All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:35
December 5, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, we've got a plethora of polling data that's just being released.
Actually, Zogby this morning, uh, Rasmussen tracking poll, daily tracking poll today.
We got a big Democrat debate on radio yesterday.
The drive-by's are not reporting on very much in New York Times sub.
We have audio sound bites, and it's delicious.
Um we have uh more on the NIE report.
We know who wrote it.
Three State Department bureaucrats.
I'll have a details on all of this and much more as the EIB network gets rolling again here on Wednesday, the middle of the week.
It's hump day.
Great to have you with us, ladies and gentlemen.
And uh we would like to uh uh welcome back to the uh uh broadcast today by the chief engineer Mike Mamon, who has been out antiquing uh for uh past nine or ten days, uh, but now back.
Welcome back, Mr. Mamon, good to have you here.
Um telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882 and the email addresses rush at eIBNet.com.
First, some lifestyle stuff to start off with today.
What how long ago?
What was just um well, it's been about month, two months maybe, uh, that we uh had a report that uh being overweight is better for you than being skinny.
And you're gonna live longer and all that if you're overweight, right?
New news.
When it comes to living longer, fitness may trump fatness.
U.S. researchers uh said yesterday, men and women who are fit, as judged by a treadmill test, but were overweight or obese had a lower mortality risk than those of normal weight but low fitness levels.
This is uh study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
So, if you are a porker, but you're still fit and you can do well in a treadmill, you're in much better shape than the stick sitting next to you, the thin guy who is not in good shape.
But the thing that's interesting, most people assume if you're a porker you can't possibly be fit, right?
So how does this just more of this incredibly confusing, conflicting medical news that we get each and every day.
The findings are particularly relevant as people in the U.S. and many other countries live increasingly sedentary lifestyles and obesity rates remain high at the same time.
Populations are aging in many nations.
Yes.
Uh I believe we have an obesity epidemic.
It's a bad sign we should not ignore obesity, but what happens all too often is we focus nearly exclusively on obesity and forget the activity and fitness part, said one of the authors.
So I guess you can be obese and be fit.
Which prior to today was not possible.
If you were obese, you were doomed.
It was impossible for you to be in good shape.
But now you can be obese.
You can be a porker and good and be in good shape.
I mean, that's that's got to be uplifting positive news.
People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life, according to a new study.
Now, let me read this to you again.
Because it's hard to follow, right?
Because the minute I said start having sex, you forgot about what came next.
You're thinking about having sex.
It's natural it happens.
Let me read this to you again.
It still doesn't make any sense.
People who start having sex at a younger or older than average age, meaning, you're doomed.
Who is average on this?
Uh if you have sex at a younger, start having sex at a younger or older than average age, uh, you appear to be at greater risk of developing sexual health problems later in life.
These findings cast some doubts on the benefits of abstinence only.
Aha!
So you see, we've got a political movement out there disguised as a medicine report, disguised as a health report, abstinence only.
Why, you're gonna get sick sexually later enough if you try that.
Using data from 1996 cross-sectional surveys of more than 8,000 U.S. adults, researchers found that those who started having sex at a relatively young age were more likely to have certain risk factors for sexually transmitted diseases, including a high number of sex partners.
Really?
Is this not just logic?
On the other hand, both early and late starters were at increased risk of problems in sexual function.
This was true primarily of men, whose problems included difficulty uh uh you know the the difficulty.
I know there are probably kids listening here.
Well, let's see.
Um uh difficulty in um maintaining an erection and and reaching orgasm.
Uh that's the later you start, the bigger your problem.
Although our findings support an association between early initiation and long-term STD risk, they also suggest a more complicated picture of sexual functioning, delaying sexual activity may create health risks by impeding development of the emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal skills that are crucial to satisfactory sexual functioning and general well-being.
So if you start start late, you're gonna be a dud, not just physically, but emotionally, you're gonna be a mess if you start late.
Of course, I read the story, and I don't know what the average age is people start.
What is the what is the oh, take it back.
On average, respondents said they had sex for the first time uh around the ages of 17 or 18.
Those who had their first sexual encounter at average age of 14 were considered early starters.
Those who started at age 22 or older considered later starters.
So if you're married and your guy is dysfunctional, ask him when he started, and then go to the doctor and find out.
Uh well.
If what well, the that is the question.
What can our schools do to take care of this?
S mandatory start times, mandatory start times, mandatory sex.
We can't have, we can't have dysfunction physically and emotionally and mentally uh in men later in life.
That's not good for the uh that's gonna lead to the divorce rate.
And uh at the early side, uh, you know, you're you're either gonna get STDs or get some kind of sick.
So uh leave it up to the uh leave it up to the schools.
Just in time for runny nose season, new research suggests routine sinus infections are not helped by antibiotics and other medicine that's often prescribed.
It's a British study, and they found people suffering from facial pain and a runny nose with greenish or yellowish mucus generally improve within about two weeks.
Whether they took the antibiotic amoxicillin, steroid nose spray or fake medicine, didn't matter.
The results based on patients reporting whether their symptoms had improved echo previous findings in children.
Mr. Snerdley on the phones keep a sharp eye out for people from the pharmaceutical business who sell amoxicillin.
Uh to call this program and to dispute the findings.
Worker productivity.
How can this possibly be?
Worker productivity roared ahead at the fastest pace in four years in the summer, while wage pressures dropped sharply, and by the way, all kinds of new jobs were created.
Uh 189,000, the ADP report is out today, and it's causing the markets to move up.
Labor Department reported Wednesday productivity, the amount of output per hour of work was up at an annual rate of 6.3% in the third quarter, the best showing since the summer of 2003, and far, far bigger than had been expected.
It's always bigger than expected.
The combination of stronger productivity growth and fewer wage pressures should ease concerns about uh inflation at the Fed and help clear the way for another cut in the interest rates next week to guard against the threat the economy could tumble into a recession.
You know the fumble into a recession.
They're just hoping.
The drive-by's are just hoping we get a recession.
And they might.
You know, if if uh what if what I'm hearing in the subprime crisis is actually if we're gonna bail out the lenders, if we're gonna bail out Mrs. Clinton's proposed all kinds of nanny state stuffer to bail out the lenders and to bail out the people that um well, not bail them out, but but but prevent them from being sued and then and and bail out the victims, so to speak.
Uh uh well, If you're held more mortgage-backed security, what she wants to do is convert those to asset securities.
Wants to be able to.
Uh the big nanny state government messing up and getting involved.
There are people trying to get involved here instead of letting the market work itself out, and it's gonna cost everybody a whole ton of money.
And Mrs. Clinton's already spent all the tax increases on the rich for 15 or 20 of her programs.
Brief timeout, we'll come back.
We'll get started with the NIE and the Democrat debate yesterday on radio right after this.
Ha!
How are you?
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh.
Talent on loan from God.
Meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Anybody out there see the football game Monday night, the New England Patriots and the uh the Baltimore Ravens or Ravens fit to be tied over the officiating in that game, and now the uh the National Football League looking into a post-game comment by Baltimore cornerback Samari Roll, who contends that an on-field official called him boy during the Ravens' 27-24 loss to the New England Patriots.
Roll identified the official by his number rather than by name following the Monday night game.
Uh the refs called me a boy, Samari Roll said, according to a transcript of post-game comments provided to the media by the Ravens.
Number 110, official number 110 called me a boy.
Now Samari Roll is black, and the official uh is uh Phil McKinley.
Uh he's also black.
He's 53, played in the NFL as an offensive tackle from 76 to 82, five seasons with Atlanta and one H with the Rams and a Cowboys.
Samari Roll said, I will be calling my agent in the morning.
I'm gonna send my complaint.
I have a wife and three kids.
Don't call me a boy.
Don't call me a boy on the field during a game because I said you've never played football before, but the ref has played football.
Not that it matters.
Samari, if you want quick action on this, take your complaint to ESPN.
Absolutely put it.
What were you gonna say, Mr. Snerdley?
Well, the justice broth the Justice Brothers aren't going to move in on this because the official black.
He officially the justice bothers aren't going to touch this.
Sort of makes the whole thing a little curious anyway.
A black official calling him boy.
I mean, I I guess it's more sign of a disrespect.
The officials are not supposed to, you know, have any kind of contact at all with uh with the players in that sense.
Get this, a counter-terrorism detective who says his failed drug test came back because his wife had spiked his meatballs with marijuana, has now filed a lawsuit to get his job back.
Anthony Chafallo asked the court to declare that his firing in August from the New York police department was unreasonable and unconstitutional, to declare that a damning hair sample was improperly taken, and to order his rehiring with back pay plus interest.
He's a 22-year veteran assigned to the joint terrorism task force, suspended without pay in November 05 after a random drug test found marijuana in his system.
He denied using drugs and demanded a hearing.
And during the investigation, his wife, Catherine, said that she secretly put enough marijuana for about six cigarettes in her meatball recipe in July 2005, hoping a failed blood test would force him to retire.
Catherine Chafolo, according to Chofallo, according to court papers, testified at a hearing that she just wanted my husband not to die of a heart attack or get killed.
I wanted him to be around to help raise my son.
The couple later took a past, they took and passed a lie detector test about how the marijuana was ingested, according to uh court papers.
Police department spokesman said in an emailed comment on his firing, the officer's excuse was not credible.
Doesn't matter how the marijuana got into meat balls, they were in the meat balls.
You fail a drug test.
And the wife gets what she wants.
The wife got well, the wife wanted him off the force.
Yet this heating equipment caused about 62,200 reported home fires, and 670 civilian deaths nationwide in 2005.
Well, that's more fires than in Iraq, folks.
Uh three-fourths of the fatalities due to space heaters, according to a report released yesterday by a fire safety associate.
62,000 200 home fires.
More fires than we've seen in Iraq on television in the last four years.
The president flew to Omaha today in a campaign appearance, got off Air Force One, and had more to say about Iran and the national intelligence estimate.
It is clear from the latest NIE that the Iranian government has more to explain about its nuclear intentions and past actions.
Especially the covert nuclear weapons program pursued until the fall of 2003, which the Iranian regime has yet to acknowledge.
Iranians have a strategic choice to make.
They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment program and come to the table and negotiate, or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people.
The choice is up to the Iranian regime.
Meanwhile, Amanut job went out there today and declared victory over the United States in light of this report.
Yesterday we had news that the UN pretty much agreed with this report.
Now they're sort of backing away from that.
The French are not totally sold on this report.
I want to play back for you something I said yesterday on this program about the NIE.
Listen up.
When you hear Department of State, so what's the other one that sticks out at me here?
CIA, of course, we knew they were in there, but you put the Department of State in there.
I guarantee there's more sabotage coming out of that place regarding the Bush administration and in certain elements and certain rings of the Pentagon.
You just you have to examine not just the motives of Iran and the intent of Iran, you've got to examine the motives and the intent of the people at the NIE who put together this best guess of all of their estimates.
All right.
So last night on uh Studio B, Fox News Channel, former Ambassador John Bolton is the guest.
Shepard Smith said, with all due respect to the people who forecast hurricanes, it almost feels like those folks who get all these predictions wrong, it sounds like they're just throwing all this up in the air.
I really think the House and Senate intelligence committees have to look at how this NIE was put together because there are a lot of unexplained points in here.
I think there is a risk here, and I raise this as a question whether people in the intelligence community who had their own agenda on Iran for some time now have politicized this intelligence and politicized these judgments in a way contrary to where the administration was going.
I think somebody needs to look at that.
Yeah, and I'll tell you who needs to look at it.
Members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, because all we've received so far is the key judgment.
We have not received the full text of the report, but they have, or they can get it.
The full text will not be released to the public.
It's got highly classified stuff in it, but they will get it.
Somebody needs to look at the whole thing, see what it says and report.
This is a point made by Herb Meyer.
Uh uh Herbmeyer was uh official in the Reagan administration.
Let's get to exactly what he did.
Uh special assistant to the director of central intelligence and vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Uh, and in these positions, Herbmeyer managed production of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimates uh during the Reagan administration.
And he writes this at American Thinker.com.
In the intelligence business, you get paid for just one thing, and that's to be right.
So here's the key question about the key judgment of the NIE new estimate on Iran's nuclear intentions.
Is this judgment supported by the evidence?
The judgment that's stirring up all the controversy, it's a real shocker, comes in the very first sentence.
We judge with high confidence that uh in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.
Now that judgment's astonishing for two reasons.
First, it flies in the face of virtually everything we know or thought we knew about the Iranian regime.
Second, uh it well, its capabilities and its intentions.
And second, if the new key judgment is correct, it means that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program fully two years before publication of the National Intelligence Council's 2005 estimate on the same subject, which concluded with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons.
Now let's hope that the new key judgment's correct, because it'd be very good news for world peace, although it would raise the troubling question of how our intelligence intelligence community could have been so wrong back in 2005.
But if the new key judgments incorrect, in other words, if if Iran in fact is now building nuclear weapons, the political impact of this publication will be catastrophic, and that's because it will make it virtually impossible for President Bush to stop the Iranians by launching a military attack on their nuclear facilities or by working covertly to overthrow the regime itself.
And of course, it would raise even more troubling questions about the capabilities of our intelligence community.
This is key.
It would make it virtually impossible for President Bush to stop the Iranians by launching a military attack because they're not developing their program anymore, so says the NIE.
Who are they?
Back in a sec.
I know, no use denying it.
Reality is reality, and acknowledging reality is honesty.
Greetings, welcome back, Rush Limbaugh.
Dr. Herb Meyer, former national intelligence expert, Reagan administration.
To understand what to what to do next, he says, keep in mind that all NIEs consist of two parts, the key judgments and the text itself.
It's the text that includes or should include the evidence that our intelligence agencies have gathered relevant to the issue at hand.
Obviously, you complete the text before writing the key judgments which emerge from the text itself, and because the key judgments are just that judgments.
It sometimes happens that the leaders of our various intelligence agencies will agree on the evidence but disagree on the meaning of it.
That's why there are often dissenting opinions within the key judgments.
So what was released on Monday is only the key judgments.
The text itself hasn't been released, and it won't be because it contains obviously highly classified data relating to what we've learned about Iran's nuclear programs from all sources, including, of course, our spies and our satellites.
But as I mentioned a moment ago, the text is available to leading members of Congress, including members of both the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees.
And Mr. Meyer suggests today, right now, this instant, every one of these individuals should get hold of a copy of the NIE and read it.
More precisely, they should cancel whatever appointments and public events are on their calendars, turn off their cell phones and sit quietly with a pen, and work their way slowly and carefully through the text of the NIE.
And when they've done that, each representative or senator should step forward to report without giving details whether the key judgment about Iran's nuclear weapons program is or isn't supported by the evidence.
The only problem with this is we're assuming that the members of these committees are smart enough to do this.
Given today's partisan political atmosphere and even more distressing, the limited intellectual abilities of the people we elect, this may not be sufficient to provide the confidence that we need.
It is no exaggeration to say that Iran holds the key to whether or not the world is facing a nuclear war.
Surely it's worth an extra effort to be confident that this time the intelligence community has it right.
That's Herb Meyer, served during the Reagan administration, special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Now, also at AmericanThinker.com today, a piece by Ed Laskey entitled The Suspect Provenance of the NIE report.
For those of you in Rio Linda provenance is essentially credibility.
The Wall Street Journal editorial that ran this morning echoes and expands upon suspicions first articulated by the New York Sun that the NIE was cooked up by bureaucrats eager to embarrass George Bush and transform U.S. policy towards Iran.
Well, I must say, uh, ladies and gentlemen, I first raised those suspicions myself on this program, and did so yesterday, and you just heard the audio soundbite of me from my program yesterday doing so.
A dynamic is at work that'll serve Iranian interests by throwing a wrench in plans to expand sanctions against it for its nuclear program.
It'll also serve to veto any plans to attack its nuclear facilities.
This I cannot emphasize enough How crucial a point this is.
Because of this NIE key judgment that was put out on Monday.
And they haven't been working on their nuke program since 2003.
We're we're hamstrung now, folks.
We can't attack them.
We can't increase sanctions, and of course, a number of Democrats in this country, leftists around the world are already pointing fingers of blame at George W. Bush and warning him, and the Russians are saying, we're not going to help you increase sanctions on Iran.
We're not going to do it.
So because of this report, I mean it makes it politically, it would be impossible to attack, even if you had the evidence now, because of this report.
Now the three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations that should lead one to doubt their conclusions.
Would you go back, Mr. Lamon, grab audio soundbite number two?
Uh I want I want you to hear again in my own words what I said about all this yesterday mounting uh suspicion.
But this was intelligence guided by experience, folks.
This is not a wild guess.
When you hear Department of State?
So what's the other one that sticks out at me here?
CIA, of course we knew they were in there, but you put the Department of State in there.
I guarantee there's more sabotage coming out of that place regarding the Bush administration, and in certain elements, certain rings of the Pentagon.
You just you have to examine not just the motives of Iran and the intent of Iran, you've got to examine the motives and the intent of the people at the NIE who put together this best guess of all of their estimates.
Yesterday, that was me on this program.
The three main authors of this report are former State Department officials with previous reputations.
That should lead one to doubt their conclusions.
All three are ex-bureaucrats, who, as is generally true of State Department types, favor endless rounds of negotiation and diplomacy and oppose confrontation.
These three officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, have reputations as hyperpartisan anti-Bush officials.
They are Tom Finger, formerly of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Van Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for Weapons and Mass Destruction, and Kenneth Brill, former U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's atomic energy watchdog.
Tom Finger was a State Department employee who was an expert on China and Germany.
He has no notable experience, according to his bio in the Middle East and its geopolitic.
Van Van Diepen, and it might be pronounced Van Dypen, I'm not sure, but I'm guessing here Van Diepen is also a career State Department bureaucrat who, according to the New York Sun, is one of the State Department bureaucrats who want revenge for having their views regarding Iran ignored by the Bush administration.
He is now seeking to further his own agenda, as the Sun wrote in their editorial yesterday.
Van Van Diepen, one of the estimates' main authors, has spent the last five years trying to get America to accept Iran's right to enrich uranium.
Mr. Van Diepen no doubt reckons that in helping push the estimate through the system, he has succeeded in influencing the policy debate in Washington.
The bureaucrats may even think they're stopping another war.
Van Diepen also shares a lack of experience in dealing with Iran or the region.
A third main author comes in for particular criticism in the Wall Street Journal editorial.
Kenneth Brill served as the U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
This is an agency that has served to enable Iranians' quest for nuclear weapons.
The head of the IAEA, the infamous Mohammed Alberadai, has even been called a friend by the Iranian regime, as he should be, because he's been an enabler of its nuclear weapons program and has stiff-armed European Union diplomats who've worked to restrain Iran.
Alberadai and the IAEA have overreached, now seek to control diplomatic negotiations with Iran, a function that's beyond its mandate.
Brill was apparently unwilling to stop this mission creep and put an end to El Baradai's efforts to help Iran, or as the Wall Street Journal hints, maybe he was just incompetent.
Now, this hint comes from former U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who uh headed counterproliferation efforts uh at the State Department previous to his UN posting, and he's got a book on you've heard what he said about uh all this uh on Fox last night.
Brill also has no previous history of experience dealing with Iran.
He graduated from business school at Berkeley in uh 1973.
So uh exactly what a number of people have suspected uh is certainly true here.
You have some disgruntled State Department people, one of them actively pursuing a program of uh the allowing the Iranians to enrich uranium, uh sabotage uh unhappy with the the Bush administration.
It's exactly the kind of thing that that I uh suspected and feared uh yesterday, and the president is not backing down from this, and he's not accepting this per se in the sense that this doesn't mean they're not a threat.
This doesn't mean that they're not gonna continue to try later on down the road if they have indeed stopped, they're still enriching uranium, and you don't do that to drive cars around and provide electricity uh for the uh Iranian people.
Quick timeout here, folks, we'll be back.
Uh your phone calls and other exciting things right around the corner.
Democrat reaction to the NIE, predictable as it always will be predictable.
We have a montage here of Dingy Harry, Joe Biden, Ram Emanuel, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Jay Rockefeller.
I would be very surprised if when this report came out yesterday and is made public, the president didn't already know all about it.
President Bush raised the specter of World War III with Iran because as he said it's just his pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Months after he's been told by our intelligence community it's likely that Iran had halted its weapons program.
This report is a game changer.
Okay?
I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing's changed, and therefore nothing in American policy has to change.
I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that's what the president should do.
They should have stopped the saber rattling, shouldn't have never started it, and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front.
I have to believe that he knew what was going on.
Why was he talking about a nuclear holocaust?
Why was he talking about all of those things?
This is scary, folks.
I mean, this is real world scary.
These people making it up as they go along, all of a sudden, they believe the intelligence.
When it fits their paradigm, when it fits their worldview, when it fits their view of the political situation, and all of a sudden the intelligence is infallible.
Why, and not only that, the president knew this even while he was pounding the war drums.
And Mrs. Clinton of all people suggesting that the president needs to actively engage in diplomacy.
Uh there are two ways to look at this.
Either the intelligence is wrong, and Iran is still working feverishly toward their nuclear weapons program, which Ahmadinezad has always maintained they are doing.
I guess he's a liar.
As he's just rattling sabers.
We're not going to trust what he says.
Bush, however, we can't trust either.
If they have indeed stopped, then there is a reason for it, and it is not diplomacy.
It was shock and awe in Baghdad, if they have indeed stopped.
This is a not exactly a a win-win, uh, but if they've stopped, it is it is really, really good news.
But we still don't know this.
This is an estimate.
And we know that the people that put this together well, we're we're legitimately suspicious of their motives.
And the Democrats, however, couldn't care less about the substance of the issue.
This is all about discrediting Bush, making him out to be a liar and destroying his political party, his presidency, and so forth, because that's all that matters to these people.
Go to the phones.
Frank in Philadelphia, I'm glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rosh, Megadeth was a long time listener.
Thank you.
Hey, the these officials in the CIA, they think they're preventing us from going to war with Iran, but by reducing this nuclear threat, they're actually pushing us closer to a military conflict.
They're they're limiting Bush's diplomatic maneuvers and and strengthening Iran.
So it seems to me that in in the sh short term, we aren't going to be able to pressure them with economics.
Well, here's the thing.
Here's what I would say to Mrs. Clinton.
You got a good point.
But if indeed uh they have stopped, then what's to talk about?
What what what what kind of diplomacy if if they've stopped their nuclear program, their nuclear weapons program, then why do we need to have diplomacy here?
Lift the sanctions, everything's fine now.
We've been told by the NIE that the Iranians have no desire to have a nuclear weapons program, lift the sanctions.
Let's uh let's be for what what what's the what what's the point of diplomacy here?
Mrs. Clinton and the rest of these clowns well, we need to go on a diplomacy route here to make sure why?
But we know that's not true, and in fact what's going to happen is we're gonna run into a crisis and make and we're gonna make military confrontation inevitable and closer to reality than it was before this report came out.
All right, explain how that'll happen, because one of the things that the experts are saying here is that if this report is ultimately accepted and uh and verified, uh then it it it's it's gonna politically it's gonna make a military strike against Iran unfeasible.
Right impossible.
And you're right too, about it's it's gonna be impossible to tighten sanctions.
So i i i so China and Russia won't let us do anything, so now Ahmadinejad can just go on his merry way, create his weapons, and before we know it, the the weapons will be there and we won't be left with nothing to do but go in and try to take them out and use them against somebody else.
Exactly right.
We are doing so now we're left with nothing to do but confront him militarily.
Exactly.
We are dealing with an Islamist fanatic who is very open about his fanaticism.
He's very open and honest about what his intentions are.
And I'm gonna tell you something, it's not just people in the United States taking this uh seriously.
You don't think the United Arab Emirates and the Saudi Arabians, the Saudis are upset about they are the the the the Iran has made it clear that they intend to run that region.
Uh and the Emirates, you know, they don't have a defense industry, and neither do the Saudis.
The Iranians have a military.
I mean, the Saudi military is kind of military, but it's that's that's not it's nothing to speak of, and the Emirates don't have one at all.
Uh and I guarantee you they don't want any part of a nuclear Iran, and they're not buying any of this, and the French are kind of reluctant to buy into any of this.
This is really, really hideous.
This kind of if if this if this report, if this key judgment about Iran having stopped its program in 2003, is made up, if this is just somebody trying to influence U.S. foreign policy for all their whatever their personal political beliefs are, whether it whether they're just uh wanting their anti-war,
their anti-bush, uh what have you, whether they've got some personal uh thing that they're fighting that they feel rejected and they've just seeking revenge, whatever it is, this borders on treasonous.
This is not just backyard fun and games.
We are not talking here about expanding social security or reworking Medicare or any of this sort of thing.
This goes right to the heart of U.S. national security.
And I'm not trying to scare anybody here, folks.
I am trying to wake people up, and I I am trying to just pound a little reality here.
Because even if they've stopped, I believe it's only temporary.
And especially now that they've gotten the imprimatur, uh Ahmadinizad claiming uh victory, uh the Democrats in this country saying, See, see, there was never anything to be concerned about.
The Russians and the Chinese, you know, Frank's Frank from Philadelphia's right.
Every nuclear power has developed its nuclear weapons program in secrecy under cover of darkness.
Why are they building things underground?
They've got all these centrifuges.
They are enriching uranium.
As I said yesterday, they don't do this kind of stuff for traditional power needs in uh in the cities and towns of Iran.
Uh so if if we accept the fact, if we're just gonna be naive little idiots and accept the fact, yeah, they've stopped for whatever reason, uh and not continue to try to find out if they're still working at it or reconstituting it at some point, you have to conclude they're going to.
That is uh, you know, the worst case scenario has to be planned for.
Uh a nuclear Iran is that that that changes the whole stability, not just of the Middle East, but of the world.
You know, I would I have a suggestion, uh, ladies and gentlemen here.
If uh if uh Mahmud Ahmadinizan actually shut down the nuclear program in 2003 uh in Iran, isn't he more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Al Gore?
Uh, who basically produced a movie?
Or if if it's too late, and it is, it's too late for Mahmood Ahmadini Zah to get the Nobel Peace Prize.
Um actually should get it for fooling everybody, getting away with suckering a bunch of stupid State Department people.
Maybe he should be made Time magazine's man of the year.
They're asking everybody their advice on this.
They asked me, and I did not respond, by the way.
▲
Export Selection