Rush Limbaugh Program - July 20, 2007, Friday, Hour #1

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 20, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program

36:28

July 20, 2007, Friday, Hour #1

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
	And welcome to the Rush Limbaugh Program here on the EIB Network.
	Welcome to yet another session here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, where we, well, once again, engage in a relentless pursuit of the truth.
	Lots to talk about today, and we're going to get to it.
	There is much to discuss on the war front, Hillary versus the Pentagon, progress in Iraq.
	The drive-bys aren't going to like this.
	And Bush so upbeat that, well, it's causing a backlash.
	There's an update, too, on the Haditha Marine prosecution persecution, and we'll talk about that.
	Valerie Plame's lawsuit was dismissed somewhat behind the scenes.
	On that, Senator Byrd has attacked Michael Vick.
	Not quite clear the logic, and I'll play the audio for you.
	You can share my consternation.
	And the John Doe liability issue, the liability from immunity if you turn in the six imams who have now sued the people on that passenger plane who complained about their erratic semi-9-11 behavior.
	We'll talk about that today, too.
	Hillary and Obama News, we'll get into that.
	Bush down in Nashville, Tennessee, talking about Ramos and Compeon, the two Border Patrol agents who were jailed for doing their job, jailed for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler at the border.
	The drug smuggler is free under a grant of immunity and has a green card.
	The two Border Patrol agents enforcing the law are serving 11 and 12 years in the federal penitentiary, respectively.
	We'll talk about an update on that.
	And I've got a final update on the Carver Elementary School, the budding madrasa in the public school here in San Diego.
	We talked about that last time I was here.
	There have been developments in that story.
	And we'll get to it.
	First, of course, as you know, Harry Potter Mania reaching a near peak here.
	The Asia bookstores will have the book, I guess, first, midnight Asia time tonight, and then it will go across the globe.
	A remarkable ⁇ this is a remarkable story.
	I'm sure you know it, but let me just summarize it again.
	The author here, J.K. Rowling, an unemployed single mother without a publisher or an agent just 13 years ago.
	She is now the world's first billionaire writer after six novels.
	Six.
	The Hollywood movies, just the movies alone have netted in the neighborhood of $4 billion, just the movies alone.
	The books have sold 325 million copies before today, 325 million copies.
	So a huge success story, but she's unhappy.
	J.K. Rowling reacting angrily to the New York Times review that came out yesterday on the seventh and last book, the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows.
	She was, she says, I'll just quote her, I am staggered, she wrote, that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children.
	I wanted to find out what she was upset about.
	I went back to the review and didn't see much there.
	In fact, they were very complimentary about the book and very guarded about what happens in it, including the ending.
	This is like the Sopranos.
	What's going to be the final installment here?
	What happens to Harry and all of his fellow students there?
	In fact, the New York Times book editor Rick Lyman defended the decision of the New York Times to run a review before publication of the book.
	He said, quote, We took great care not to give away the ending nor to give away significant details about who lives and who dies, confining our review to broader brush assessments of the tone and the writing, unquote.
	It struck me at that moment, ladies and gentlemen, that the New York Times was more careful about the secrets of J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter than they have been about the secrets of national security affecting the lives of our troops.
	They apologized, in effect, to J.K. Rowling for praising her book and censoring themselves from giving away the ending.
	This from the same paper, the same newspaper that published national security secrets throughout the Iraq War, endangering the lives of our troops without an apology to date.
	Did you ever need, I didn't, but maybe you did another reason to know exactly the character of the people at the New York Times.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, Infor Rush at 1-800-282-2882.
	The Dow down a bit today from the surge, this is another surge, the surge at the stock market, the day before amounted to the 31st time that the Dow Industrial Average had hit a record high since January.
	31 record-breaking Dow closes since January.
	Now, you know what the Dow is.
	The Dow Industrial Index is, generally speaking, a six to nine-month indicator of what's going to happen six to nine months from now in terms of the economy.
	It is a bet on the future health, the future growth, the future wealth generation of our economy.
	The tax cut-induced boom that the United States is now experiencing has not hit its peak, according to the Dow, according to the stock markets.
	We have not yet, despite war, despite oil prices spiking, despite everything else we've been dealing with, this boom rolls and its momentum is actually gaining speed, despite what you might hear again in the drive-bys that this is the worst economy we've ever seen.
	And I just don't know how Congress gets away with this.
	How does Congress get away with getting the drive-by media focused on how bad, how low George Bush's approval ratings are when their approval ratings are lower?
	According to Zogby, Bush job approval, about 34%, it's about the same as it was since the start of this year.
	He's not hitting any new highs.
	There's no question about that.
	Although he's not as low as Harry Truman when he went out of office in the Korean War situation.
	Mr. Bush is not as low as Jimmy Carter.
	But at 34%, it's not very high either until you start looking at Congress at 14%.
	14% is almost not registering.
	It's almost not there.
	So we have a pretty interesting situation with that and the implications of it in the debate going on about the war.
	We'll get to that in a moment.
	Oh, and interesting news on the cultural front.
	Before I get to the war news, you have, I don't know whether this has happened all over the country, but here in San Diego, we've been peppered with ads for SICCO, the Michael Moore documentary about healthcare and how good it is in Cuba.
	Just parenthetically, he left out of the movie the most amazing fact about Cuban healthcare.
	And that is when the maximum leader, Fidel Castro, actually got sick, he brought in a Spanish doctor to get well.
	But that's not in the movie.
	But anyway, so SICO trying to sell us on the fact that we ought to have a single-payer government-run health care system.
	I don't know how you sell that.
	I mean, just stepping back for a moment, how do you sell giving your health, the future of your health, to a government after the way that same government handled Katrina?
	How do you sell that exactly?
	I've never been able to understand that.
	But anyway, neither can anybody else, apparently.
	The movie took in, and we do this in California.
	You know, we look at the receipts because movies are such a big business in this sense.
	But this movie, moviegoers are staying away in droves.
	They've been publicizing and advertising this movie everywhere.
	I don't know whether in your town, but certainly in San Diego.
	We had, let's see, we had the nurses, the health industry, the nurses, union, and others doing their own ads.
	But after three weeks in widespread release on a couple of thousand screens, it's at $15.8 million.
	Just to give you, let's see, some comparisons.
	With Fahrenheit 9-11, it was $119 million.
	Sicko is on life support.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Now, I want to get back with the war.
	What's happening with Hillary versus the Pentagon and some of the other issues.
	Also, the kind of fish served at Gore's daughter's dinner apparently became a huge issue among environmentalists.
	Al Gore is now getting it from all sides and deserves even more.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh, 1-800-282-2882.
	Back after this.
	Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh today.
	Rush back on Monday.
	All the information, of course, continues at rushlimbaugh.com.
	Keith in Chicago, you're next on the EIB network.
	Keith, go ahead.
	Hi, there.
	I'm a little bit concerned and confused about approval ratings.
	Now, we know that Bush has record low approval ratings.
	No, they're not records.
	Okay.
	We know he has ridiculously low approval ratings.
	No, he has low approval ratings.
	They're not ridiculously low.
	Ridiculous would have been Richard Nixon at 22.
	Ridiculous would have been Carter, who was almost as low.
	And Harry Truman after Korea, who was almost as low.
	All three of those were lower than the current Bush rating.
	You claim 34%.
	I keep seeing 27%, 28%.
	Yeah, I'm just reading Zogby's the latest.
	Okay.
	But let's look at them as a total.
	Let's look at all the polling as totally.
	Whatever, what's your point?
	Well, when we talk about congressional approval ratings, we're not talking congressional leadership.
	If that's the question, you get a different number.
	So you're mixing apples and oranges.
	No, it's not true.
	You're not reading the Zogby.
	Go to Zogby and read for yourself, sir, before you call the show, because that's not what happened.
	He asked specifically about the Democratic Congress, and the Democratic Congress got poor marks right across the ideological spectrum.
	21 percent of liberals and 10 percent of the very liberal, self-identified, gave Congress Democratic leadership positive marks.
	10 percent of the very liberal gave the Democratic-led Congress positive marks.
	14 percent of conservatives gave the Democratic Congress positive marks.
	So it's low numbers all across the board.
	In fact, among liberals and very liberals, at least among very liberals, it's lower than it is among conservatives.
	What is it among moderates and independents?
	Let's see.
	This is what I'm talking about, Rock.
	8%, well, if you'd allow me, sir.
	8% of political independence, 8% of political independence gave Congress positive marks.
	Congress.
	What about leadership, Congress?
	Democratic Congress.
	And by the way, today, sir, read the New York Times.
	They have an entire article about how Harry Reid is losing control of the Senate.
	They're starting to get critical of the Democratic leadership, too.
	Thank you, Keith, for your call.
	People should prepare themselves, I think, a little more before they call the show.
	All right.
	Now, to the unbelievable situation with Hillary Clinton versus the Pentagon.
	On May 23rd, Mrs. Clinton sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Gates and the same letter to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, at the time.
	And Mrs. Clinton, of course, sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she voted for the war after not reading the intelligence assessment that had been given to her.
	The presidential candidate wanted to know the precise plans that the Pentagon was putting together to withdraw from Iraq.
	Yesterday, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman responded and responded publicly.
	Here's his response in writing, and then he did a press conference with it as well.
	Here's from his response in writing: quote, premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.
	Such talk, he went on, such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi Constitution, and other contentious issues.
	He went on to say, this is again Eric Edelman, an Undersecretary of Defense, in response to Mrs. Clinton, he went on to say that a fear of a fast American departure, quote, exacerbates sectarian trends, unquote, in Iraqi politics.
	In other words, makes the Civil War worse.
	Philippe Rines, a Senate spokesperson for Mrs. Clinton, called Edelman's response, quote, outrageous and dangerous.
	And he said that the administration, quote, must immediately provide a redeployment plan that keeps our brave men and women safe as they leave Iraq.
	Edelman is right on the mark.
	And this is a stinging rebuke, as the Associated Press called it, a stinging rebuke of Mrs. Clinton because it is, I think, patently and obviously true.
	Take out all the names in this back and forth and simply ask yourself: if you were the enemy of the United States, if you were al-Qaeda in Iraq, how would you react to a letter asking you to disclose your surrender procedures?
	Who will appear at the flag lowering ceremony at the embassy in Iraq, and who won't?
	And will the last helicopter out be carrying out the officials we've supported there who are obviously going to be killed in the aftermath of our rapid retreat or not?
	Now, if you were an enemy of the United States, if you were fighting in Iraq, if you were al-Qaeda, wouldn't even the knowledge that Mrs. Clinton had sent that letter give you a whole lot of hope, a whole lot of encouragement, a whole lot of, my gosh, we're winning.
	My gosh, all we've got to do is hold on.
	We're getting killed by the bushel basket full out here in Iraq.
	We're being cleared out of Anbar.
	We're being cleared out of all these provinces.
	Our whole networks are being disrupted in this bush surge damn hymn.
	We're just getting killed out here in the real world, but back there, we're winning because Mrs. Clinton wants to know the timetable for and the details of the surrender.
	Steve in Copper Hill of Virginia is next.
	Steve, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, thanks, Roger.
	Yeah, I just want to reiterate what you said.
	Every single thing that Edelman had to say is demonstrably right on, particularly from a logic flow standpoint.
	It doesn't even say whether or not it's not even political in the sense that it's not talking about whether we should withdraw or whether we will withdraw or who's on the right side of that issue.
	It's just simply talking about that it does not make sense to make these details known.
	And the thing that amazes me is that in the response from Clinton, to call that statement dangerous, I mean, they're just using words for the sake of words.
	That means, how can that be dangerous to?
	Well, and don't be surprised, Stephen.
	That's the standard liberal playbook.
	You throw up a bunch of words hoping some stick, even because you don't believe in logic, you don't believe in reason.
	So you use words as weapons, even if they're the wrong words.
	It doesn't matter.
	And of course, punctuation doesn't matter, and grammar doesn't matter either.
	They've all gone to public school, Stephen.
	So, yes, the Pentagon and Edelman, a logical, reasonable person, had it right.
	Back after this.
	Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh.
	Let's get back to this notion of what's really going on in this war, because from quite an unexpected source comes some pretty interesting information from someone who's there in Iraq.
	His name is John Burns.
	He's the Baghdad Bureau Chief of the New York Times.
	The New York Times bureau chief in Baghdad was on PBS's Charlie Rose show.
	And Burns starts out by saying, the one thing I think virtually all of us who work here or have worked here, meaning Baghdad, for any length of time agree is that the levels of violence would eclipse by quite a long way the bloodshed we've seen to date if the U.S. combat forces withdraw.
	Wait, The New York Times Bureau Chief believes that violence would go up and up a lot if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq.
	Rose is stunned.
	He says, can you give me more understanding of what you mean by that?
	In other words, here's his, you know, Charlie Rose.
	He's sitting there going, oh my God, this guy works for the New York Times, and he just said, what?
	So he gives Burns a chance to withdraw that statement.
	Burns then replies, listen to this, quote, well, I think quite simply, the United States Armed Forces here, and I find this to be very widely agreed among Iraqis that I know of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds, the United States Armed Forces are a very important inhibitor against violence.
	I know it's argued by some people that they provoke the violence.
	I simply don't believe that to be true.
	Hillary Clinton, are you listening?
	The New York Times Baghdad Bureau Chief believes that the sectarian violence, to the extent there is sectarian violence, and there is the insurgency by the al-Qaeda outside foreign fighter forces, that all of that would wreak a tremendous bigger havoc than it already is if we weren't there.
	We're not provoking that.
	We're inhibiting it, according to the New York Times Baghdad Bureau Chief, who probably will have his job for another, oh, 24 minutes, I would think, after making these statements.
	He goes on.
	He goes on.
	There's more.
	Quote, I think it's a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al-Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence.
	Remove them, that is our forces, remove them, or at least remove them quickly.
	And it seems to me, controversial as this may be saying this under the present circumstances, while I know there's this agonizing debate going on in the United States about this, you have to weigh the price here.
	And the price, he says, would be very likely very, very high levels of violence.
	John F. Burns, Baghdad Bureau Chief, New York Times on the Charlie Rose Show, July 17.
	Tim in Fort Bragg.
	Tim, welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
	Hi, Roger.
	Megan Deadoes.
	Thank you.
	I wanted to take issue with a definition of a word.
	And it's really, we oversimplified it by putting this entire thing in the context of a civil war because it's not a civil war.
	And what I tried to explain to your call screener was that, you know, what happens is if one Sunni tribe member has a conflict with one Shia tribe member in Iraq, and I've been there three times, I just returned recently, you know, that's not the end-all-be-all, and they are not at each other over ideological reasons.
	I mean, these people are in a feudal tribal system, the likes of which, you know, the Western world hasn't seen since the Dark Ages.
	And, you know, their entire family structure is their identity.
	So to say that they are embraced in a civil war is simply over, or well, it is oversimplifying the context of the struggle that they are currently dealing with.
	I don't think that's a good idea.
	Tim, what is the war we're in there?
	If you've been there three times, what is the war?
	What we're trying to do is we're trying to introduce the idea of democracy to a group of people who have not been introduced to the ideas of Locke and Hobbes and Hume and these other guys who we based the foundation of our system on.
	And it's going to take some time.
	It's going to take some time.
	They're not going to get it overnight, but they're not unintelligent people.
	They're extremely caring.
	And I think a lot of the members of the tribes that I've worked with in Iraq, and I think they'll get it if we just give them time to understand democracy.
	It's not a stretch to think that they can get it.
	I sense, Tim, and you, in your tone of voice, and first of all, thank you for your service to our country and to the people of Iraq.
	I sense in your tone of voice a frustration because you're reading the same headline I am in the wild and wacky world of Washington, D.C. In our Congress, they're actually debating whether they want to have a final report on whether or not we've won this war in September or November.
	I take it your frustration is since we've been in Germany since 1945, a period of 62 years, since we've been in South Korea since 1953 after the hostilities ended there, a period of whatever that is, 54 years, a couple of months to demand progress and victory and a democracy that could be transplanted from, say,
	Iowa by November seems a little bit of a stretch.
	Right.
	It absolutely is.
	It's not a struggle that is unwinnable in the context that we have the democratic request for a military victory.
	We're not there anymore.
	We're not struggling against an armed force who has our ill intentions.
	We're struggling against ideas.
	We're struggling against the notion that the tribe or the family is more important than supporting the government.
	And we're not trying to build nationalism over there, but we are trying to give them a national identity.
	And Iraqis, for the most part, are receptive to it.
	They understand that their tribe is part of the larger community of Iraq.
	And to give them some breathing room and to allow them to accept these ideas and these notions is only going to be to our benefit.
	It's not going to be in our best interest to leave this unfinished.
	And we can only benefit from having a thriving, working democracy in that region.
	We can only benefit from that.
	Tim, I appreciate your call.
	Thanks for your thoughts, and thanks again for your service.
	Tim and Fort Bragg.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the opposite reaction from Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post, founded WashingtonPost.com.
	The headline of his column is Bush's cognitive dissonance.
	Now, if you get that, cognitive dissonance.
	In other words, not having the ability to face reality.
	Eugene Robinson is one of these liberals who is he just can't envision Bush being successful or the United States prevailing or the Iraqis developing as we did with the Japanese and Germans and so forth democracy out of dictatorships.
	So his column starts this way.
	One hopes the leader of the free world hasn't really truly lost touch with objective reality, but one does have to wonder.
	And he goes on to describe a meeting between nine conservative pundits, as he calls, Cato Byrne and let's see who else is in here, Michael Barone and Rich Lowry and David Brooks went to the White House and met with the president and they all came back and wrote about it and said that Michael Barone said the president was very energized.
	Rich Lowry said the president was confident and upbeat as ever.
	David Brooks, New York Times wrote, quote, far from being beleaguered, Bush was assertive and good-humored.
	You know why, folks?
	Because he's not buying.
	He's not drinking the Kool-Aid, the Democratic Kool-Aid.
	He's not buying the nonsense that we're losing in Iraq, or we should lose in Iraq, or we ought to get out of Iraq.
	He's not buying any of that.
	The president is saying, look, we're going to win and we have to win, and we're winning for the right reason, and we're winning for the people of Iraq as much as we are for us.
	And it's going to take some time.
	And I'm going to sit here.
	I've got 18 months to go, by the way, from today, I think.
	18 months to go.
	And the job has not been untough.
	The job has not been undaunting.
	My hair's all turned gray, and I'm having a colonoscopy tomorrow.
	In fact, I'm going under the anesthetic, and I'm really going to give you liberals a scare.
	While I'm in the anesthetic, the vice president, Mr. Cheney, is going to be President of the United States.
	I think he just did.
	They announced that today from the White House, I think, just to give a dig to the Democrats, that the worst nightmare has come true that Mr. Cheney is President of the United States.
	So, Eugene Robinson, please.
	The only cognitive dissonance that I can detect out here on the left coast when I view Washington, D.C., are idiot liberals like you who simply don't know how important it is that we do win, don't know that we're making progress toward that goal, that our magnificent military is adapting to the changed circumstances of the challenges there.
	Yes, it has taken time, too much time.
	Yes, it is, you know, who's more impatient than any American?
	Yes, it has taken too much time, but yes, they are making that kind of progress.
	They are adapting to the tactics of the enemy, and they are defeating the enemy.
	The enemy's only whole card, the enemy's only hope of prevailing against the United States, is the Democratic Party, the drive-by media, and you, Mr. Robinson.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock.
	In for Rush Limbaugh, back after this.
	Welcome back to the EIB Network.
	Roger Hedgecock filling in for Rush.
	Rushback on Monday got this email apropos of our topic.
	Headline: U.S. control.
	This is from John C.
	He writes: headline, U.S. control, 40% of Baghdad.
	Well, he says that beats 25% of L.A., 10% of Detroit, and 12% of Atlanta.
	You know the headlines, speaking of headlines: Palestinian kills Palestinian, and immediately it's Israel's fault, and of course the great Satan that supports them.
	If Darfur is a killing field and a place where Arabic Muslims are killing non-Arabic-speaking Muslims by the Bushel barrel fold, it's the fault of global warming, according to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
	If Daniel Pearl is beheaded, according to the movie A Mighty Heart, which was seen by at least 14 or 15 people, Angelina Jolie, according to that movie, Pearl was beheaded because the U.S. bombed Afghanistan.
	So I'm used to this line of reasoning, which is unreasoning, but the intensity of it is increasing.
	There is in the House of Representatives an out-of-Iraq caucus.
	They're out of something, but I don't think it's Iraq.
	An out-of-Iraq caucus.
	One of the leaders is Democrat Congresswoman Jan Schikowski of Illinois.
	She has not looked at the matter of what happens after a withdrawal, after Hillary Clinton badgers the Pentagon into saying, yes, we're doing a contingency plan, and yes, we do know what's the last helicopter to leave and how many people will be on it or dangling from it.
	But what about the bloodbath that follows?
	This recollection of the bloodbath that followed the cut and run from the Democrat-controlled Congress of 1975, the bloodbath that followed in Southeast Asia, the two million Cambodians dead, the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese in concentration camps called re-education camps.
	The John Kerry Rush had this yesterday.
	John Kerry was saying, well, there's many people very successful in Vietnam today who are in those re-education camps.
	Made it sound like summer camp, you know.
	No, John, sorry.
	I'll add that to the list of lies you've told over the years about Vietnam.
	The withdrawal from Vietnam, the cut-and-run surrender by the Democrat Congress of failing to even support the South Vietnamese, as we promised we would do if the North Vietnamese invaded with their irregular army, which they promised in the Paris Peace Accords they would not do, and then they did, and we did nothing about it, including not even giving the South Vietnamese any more ammo to defend themselves because the Democrats cut off the funding.
	The 2 million Cambodians who died as a consequence and the hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese who died as a consequence are a rebuke to these people.
	I'm sorry, I think that the deaths of those Cambodians is as important as any other death.
	And if you are really saying we want to save American lives, even if it means a couple of million Iraqis die in the violence that follows our hasty withdrawal, if that's acceptable to you, then you don't have a moral sense.
	It's not acceptable to me.
	So the Investors Business Daily calls out some of these people.
	Talking about this bloodbath, the House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obie says, well, the only hope for the Iraqis is their own damn government.
	I'm so glad, Mr. Obie, that you weren't around in 1945.
	The Japanese took seven years to get their democracy up and running.
	I'm glad you weren't around in 1945.
	The Germans didn't have their first election until the late 40s and weren't really an independent national government until 1952.
	It took seven years.
	The South Koreans to get up and running in a democracy took 15 years.
	They had a dictatorship at first after the Korean War ended in an armistice.
	Our 34,000 troops today in South Korea ensure that democracy.
	What's the exit strategy there?
	This business of Iraq is clearly not rational.
	And I'm sorry, it so clearly is a cognitive dissonance on the left associated with their hatred of George Bush.
	It is personal.
	It is flagrantly not in our best interest as a nation.
	And it is so insanely unreasonable, given what this country has done, the sacrifices we've made, the decades we've spent making democracies happen all over the world.
	The latest of which, by the way, doesn't even get a mention in the drive-by media, Panama.
	Panama has the most thriving democracy among all of Central and South America right now because we went in, took George Noriega, not George, George Bush took Emmanuel Noriega out.
	And at the time, the liberals were just beside themselves.
	They were just apoplectic.
	We kidnapped a world leader, a man of the people.
	We brought to justice a thug.
	The people of Panama have, and they're so pro-America down there, been there.
	They're so pro-America.
	They have elected for the second time an opposition candidate to president.
	They are a success story that Mr. Obi, of course, doesn't want you to know about.
	Now you know because you listen to the EIB network.
	I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Back After This.
	All right, holding over to the next hour.
	We'll have updates on the Carver Elementary School madrasa, updates on the Ramos and Compeon Border Patrol agents and their future, according to George Bush.
	And yes, Harry Bird, I'm sorry, Senator Bird is going to give us the latest on Michael Vick.

▲