All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 27, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:07
September 27, 2007, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 Podcast.
Hey, folks, uh, great to have you with us here as we get ready to launch, fully revved up here for three hours of broadcast excellence on the EIB network, hosted by me.
Rush Limbaugh, the all-knowing, all caring, all sensing, all feeling.
All everything, Maha Rushy.
Our telephone number uh 800.
I was just thinking I might not have time for calls today, but I I will squeeze them in.
800-282-2882, email address rush at EIB net.com.
I kid you not.
Scientists have just discovered, and I will have details of this as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears today.
Scientists have just discovered that the primary chemical reaction they thought was happening in the atmosphere that resulted in the depletion of ozone is not happening at all.
Or it's it's ten times less.
The bottom line is just like the Oat Brand scare and the coffee scare, we're back to square one.
We have no idea what is causing ozone depletion.
In the meantime, we've gotten rid of CFCs.
We have gotten rid of Freon.
It's now a dangerous risk every time we launch the space shuttle, all to protect the ozone, and it was bogus.
It never it was wrong.
We don't know diddly squat about it.
I'll have to tell.
We ought to also Jane Goodell, goodall.
You know, the the the uh the uh um This is the babe that loves the gorillas.
She says that biofuel crops hurt the rainforests, and the race to grow crops for vehicle fuels is damaging rainforests in Asia, Africa, and South America.
Well, that means that's the end of ethanol.
Because when Jane Goodall speaks, that's she's like she's like the queen.
All right, do you think excuse me uh ladies and gentlemen, those of you that were listening to this program yesterday?
Do you um remember the call from Jill in Ithaca in the first hour, calling me a liar because I was interpreting correctly what Mrs. Clinton said Sunday on Stephanopoulos's show, in which she made it plain there's no way I'm gonna get out of Iraq if I'm president.
I don't know what I'm gonna inherit in there.
Uh be irresponsible to get out of there.
You lie, she called as I said, Jill, not only that, no Democrat who's elected president gonna pull us out of a rock.
If they're in the White House, it ain't gonna happen, Jill.
And furthermore, I said, Jill, if a Democrat wins the White House, there will no longer be any bring the troops home resolutions offered by Democrats on Capitol Hill, because they're not gonna want to embarrass.
You might have some wack-le-like Conyers do it just for the sake of it, but there won't be any serious resolutions.
So last night, all of the top-tier Democrat candidates for president said, Hell no, we can't pull out of there.
No way, I will not commit to pulling the troops out when I'm elected president.
Do you think Jill from Ithaca is a little depressed today?
Snurdly shaking his head, no, because you may be right, because she probably heard it, she probably watched it, doesn't believe it.
Didn't believe it.
She thinks they're just saying whatever they have to say, probably w she gotta be mad.
See, this is the whole point.
Though they have been lying to the to their base, they have been lying to the country, and this is not just some meaningless little political issue.
This is national security.
They have divided the country over this for their purely political desires.
Uh and it's now when the when getting ready for the rubber to hit the road, the people thinking that one of them might actually have a chance to be elected.
Why, guess what?
When it's uh when you talk as a future president, a hypothetical, as opposed to just a candidate, my how things change.
Here are the audio sound bites from last night.
Uh the uh the question, basically, from Tim Russert, did a great job last night, by the way.
Really, it's coming up to just really nailed Hillary on a couple things.
She she had her worst debate performance to date.
Last night.
Question, Senator Obama, will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term.
More than five years from now, that there will be no troops, U.S. troops in Iraq.
I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible.
We don't know what contingency will be out there.
Senator Clinton, you have said that you will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term 2013.
Why not?
It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting.
You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find.
Uh so I mean it's as plain as day.
The next question.
Senator Edwards, will you commit?
Uh that at the end of your first term, uh, 2013, that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq.
I cannot make that commitment.
Now, I I wonder how Code Pink is feeling today, along with Jill in Ithaca and uh all of the other the move move on dot or code pink probably a little blue today and uh move on dot org.
These people gotta be fit to be tied.
I haven't checked, because they're always fit to be tied.
They're always enraged.
Uh, but uh they can't be happy out there.
Now, this, ladies and gentlemen, this this debate last night was like a Saturday night live skit.
Did you watch it, Mr. Snergley?
You watch it again.
Um this was not a 180.
Let me tell you what happened last night with this Democrat debate.
We got some sound bites, and I know you say, I don't want to hear these people.
You gotta hear them, Rush.
You gotta hear them because uh this is teachable moments here.
But this was a 360 followed by a backflip.
Then they did a handstand, a front flip, followed by a one eighty.
These people were so all over the board last night, it was comedic.
As you just heard, Russert asked, Will you pledge to have all the troops out by the end of your first term?
Mrs. Clinton would not.
No surprise there, she can say whatever suits her whenever it suits her.
Obama, uh, the man who opposed the war before it started, say he will not pledge.
Mrs. Clinton did pledge a few short weeks ago to have the troops out.
But people have forgotten this.
Uh the Breck girl uh proudly changed his mind after he uh voted for the war.
Proudly changed his mind, said I'm the only one who admits my vote was wrong, and even he is now what it's starting to change his mind again.
The only one who voted for the war admitted my vote was wrong, and admit that it's now wrong to pull out.
So Edwards' position is you gotta you need a highly trained broadcast specialist and a keen mind like mine to keep up with these people.
Edwards was first out there saying that he was the he was he we proud to admit that he had made a mistake in voting for the war.
Uh as is the only one who voted for the war who has admitted my vote was wrong.
And after voting for the war and proudly admitting that his vote was wrong, now he admits that to pull out is wrong.
Jill, Ithaca, are you following this?
I can't I can't make it any plainer.
What's what's going on here, folks?
Seriously.
How could Mrs. Clinton a few short weeks ago a few short by the way, Jill and Ithaca and the rest of you Lib Democrats, I'm gonna make a bold prediction to you right now.
Mark this down.
Eastern time 1213 36 on September 27th of 2007.
The general election in 2008 will not be about George W. Bush, nor will the general election in 2008 be about the Iraq war.
The election, presidential election in 2008 will be about the Democrat nominee, most likely Mrs. Clinton.
But it's not too uh late for somebody to stop her.
We get caught up in all this conventional wisdom.
She can be stopped.
But regardless, whoever it is, the election 2008 is going to be about the Democrat nominee, because they're all a bunch of big government tax raising, freedom-threatening socialists, versus a Republican nominee.
We don't know who it's gonna be, but likely the Democrat nominee is gonna be a typical inside the beltway DC insider.
And the and the Republican nominee is likely going to guess right now, likely we'd be somebody that's not of D.C. Rudy Mitt.
Uh Thompson had been there a long time.
So you've got you've got to have a classic setup.
You're gonna have a classic big government, tax everything that you can see, take away as many individual freedoms, day-to-day freedoms as possible, uh, versus um uh a Washington outsider and the future of the country and what kind of country we want it to be.
And you left-wing activists out there, you anti-war activists, you're about to be swept under the rug in terms of your relevance and importance, other than your vote, uh, in defining the issues that will make up the 2008 presidential campaign.
And when they realize this, I fully hope that they will show up at the Democrat convention in Denver and raise hell like they did in Chicago in 1968.
And they're getting ready, I'll tell you, with all these Democrat top-tier candidates committing to stay in Iraq.
And that's what they did.
They didn't just commit to pull out by then, they committed to stay until 2013.
So, folks, fireworks are ahead and down the road.
But here's Mrs. Clinton.
Now, uh a few short weeks ago, uh days ago, maybe, she she makes a pledge.
She said, if President Bush won't pull the troops out, I will.
Yay, yes.
Some some group that wanted to hear that.
Then in the debate last night, she does her impression of Jackie Gleason and the honeymooners.
That's how Jackie Gleason avoided dealing with anything.
Uh everybody watches a reruns of that show.
You watch a reruns of that show, The Honeymooners?
Oh, I used to watch that's just that's Alice to the moon.
Couldn't do that on TV today if you wanted to.
Uh now what's what's what's caused these people to change their minds so publicly?
This is an interesting question, and we'll explore it after this time out.
Stay with us.
Ha, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, living legend, not just a radio legend, as the Johnny Donovan promo says, but a genuine living legend, a national treasury Nobel Peace Prize nominee and servant of humanity.
In fact, all mankind and animal kind.
And I accomplished this simply by showing up.
We're back at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
So, by the way, and I predicted this.
I want to be I love to do these see, I told you so.
Back in April.
I remember my exact words, folks.
A dirty little secret is whoever wins a Democrat nomination will not pull us out of a rock, and not going to saddle themselves with defeat.
And now they make me look like the genius I am.
You would think they'd get together back there and say, you know, we cannot make limball look good.
We just can't continue to do this.
But obviously that meeting, if held, was ignored, probably not held.
So the question is, why change their minds?
What's the flip-flop?
There's got to be a reason.
There always is with these people.
Was it General Petraeus?
Was it the disdainful questions, the suspensions of disbelief?
Was it the polling data?
Uh that said Mr. General Petraeus swamped those people, loved by the 61% of the American people.
Was it campaign polls?
Was it move on and their ad which bombed big time?
Was it all of the above?
Maybe it's the surge.
The surge of the surge, the improving conditions, the possibility of military victory.
Have you noticed how little news there is coming out of Iraq?
That means there's good news there.
And the drive-by is ignoring it.
So the the the question I have, my friends, is this.
The one question yet to be asked.
When will the real Democrat candidate come forward?
The man or woman who wants to lead the country.
We don't have candidates for leadership up there on that Democrat stage last night.
You know what those candidates were?
They were campaigning for a new title in this in this in the government called Navigator in Chief.
They were navigating all through the night, avoiding tough issues, maneuvering through tough questions and trying not to answer them, steering clear of any core beliefs, giving a wide birth to real issues, changing course every time a new poll comes out.
I mean, Mrs. Clinton's already professional navigator.
Obama's getting a hang of it, and Edwards Ditto, but leaders any of them come off as leaders.
Would you entrust any of those people if you watched this last night with your family's health care?
That people are about to do it.
There's a sickening, depressing poll out.
Now, one of the sickening, depressing things about it is it tells me I'm not working hard enough.
Uh and that's depressing.
And this is a Rasmussen poll.
Are you ready?
Forty-four percent of American adults say that health care services should be made available for free to all Americans.
Rasmussen reports national telephone survey found that 39% disagree, 17% are not sure.
Fifty-two percent say that reducing health care costs a higher priority than making sure everybody is insured.
Thirty-nine percent take the opposite view.
Most Democrats, 57%, say that providing insurance for everybody is a top priority.
Most Republicans, 71%, and uh those not affiliated with either party, 52 percent, say reducing costs should be the priority.
Now, if you raise the ante on this, and if you ask the question, should beer be free for all Americans, 94% of the American people uh agree on this.
Uh I don't uh I uh Mr. Rasmussen needs to ask some questions.
If you had to stand in line for six months in order to get your gallbladder removed, would you support a nationalized health care system that you think is free?
There are any number of questions like that can be asked to totally change this around.
But I'd say I think this is actually being very selfish, ladies and gentlemen.
Why s why stop at Americans?
We're no better than anybody else.
Why not free health care for everybody globally at all times?
This is sort of like the minimum wage argument.
What is the minimum wage now?
Give me a ballpark, seven and a half.
Don't quote me on this.
I did ballpark figure it doesn't matter, seven dollars fifty soldiers.
Just say that's what it is.
Well, why not ten?
Yeah, that's even better.
Limboy is a good idea.
Okay, why's making fifteen?
Well, that sounds cool too.
I could live on that.
Let's screw that.
Let's just guarantee everybody an income of one hundred thousand dollars a year in this country.
Well, we can't do that.
Well, why?
Well, it just I mean that uh at some point everybody reaches that level where they realize it's not possible.
And the simple thing about this is that whatever the number is, it's a flawed concept, this whole concept of the minimum wage.
So 44% favor free health care for all Americans.
I mean, we're getting close to the circumstance here, folks, where we're living under mob rule.
You let this number get over 50-55%, and you can forget it.
You're gonna be paying for all those people's free health care.
But why stop at Americans?
Free people.
Free health care for everybody on the globe.
Why stop at people?
After all, other species, very planet itself have rights.
Why not free health care for every domesticated animal?
Free health care for every animal in the zoo.
Where does this stop?
And if we're gonna grant free health care to all Americans, who the hell are we?
What right do we have to deny other peoples of the world free health care?
Uh let's see.
I let's grab a call here because I got two sound bites I want to play in the next segment.
I don't have time to uh to play them both in a limited amount of time we have here, so we'll go to uh Connecticut.
This is Ron.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Good afternoon, Rush.
Hi.
So uh I've been a little anguished over the over the years listening to uh you and uh Sean and some of the others talking about liberals and anti-war movement, liberals and big government.
And I I just yesterday I sort of had it when you were talking about the liberals against the war.
You know, there may be I mean, there is there's a political sentiment on the left that I think political scientists called weenies, and and but they aren't liberals.
Uh and and there are progressives, and they aren't liberals.
You know uh the ultimate liberal was JFK, you know.
Um we will pay any price and bear any burden to assure the progress of liberty.
Right, I agree.
That was liberal.
Well, but was.
He ain't now alive, and that and he believed you'll never will not be found coming out of the mouth of any elected Democrat today.
Well, that's but Joe, just don't call them liberals.
You know, you can call it.
No, no, no, no.
Here we go.
I'm sorry, I'm not gonna be talked out of this.
A liberal today is a liberal.
If it doesn't fit you, then stop being a liberal.
Don't you join us.
If you're a JFK liberal, you're a conservative.
Time you cross the aisle.
We have a home for you.
But I'm not gonna sit here and change the definition of the term just so people don't get their feelings upset.
Because there's no way in the world that anybody alive today associates liberalism associates it with JFK, Reagan tax cuts.
When's the last time you heard a Democrat talking about tax cuts?
Serious rates in tax rates.
Reductions in tax rates.
Now, I understand to be a liberal, that's why the term progressives invented our open-mindedness is to make sure that the term is not applied to you.
The truth is the truth.
And I'm sorry it offends.
We'll be back.
Stay with it.
Yeah, we're back.
Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
I don't need any more than that to deal with the libs that call on this program or even those who are listening.
In fact, I wish I could find a way to get the half my brain I'm not using into your hands, for example, and up the intelligence level of significantly of the entire audience.
Sometimes I do wire up the whole thing, but you'll never know the difference.
Well, you might if you listen carefully.
About this Rasmussen poll on health care.
Uh Scott Rasmussen himself were 44% of the American people want free national health care.
44%.
Getting close to mob rule.
Now, Rasmussen was on Fox News this morning uh talking about his his uh his poll.
And one of the things he said was fascinating.
He said, yeah, 44% of the American people want free health care.
Free national health care.
But he said if you look in the internals of my poll, 70% the American people are satisfied with their coverage.
Okay, now we got a disconnect here.
70% are satisfied, yet 44% say they want free health care.
You know what this reminds me of?
It reminds me of polls always uh taken during the economy's downturns, or even in the good times.
Uh what's your opinion on the future of the economy?
It looks bad out there.
Why do you think that?
Well, I'm doing okay, but my neighbors, I hear they're not doing too well.
A housing slump and a credit card crunch and all that.
And well, how can that be?
How can you you're doing okay, and so you feel bad that you're doing okay?
Uh because you think everybody else is down and out.
Who's responsible for that?
Years and years, days and days, months and months, whatever you want to call it, however you want to characterize it, of negative coverage on the economy by the drive-bys.
And it's the same thing here with health care.
Uh 70% of the American people like their coverage and like the system.
Don't mess with it.
Fix it within the confines of making it even better.
Um, more on that as the program unfolds.
We got two sound bites here, and you must hear them.
This is Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton.
Russert says, Senator Clinton, I have a proposal hypothetical to you.
You got the number three man in Al Qaeda.
We know there's a bomb about to go off.
We have three days, we know this guy knows where it is.
Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?
Now he reads her a quote from a guest on Meet the Press who says yes.
The president should ask for uh an exemption on on this, and by virtue of executive order in an emergency situation, the ticking time bomb scenario.
Uh uh Russert's guest said yes, the president should have that kind of authority.
Here's Mrs. Clinton's answer to the question should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation.
As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period.
In addition to the values uh that are so important for our country to exhibit, is that there is very little evidence that it works.
But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be uh an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment uh of everyone, and I think it's dangerous to go down this path.
The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year.
So he disagreed with you.
Well, he's not standing here right now.
So there is a disagreement.
Well, I'll talk to him later.
Now, I was stunned.
You don't see Democrats set up like this in these debates.
You don't see Democrats tricked like this.
It was a setup.
Well, it was clever set up.
No, I'm not.
It was not a it was not you can say it's a gotcha.
This is exact kind of things they do with Republicans, but this doesn't happen when Democrats are in the midst of a debate.
Tim Russert.
No.
I'm going to ruin his reputation if I applaud him here.
I just won't I'll say no more about it than I have.
But that that yeah, you could call it a setup.
Tough question, Dan rather CBS news.
Tough questions.
Um whatever.
But you do you folks, do you know the ice and the daggers?
I hope Russert got out of there with his testicles not in her lockbox.
Because they've been in there for a while, but obviously he got them out of there somebody because they were on that that was that was that was I did a double take.
Well, the person that told me this is your husband, William Jefferson Clinton.
So you disagree.
Well, he's not standing here right now.
And if he were that's what my mind went, what would happen to him?
We'll talk to him later.
Next, this is a battle that Russert and Hillary had.
Uh not going to set it up.
Just listen.
Senator Clinton, in 1981, the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq.
On September 6th, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria.
If Israel concluded that Iran's nuclear capability threatened Israel's security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?
Tim, I think that's one of those hypotheticals that's that is better not addressed at this time.
What is real life is what apparently happened in Syria.
So let's take that one step at a time.
I know what the question is, but I think it's important to lay out what we know about Syria.
Because we don't have as much information as I wish we did.
But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and materiel, the Syrians apparently were putting together and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility.
And the Israelis took it out.
I strongly support that.
We don't have any more information than what I have just described.
It is highly classified, it is not being shared.
But I don't want to go a step further and talk about what might or might not happen down the road with Iran.
But I think it is fair to say what happened in Syria, so far as we know, I support.
My question is would the Israelis be justified if they felt their security was being threatened by the presence of a nuclear presence in Iran and they decided to take military action.
Would they be justified?
Well, Tim, I'm not going to answer that because what I understand is that there was there was evidence.
Well, let me just finish and then and then uh Mike and Dennis can answer.
But there was evidence of a North Korea uh freighter coming in with supplies.
There was intelligence and other kinds of verification.
So I don't think it's a question of if they feel it.
That is a much higher standard of proof.
Apparently it was met with respect to Syria.
You will all be running against a Republican opponent, perhaps Rudy Giuliani.
This is what he said.
Iran is not going to be allowed to build a nuclear power.
If they get to a point where they're going to become a nuclear power, we will prevent them.
We will set them back eight to ten years.
That is not said as a threat.
That should be said as a promise.
Would you make a promise as a potential commander in chief that you will not allow Iran to become A nuclear power and will use any means to stop it.
Well, what I have said is that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening up direct talks.
We haven't even tried.
That's what is so discouraging about this.
So then you have the Republican candidates on the other side jumping to the kind of statements that you just read to us.
We need a concerted, comprehensive strategy to deal with Iran.
We haven't had it.
We need it, and I will provide it.
What's the lesson to be learned from this soundbite?
and Who did Mrs. Clinton just blame for Iran's nuclear ideas and expansion?
She blamed us.
She blamed the United States.
This is the blame America first crowd, folks, and they haven't ever gone away.
They have just resurfaced.
She wouldn't answer a direct question about anything.
This business about Syria, by the way, I'm I mentioned this yesterday.
This is more important than anybody knows for all this fawning media attention that Ahmed Dinizad got here.
He and Basher Assad are quaking in their boots, as are those mullahs, because the Israelis flew deep into Syria to make this attack, and the Syrians didn't know what had happened until afterwards.
They never knew that the Israelis were coming.
Now, what's interesting about this is they've got state of the art detection systems installed by the Russians.
And they failed.
They utterly totally failed.
The Iranians probably have the same detection installations from Russia.
The Israelis were able to get deep in there.
This is not just a little short penetrationist over the border.
They went deep, and the Syrians never knew anything about it until the Israeli bombs went off.
Now, this is this is important because this is another great question that she wouldn't answer.
And finally, when she got down to what she really wanted to say about it, it's the fault of the United States of America.
Blame America first.
We haven't even tried to solve the Iranian crisis that we created, she didn't say, but meant.
And frankly, I'm getting fed up at blaming America from these people every damn day I hear it.
Right, oh, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Why couldn't Mrs. Clinton just say yes to the question?
Israel has a right to defend itself.
Why couldn't she just say, well, no, wait a minute.
I raised this earlier.
We don't want to elect the navigator in chief.
We want to elect a leader, and these Democrats are not being honest and upfront with us about what they would do in certain situations.
This is not confirmation hearings for Supreme Court judge where you can't talk about the cases that you're going to face.
This is President of the United States.
We are a great nation at risk in a dangerous world.
We're about to elect somebody new to lead us.
It's entirely within our rights to know how this person views the defense of this country.
Mrs. Clinton refuses to tell us.
She insists on blaming us for these problems, such as in we haven't even talked to the Iranians directly yet.
By the way, wasn't it Mrs. Clinton who tried to make a mockery of Barack Obama for saying that we should?
When Obama said, hell, I'd talk to him directly, and I'd talk to Chavez, and I'd thought wasn't it Mrs. Clinton who went out there and tried to make uh a fool out of him?
As though that was a very unpresidential thing to say.
What'd she say last night?
The same thing Obama has said.
Well, we haven't even had direct talks yet.
Why we haven't even done it?
Why?
It's our fault.
It's a legitimate question, and uh Israel has the right to defend itself if threatened by Iran with nukes.
See, this is really not about whatever circumstances Bush leaves for Mrs. Clinton to inherit in 09 if she wins the presidency.
This is about her unwillingness to tell the public the truth about where she would go as president and what she would do.
And by the way, this business we haven't tried to talk to Iran hells bells, folks.
Europe has.
The UN has put in place some weak sanctions.
Ahmadinezad said the other day that he is going to ignore the Security Council and whatever they tell him to do on his uh uranium enrichment project.
Iran is killing U.S. soldiers.
They're threatening to destroy Israel.
They are out there saying, Why can't she say we can't allow Iran to get nukes, period?
Israel should defend itself if threatened.
Uh, why can't she say that?
Why is she why is she afraid of saying it?
It's too black and white.
She wants to be nuanced.
I'll tell you why, is because she wants to have wiggle room to get out of anything, and she can't if she makes a firm statement on something.
She doesn't want to have to stake anything.
This woman wants to be elected president with nobody knowing anything about her.
She flip-flops.
By the way, do you know, ladies and gentlemen, that back um uh last year, 2006, New York Daily News, almost a year ago, October 16th, had a story.
Uh, Hillary Clinton did allow torture in a ticking time bomb scenario in a New York Daily News interview.
She said the ticking time bomb scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective, and dangerous to American soldiers.
Quote, in the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president.
The president must be held accountable.
That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances, is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law.
Uh yesterday's Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged she's not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.
Asked about the ticking time bombs and this is October 12th of 2006, uh, you know, four days before the previous story.
Uh yeah, she basically came out in favor in an editorial board interview with the New York Daily News, came out in favor of the ticking time bomb scenario for torture.
Last night, no way, no way, Tim.
It's a hypothetical not gonna do.
Well, your husband says, well, he's not standing.
This woman is all over the board, depending on who she thinks wants to hear what at that particular moment.
And that's best definition of dishonest I can give you.
I'll tell you what, you know, if you are a celebrity, pop culture icon, and you want to murder a woman, do it in LA.
You can get away with it.
Phil Specter, hung jury 10 to 2 for conviction.
Do we need the other names to remind you of this fact?
▲
Export Selection