming to you real quick here.
I'm going to use you to start the lifestyle section.
But before I get there, I want to spend a little bit more time on this the guy that called about the HBO documentary.
It's going to run on Abu Grab on HBO sometime tomorrow night, next week, whenever.
I forget what he said it's going to run.
But he was just bit out of shape that the people in Hollywood, the Democrats, seem to want to continue to portray the U.S. military as no different today than they were in Vietnam.
And I want to read this quote to you from Charles Schumer again.
This was on the McClatchy Newswire.
He said, quote, there will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment.
I mentioned this to you yesterday.
This is the first resolution, this non-binding thing that failed.
It's just the first of many of these attempts to isolate the president politically.
But here's the key.
There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment, just like in the days of Vietnam.
The pressure will mount.
The president will find he has no strategy, and he will have to change his strategery, and the vast majority of our troops will be taken out of harm's way and come home.
Now, the obvious question that anybody with any historical perspective would have is, why would anybody want to relive Vietnam?
Why, why, who is it that looks at that period of time as something great and valorous in America's history?
What happened?
For all intents and purposes, it was a defeat for this country.
And it was, oh my gosh, it was a human massacre in that region after we left.
Pol Pot wiped out how many millions of his own people in Cambodia?
The North overran the South.
My gosh, the killing fields?
When we left, that's what happened.
They want to replicate that?
Beyond that, ladies and gentlemen, the thing about this that's most curious to me is how in the world Democrats think that this helped them politically.
Did they benefit from Vietnam?
Somebody explained to me how Vietnam and their ending of that war, along with the drive-by media back, then how did it help them?
It gave them George McGovern.
They got shellacked by Richard Nixon.
I guess they think it led to Watergate, and they got a Republican president out of office.
And I think it's what they're trying to replicate now, but it forever sealed their image as weak on national defense, literal dislike and hatred for the U.S. military, and they were wandering in the desert for years.
Jimmy Carter came along and made it even worse.
What in the world about Vietnam do they want to replicate?
And to me, it has to be that in their mind, the culmination of Vietnam was forcing a Republican president from office.
You know, Nixon at Watergate.
All right, Catherine, let's see.
What do you have switched up on me here?
Oh, all right.
Catherine, hang on.
Mr. Snurdley says there's somebody he's got to put up first.
Tony in Cleveland, it's you, sir.
Your turn.
Welcome to the program.
Hey, Rush.
How are you doing?
This is Tony from Cleveland.
Good, sir.
You know what?
I kind of listen to you talk from time to time, and I don't think you're dumb, but that would mean that you're pure evil.
And I was just wondering how you thought about that.
Here we are in the verge of the lifestyle section.
You give me...
I've got to answer a question from somebody who thinks I'm pure evil.
Wants to know what I think of his opinion of me as pure evil?
I think you are dumb.
Well, no, I mean, I'm not even going to try to say that.
And, okay, here, I'll try to jump in the conversation here.
If you want to benefit on Vietnam, I guess the benefit would show that the American people can actually stop an unjust war there.
No, no, no, no.
If you're going to talk about Vietnam, it's going to be as idiotic as what you just said to me about me being evil when it comes to oil.
What do you mean I am evil when it comes to oil?
Well, okay, I don't think I mentioned oil to you, but I did talk about to your screener.
But yeah, I mean, have you ever seen an oil company going under?
Have you ever seen oil companies on hardware?
Why do you want them to?
Do you want them to all be like Ford?
Do you want them to go under?
What do you want?
Why are you talking about Ford?
Because Ford wants to talk about losses, but at the same time, they're buying out Daimler Chrysler right now.
What do you mean?
Stop talking about Ford.
It's a major American corporation and it's hurting.
And I don't hear you guys celebrating this or being what do you want oil to go under for?
I'm sorry.
Do I want oil to go under?
Yeah, you said, when has it ever gone under?
I haven't seen it go under.
Why do you want it to?
And by the way, if you go back to the 80s in Louisiana, domestic oil did go under.
There are a lot of people in this country in the domestic oil business who lost everything because of regulations and plummeting prices.
It has gone under.
Where were you?
You should have been happy and celebrating.
I think I was about 10 years old at the time.
Sorry, I'm a little bit younger there.
But why am I skills?
It's not going under.
Probably most likely because of the record-setting profits and the massive consolidation of wealth in this country, where I believe now it's up to 40 or 50%.
All right.
Thanks for the call, Tony.
I hearken back to our 20-year-old who called from Miami.
I'm having the same conversation he had with his boss.
And it's just as big a waste of time.
What was his name?
What was that young guy's name?
I hope he is still listening to the program.
This was going to be the conversation I was going to have.
Jack was his name.
This was going to be the same conversation I was going to have with the big-time Hollywood mogul at the big party at the Pebble Beach Pro-Am on Wednesday night when he wanted to get my mind right about oil.
What these conversations are worth, ladies and gentlemen, is people learning the intellectual vacancy that exists on the part of those people who have this hatred for big oil.
Profits.
What did he say?
The consolidation of wealth in this country?
Don't do that to me again when I'm getting ready for the lifestyle.
How do we...
How do we segue from this to the story about men being hardwired to ignore their wives?
Catherine in Ventura, California, thanks.
I apologize for that.
Snurdley thought he could cause some fireworks here, but it's your turn now.
Oh, thank you.
Two questions, Rush.
Yeah.
Are you familiar with the Florida judge who is trying this Anna Nicole Smith?
Well, I don't know him personally.
He lives down the road in Broward County, Fort Lauderdale.
I don't know him personally.
I've got to try.
I got it on here.
Is he a guy?
Is he in the paper all the time?
He seems to just love to perform.
Explain my attitude about this, Judge.
I've got to go back to my days of naivete and idealism when I was young.
And my whole family are lawyers, and I have an uncle who's a federal judge, and my grandfather was a judge at times, prominent lawyer.
My cousin is a judge in the Missouri Supreme Court.
My father, talking to my brother and me as we were growing up, constantly telling us about what it's like dealing with judges as a lawyer, that they are autocrats, they rule a courtroom.
Now, wait a minute, my husband's a judge.
Well, no, no.
No, he respected.
No, no, he respected.
He was using his experiences in the courtroom with judges as a life lesson for me.
You're always sonnies that are going to deal with authority figures, and they're going to have more power than you do.
And there are just times you've got to deal and live with what they say.
And he then went on to say, this is why, and I'll never forget him saying this.
This is why we need incredible people as judges.
Well, this is the next question I wanted to ask you.
Is there a commission on judicial performance or some kind of judicial watchdog agency in Florida that lawyers can complain to, you know, regarding how he's handling this case?
And I'm self-exagging judicial.
Well, I don't know.
Your husband's a judge.
Is he subjected to that where you live in California?
Oh, my gosh.
In California, there's a commission.
It's very liberal.
They mostly go after conservative judges.
But yes, they have a canon that.
What kind of judge is your?
He's a Superior Court judge.
Superior Court judge.
Yeah.
Is that elected or appointed?
He's elected.
Elected.
Well, yeah, because.
If he did this, they would be on him next week.
When it comes to appointed judges, and I don't know if this guy is, I don't know what legal mechanisms there are to reprimand or get rid of the guy.
But that's not the point.
I think as I look at this judge, and when my father was telling me about, you know, in his view, why it was incredibly important we just had really rare and unique, wise individuals as judges, and he was relating this to the current legal issues of the time.
I forget what they were, but he gave me examples.
I look at this guy, and he is the antithesis of an incredible person.
This guy is no more than a wannabe television personality.
Exactly.
This guy is making a...
It's disgraceful to the other judges in the states.
Well, he's a disgrace.
He's not the first to bring disgrace upon judges.
No, there's Ito and all kinds of lovely judges out there that did that.
You've got to remember the lay people are watching this, and you just think, geez.
Actually, it probably is a good thing when you think about it because they can see what it's like to have someone like him handling a case.
Well, I can, in a way, it's okay for people to get a different view.
They look at judges, I mean, they're wearing the robes, they're up there on the bench, they're sitting high above everybody.
I think a lot of people think they are, especially at the Supreme Court level.
You look at our society today, the judges have been set up as the final arbiters of political issues.
Yes, sir.
So this guy is sitting there, and he knows that there are network TV cameras televising everything he's doing, and he is milking this for everything it's worth while the body's decomposing.
I mean, this is an ordeal that ought not have lasted longer than half a day.
I know.
I hope the lawyers do something about it.
I hope they can complain.
Well, one of the lawyers today told this guy it was a circus, and the judge said, I take great umbrage at that.
You're calling these proceedings in my chambers a circus.
We're my God, he's he's he chartered a couple of jets for this Howard K. Stern guy to fly back to the Bahamas last night.
Wow.
Gave him his choice.
He went out and got a jet from a local sports owner or a doctor.
And Howard K. Stern, this is in the newspaper could take a second.
Oh, he is like Lance Edo, who had been flying over Southern California in the Goodyear Blanche and letting celebrities in.
Oh, goody.
Okay.
Well, that's true.
So this guy's not the first, but I'm just, this is, this guy is totally caught up in his pop culture moment.
It's patently obvious.
This is sick.
It is sick.
In terms of our legal system, it is sick in terms of the status of our pop culture.
And there's part of me that thinks Brittany Spears keeps checking in and out of rehab every other day because she's jealous of all the coverage this guy's getting.
Back in just a second.
Time won't let me, but we don't squeeze it in anyway.
All right, let's get, let's get to the lifestyle section.
Eagerly awaited since yesterday.
First up from New York.
This is Associated Press and CBS Dispatch Combined.
In what it says is an attempt to get students to debate the issue of illegal immigration, a student Republican club at New York University has dreamed up a novel game that, of course, has some on the campus calling the event racist.
In the game planned for Thursday called Find the Illegal Immigrant, members of the club who present their NYU ID become immigration agents looking for an illegal in the crowd.
The agent who successfully identifies the illegal immigrant wins a gift certificate.
Students have sent club officials emails calling the event racist and disgusting, but the club said it's about stoking debate on the issue of illegal immigrants.
It's not a racist event, first and foremost, said Sarah Chambers, 21-year-old president of the College Republicans.
Just because we don't want illegal immigrants being able to completely disregard the laws of our country doesn't make us racist.
This is exactly the kind of discussion that should be happening on college campaign all over the country.
Brave kids, these Republicans at NYU being called racists.
That's a typical left-wing trick to shut down debate.
Political correctness and all that.
All right, where's this from?
Duke, this is from Duke University.
When a man fails to help out around the house, his poor performance might be related to a subconscious tendency to resist doing anything his wife wants, according to a new study.
Men and women are sure to argue about this when, in fact, the man and woman who led this study disagree on the meaning of the results.
Can't laugh too hard or coughing a spasm.
We'll erupt.
Psychologists have long known about reactance, the tendency to do the exact opposite of what's requested by a loved one or a boss.
The new study aimed to find out whether the phenomenon might occur at a subconscious level as well.
Participants were asked to name a significant person they perceived as controlling their lives and another who just wanted them to have fun.
Then they were asked to discern words from jumbled letters on a computer screen while the names of these people they had mentioned were flashed subliminally.
The names were flashed too quickly to be registered consciously, but they were flashed up there.
Subjects performed better when exposed to the name of the person who wanted them to have fun than when exposed to the controlling individual's name, even though they couldn't see the controlling individual's name on the screen.
Gavin Fitzsimmons, professor of marketing and psychology at Duke, said, Our participants were not even aware that they had been exposed to someone else's name, yet that non-conscious exposure was enough to cause them to act in defiance of what their significant other would want them to do.
Further testing found that study participants who were more reactant responded more strongly to the subliminal cues and had a wider performance gap.
So the study has concluded that men are hardwired to ignore their wives.
It doesn't also say that wives are hardwired to ignore their husbands.
No, I mean, it doesn't say that here.
It's totally focusing on men and authority figures.
Your boss, your spouse, men hardwired to ignore their wives.
You know, I don't know if it's hardwired or not.
I mean, this study indicates it might be with this subconscious stuff, this subliminal stuff.
But to me, this is just, it's about nagging.
You know, I just, I think men are hardwired to ignore nagging in general.
And just do.
What men respond to is sex.
Let's be honest.
I'm kidding.
I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, just, just trying to, I'm just, just trying to be stereotypical here.
Anyway, men hardwire.
This is from Duke University, and we all know they know what they're doing there.
Men hardwired to ignore their wives.
Slate.com, lib publication, women are chokers.
Studies show they cave under pressure.
Why?
Article by Steve Landsberg.
Not Landesberg.
Steve Landsberg.
Among the highest paid corporate executives, only 2.5% are women.
Among the most elite scientists, those who've been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, fully 9% are women.
Depending on your biases, you can read that as evidence that women are better at science than business, that corporations discriminate against women, or if you believe that profit-maximizing corporations get everything just right, that the National Academy discriminates against men.
You can read this in any number of ways you want.
If you have access to the World Wide Web, you'll have no problem finding theories, evidence, counter-evidence, and polemics galore on the subject.
But here, I just want to talk about one bit of evidence regarding one of the many factors that might be in play.
Women, especially high-achieving women, choke under pressure.
You can observe a lot of high achievers under pressure at a Grand Slam tennis tournament.
Better yet, you can observe them under variable pressure.
I hate to have to stop there, ladies and gentlemen.
The constraints of the programming format cause this.
We'll resume this.
Women are chokers under pressure after we get back.
All right, we left off before the break sharing you details of slate.com.
This is a left-of-center internet publication.
Story by Stephen Landsberg called Women Are Chokers.
Studies show they cave under pressure.
He says, you can observe a lot of high achievers under pressure at a Grand Slam tennis tournament.
Better yet, you can observe them under variable pressure.
Things are a lot tenser when the score is 5-5 when it's 0-0.
Professor Danielle Paserman of Hebrew University made good use of this variability at the 2006 French Open and the U.S. Open and the Wimbledon tournaments.
First, Danielle is a man.
He assigned an importance to each point in each match.
He did this by assigning probabilities to every way the match might unfold, accounting for players' ratings, the surface they were playing on, and the identity of the server.
That allowed him to say things like, if Roger Federer wins this point, he has a 60% chance to win the match.
If he loses the point, he has a 55% chance.
The 5% difference measures the point's importance.
Excuse me.
It turns out that by at least one measure, the number of unforced errors, men play equally well throughout the match.
They make unforced errors on about 30% of the most important points, about 30% of the least important, about 30% of those in between.
But women show a very different pattern.
34% unforced errors on the least important points, steadily rising to almost 40% on the most important points.
That's almost surely too big a difference to be mere coincidence or statistical.
What, besides choking, could explain these numbers?
Well, maybe the closest games are usually played late in the match when players are more fatigued.
Maybe more of those games involve weak players.
Maybe more of them occur at the French Open where the court's harder to play.
But Professor Paserman tests all these theories and none stands up to statistical analysis.
Another counter theory: maybe women play more defensively when the score is tight.
If both players just keep lobbing the ball back and forth, there can't be any forced errors.
So all errors are recorded as unforced.
In support of this theory, Professor Paserman observes that women do play more defensively when the score is tight.
But unfortunately for the counter theory, so do men.
When the pressure's on, both men and women get more defensive and by about the same amount, but only women make more errors.
Meanwhile, another band of researchers gone on to explain and research, been running experiments to see how men and women perform in competitive environments.
First, they have subjects of what this leads to, ladies and gentlemen, is this, the final line of the piece.
But in competition against men, women do no better than when they're working in isolation.
Competition against anyone, according to the statistical analysis here of this French professor, Michelle, the gentleman Paserman, competition against anyone improves men's performance.
Competition against women improves women's performance.
But competition against women, against men, women crumble.
In the corporate world, the Grand Slam tennis circuit, which takes us, you know, I don't doubt this.
It's why there exists the Queen Bee syndrome.
Why there you go?
Whoa, you're the reaction.
This guy is a Nazi.
The readers of Slate.com cannot believe Slate published this.
They cannot believe this guy wrote this.
They are dumbfounded.
They cannot, they're beside themselves.
They are agog.
They are aghast.
Well, this is women and men too.
I mean, it's, you know, a female liberal, male liberal.
What's the difference?
Including anatomically.
But I mean, no, they're.
Here's one.
Dear Slate editors, as a longtime reader of your site and scientists, I am very disappointed in your decision to publish the article, Women Are Chokers.
I am furthermore amazed that Stephen Landsberg, who got his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, an economic school famous for its mathematical rigor, would be taken inside such amateurish scholarship.
And he goes on, but some are not as civilized as that response.
Some of them are responding like the guy's a conservative on a conservative blog and they're writing at the Daily Cause or Democratic Underground or what have you.
Moving on, ladies and gentlemen, here with our lifestyle stack.
Isn't this fun?
How many of you have been raised to believe that sports builds character, that there are life lessons in sports?
I was one who was raised that way.
I happen to believe it to be true, but conventional wisdom, according to a new survey, is wrong.
It suggests that U.S. high school athletes cheat more than classmates who don't play sports.
Two-year study of Haskruel athletes conducted by the Josephson Institute of Ethics in L.A., I'm sure we've all heard of the Josephson Institute of Ethics, also found growing acceptance of cheating as a way to gain competitive advantage, according to the L.A. Times.
Did you know that cheating is new in our society, folks?
It never used to happen until the Josephson Institute of Ethics began studying it.
Michael Josephson, president, founder of the Josephson Institute of Ethics in Los Angeles, told the LA Times that the report, which was based on interviews with over 5,000 Haskruel athletes across the fruited plain, found that many coaches are teaching our kids to cheat and to cut corners.
There is reason to worry that the sports fields of America are becoming the training grounds for the next generation of corporate and political villains and thieves.
Said Michael Josephson of the Josephson Institute of Ethics, what a naive boob.
I would like to know his definition of cheating.
At any rate, this is just preposterous.
I don't think sports.
The headline here, sports may not build character.
That's crazy.
But in addition to that being crazy, sports has given us a few characters, many of them on display at All-Star Weekend in Las Vegas for the NBA.
But anyway, you know what this is?
This is an attempt to tear down the institution of sports competition as a way of learning life lessons, never quitting, getting accustomed to things not going your way, that there's more in you than you think you have.
All of these great life lessons are now coming under assault because the victors, the winners, are being categorized and characterized as cheaters.
And they will end up being the next corporate and political villains.
Moving along in our valuable lifestyle stack today, why praise can be bad for kids.
After a decade, maybe even more, of all that self-esteem crap in the schools, we have produced kids who have not learned to try, according to this story.
This is, in fact, HR, I want you to find something.
We got a substitute broadcast engineer today, and you may have trouble finding this.
We have a PSA.
We did this long ago of a teacher talking to a student who doesn't know anything.
But whatever answer he gives, the teacher says, right, little Johnny, what's to see if you can find that, because it dovetails perfectly with this story, because we've had a decade.
We have a decade of this self-esteem garbage.
You must never say anything negative to your children.
You must always praise them.
If two plus two equals five and they think it's five, then that's what it is until they learn this four because we will not humiliate them.
Now, all of a sudden, specific praise can be good, but too much praise can bring down kids' performance.
Wow, you got an A without even trying.
Your drawing is wonderful.
You're my little Picasso.
Keep it up, and you'll be the next Peyton Manning.
If you're like most parents, you offer praise to your kids, believing it's the key to their success.
Those flattering words can boost a child's self-esteem and performance, but according to a new study, praise may do more harm than good.
For the study, researchers divided 128 fifth graders into groups, gave them a simple IQ test.
One group was told it did really well, must be very smart.
The other group was told it did not do really well.
Wait a minute.
Okay, good Ed.
Hang on.
One group was told it did really well.
They must be very smart.
The other group was told it did really well and must have worked hard.
One group was praised for intelligence, the other for effort.
Asked if they wanted to take a slightly harder test, the kids praised for their intelligence were reluctant.
Of those praised for their effort, 90% were eager for a more challenging task.
And on a final test, the effort group performed significantly better than the group praised for its intelligence.
Many of the kids who had been labeled smart performed worst of all.
The hard workers got the message they could improve their scores by trying harder, but the smart kids believe they should...
What is new about this?
What in the world is new about this?
This is nothing more than good old-fashioned motivation.
But we've been told for the last 10 years, can't criticize, must build their self-esteem.
This is how we immortalize that in a typical EIB network parody.
This has been going on for years.
That parody dates back to the early 90s.
We're getting close to the mid-2010s here.
Or mid-2000s.
We're beyond the mid-2000s.
At any rate, now you can praise your kid the wrong way and you can give too much praise.
Here's a classic line here.
Her surprising, Carol Dweck, by the way, was the researcher here, Stanford University, professor of developmental psychology.
Her surprising research, which she has repeated with hundreds of children from all socioeconomic backgrounds, was published recently in the journal Child Development.
Instructions for parents are to be specific about praise.
Don't be afraid to withhold it.
The key is to be specific.
Parents should praise children for their effort, their concentration, their strategies.
No, don't, well, you can praise them for their achievements, but don't praise them for being smart.
Don't tell them they're smart because you're going to have to, because if they're stupid, they're going to get lazy.
But see, this is a problem.
You start praising people for their effort, and they're going to start working harder than other people are, and they're going to create a disparity, and the harder workers are going to make lazy sloths look bad, and the cycle's going to repeat.
The hard workers will be penalized.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Just checking the email.
Somebody says, you haven't talked about the scooter-libby trail.
What do you get a scooter-libby trail?
Well, I think the trial's a joke.
I mean, I could spend a lot of time on it.
I don't even call it the scooter-libby trial.
I call it the Viagra-Cialis-Levitra trial.
Well, I mean, you know, those warnings about if an erection should last longer than four hours, call a doctor, go to the emergency.
This trial is arguably the longest erection in drive-by media history.
And it's over something that is purely bogus.
And Byron York today, writing at National Review Online, points out that in closing arguments yesterday, Fitzgerald pointed the finger at Dick Cheney.
And I have always known that Cheney was the target of this.
I think this is purely personal.
I think this guy got the case, found that there was no case, and just didn't have the guts to say there's nothing here.
And I've never understood this guy never questioning anything Joseph Wilson ever said to him.
I don't know that Wilson has ever been put under oath.
I mean, just overlooking Wilson's flat-out lies.
A prosecutor willing to skirt past all the other witnesses who had serious memory losses and yet embracing their failed memories all to target Libby.
What worries me about this is this is a D.C. jury.
And the odds that you're going to have a lot of people in that jury that hate the Bush administration are pretty good.
I have no clue how this is going to turn out.
I guess hung jury is the best thing to be hoped for unless this jury just concludes that no witness could remember anything they said.
And why in the world is Libby being singled out for this?
Chuck in Shreveport, Louisiana.
I'm glad you called, sir.
Nice to have you with us on the program.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for having me.
You bet.
And listen, I want to step back to the Rumsfeld-McCain flap just real quickly.
Yeah.
Give you a little bit of context.
I'm a retired military officer.
I retired last summer, so I saw a lot of this from the inside.
In the 1990s, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress complicitly destroyed the military in that they cut our Army from 20 divisions down to 10.
That was the Army.
Oh, in the 90s, you said.
In the 90s.
So you're talking about Bill Clinton.
Let's name names.
Well, I'm talking about, yes, Bill Clinton, and I'm a conservative Republican right-winger, but a Republican Congress allowed him to do it.
They cut the Army.
So everyone that was in power in those times, as far as I'm concerned, should answer for this about why these guys are having to go back over there two and three times.
That is the small army that Rumsfeld inherited.
Okay?
And so, you know, I think it's a little bit disingenuous for Senator McCain to point fingers like this.
At the same time, Mr. Rumsfeld was not Lily White of his own.
You look back at what he did in the 70s when he was a SECDF under Ford.
He began a massive drawdown, and he brought that same mentality to the service.
Well, I think something about Rumsfeld I heard was that it wasn't trying to modernize the force.
Well, yes, but they had the idea that you could modernize instantly and cut all the people.
And I think he was headed down that path when 9-11 happened.
He's taking the Air Force down that path right now.
That's what he's got started in the Air Force.
So you agree with McCain that Rumsfeld sucks?
No, I'm not sure I would say he sucks, but I would say big mistakes were made on both sides.
But I think the biggest mistakes were our elected leaders in the 90s with Mr. Clinton at the lead and all of the Democratic and Republican leaders that allowed our Army and our Marines to be cut.
Well, I really can't disagree with that.
As Clinton and his pal, we love the military.
We love it.
As for Republican complicity in this, there's no question there had to be some of it, but I'd have to go back and look.
I don't know that the Republicans were strong enough to override a presidential veto on some of this stuff.
And remember, we had a peace dividend and all this stuff.
We're going to go sing Kumbaya be happily ever after and never have any conflicts in the rest of the world again.
I've got to run, take a break because sadly, we're out of busy broadcast time, and I can't do a fourth hour because I've got to do an interview with the BBC about, what is it?
I don't even remember.
Back in just a second.
Time flies here.
Fastest three hours in media and we don't have any left.
We had to go.
But we'll be back tomorrow, revved up for whatever is out there that we have to deal with.
▲
Export Selection