All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
December 5, 2007, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know, I know, I know, no, but I'm just telling you what the Zogby thing said.
You know, we really need to end these discussions before the hour begins.
Because I got to start when I got to start.
If you're still talking to me, I still got to start.
Anyway, greetings and welcome back, folks.
Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network, and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am your harmless, lovable little fuzzball host, El Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all-sensing Maha Rushi.
Yeah, we just finished talking.
A phone number, by the way, 800-282-2882.
Just finished talking about the Zogby poll.
It's out.
Not much change in terms of who's doing well and who isn't from their last poll.
Hillary's still in this poll is comfortably ahead in Iowa.
But the interesting thing was the anger of the American people in Iowa, the anger, 82% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans, fed up with a whole political system, fed up.
Now, the Zogby analysis of this is negative ads aren't going to work.
We hear this every campaign cycle.
Every campaign cycle, we hear this, and still it eventuates whoever runs the nastiest ads wins.
And then after the election, we get all this hand-wringing.
Oh, it was so terrible.
It was so horrible.
It's because they work.
So if I'm a candidate in New Hampshire and I see the Zogby poll is all this disgust and that people are fed up with politics as usual, which we also hear every election cycle, I'd start running nuclear ads.
I'd go as negative as I've ever been.
I'd try to out-negative everybody.
I'd run face ads.
I'd put Hillary Clinton up.
This is the woman who wants to take your Social Security.
This is the woman who wants to screw up your health care system.
And if I was Hillary, I'd put Barack Obama up.
This is a guy who can't find a bathroom when he has to go.
He is so inexperienced, he doesn't even know where his wife is half the time.
Whatever you about Edwards, this is the guy who's going to mandate that every time you need health care, you've got to sign 15 forms at the nearest government agency, and he's not even going to give you a can of hairspray in gratitude.
Obama, poor Obama out there, he's just lifeless.
According to the Zogby poll, lifeless might work.
If they're right, that people are fed up with all this contention.
The Rasmussen report, the daily presidential tracking poll for today, shows a new national leader, national leader in the Republican race, and that's Huckabee.
As Rasmussen writes it, while enjoying an amazing surge, Huckabee has earned support from 20% of likely Republican primary voters nationwide.
Three points back at 17% is Rudy.
That's the lowest level of support ever recorded for Giuliani in the tracking poll.
It represents a seven-point decline over the past week.
Huckabee's gained eight points in the same timeframe.
Also in the Rasmussen poll, you find that Hillary is at her lowest point since she announced nationally.
This is a national poll.
And of course, right now that might not mean much because these early states do count for quite a bit.
Get this, Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's support from South Carolina's black religious leaders may not be quite as extensive as her campaign suggests.
Say what, bro?
Clinton got a boost last week when she shared a South Carolina stage with dozens of supporters, accepting what organizers said were endorsements from nearly 90 ministers in the state.
But an AP review of the endorsement list supplied by the New York Senators' campaign found that some of the backers were affiliated with religious ministries and outreach groups rather than churches.
Some were wives of ministers.
Two were church elders.
At least two were not members of the churches listed beside their names.
You mean to tell me that they even lie about minister endorsements?
Clinton, you know what?
I said last hour the most expensive thing in this country is ignorance.
We pay a higher price for ignorance in this country than I don't get gasoline, you name it.
The highest price we pay is ignorance, and it's in a form.
Would somebody explain to me why Mrs. Clinton is even a viable candidate?
She can't get anything right.
Can she not get one thing right?
She's been all over the place on the war.
She has been all over the place on driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
She has no idea that she claims that felons are laundering nearly a million dollars into her campaign.
Norman Shu, we've got the dishwashers in Chinatown.
And she can't even get the list of ministers who supposedly support her in South Carolina, correctly.
She can't tip away.
Can Hillary do anything right?
You know, they talk about competence.
So what has she done that's right?
You know, she will continue to claim on the minister thing.
Well, I didn't know about that.
My staff handled that.
I didn't know about that.
She doesn't know anything.
You know, Rich, she can't get anything right.
She can't do anything right.
I think, you know, the ignorance and the high price we pay for it, it is clear.
It is clear that a number of Democrats just like thugs.
They just impressed with gangsters.
You know, we've got all of this funny Shu indicted.
And of course, the drive-by is not making much about that, even though Shu has been told in the indictment to give up the autograph saxophone from Bill Clinton.
I know it would be a great ad.
Hillary Clinton can't do anything right.
This woman can't do anything right.
What has she done right?
What does she get right?
I know I'm swift voting her.
Oh, speaking of swift boating, how about this?
You've heard about Boone Pickens.
Boone Pickens offered John Kerry a million bucks if he could disprove even one claim made by the Swiftboat veterans for truth.
And Kerry's out there, he wrote Pickens a letter and says, just send me the check.
He still hasn't offered up any evidence.
He hasn't offered up one bit of evidence that the Swiftboat guys lied.
I frankly, you know what I hope?
Here's what I hope.
I hope Kerry finds something like a dotted I that's not dotted or a T that's not crossed, something inconsequential.
And Boone Pickens pays up just for the show.
And then Boone could say, well, you know, I'm happy to pay Senator Kerry a million dollars here for fact I forgot to cross a T or whatever.
But anyway, it's just, she can't do anything right.
Kerry couldn't do anything right.
Bungle everything.
Now, this, back to this angry voter business.
His numbers are fluid, and obviously people are angry at politicians generally.
And if, if, if, if, capital I, capital F, if they don't like negative politics and Hillary is in big trouble.
If this is, you know, this time around, if this is if this is accurate, Obama does come across as very positive, regardless of his other defects, like he's lifeless.
But, you know, lifeless might work here.
We don't know.
We'll just have to wait and see.
But Americans are angry.
I mean, there's no question about it.
Americans are angry in a foul mood, but why?
Democrats and the media have put the whole country in a foul mood because Democrats and the media are in a foul mood.
And they want everybody to be as miserable and angry as they are.
They think that's the key to electoral victory.
And guess who has created it?
If I'm Obama and I look at the Zogby poll, I do want to my ass.
This is Hillary Clinton.
Put a mugshot type picture up there.
This is Hillary Clinton.
This woman can't do anything right.
She and her comrades have created the very negative, angry environment that turns out to be what's upsetting you.
If you want to know why you're mad, look at this woman who can't do anything right.
I'm Barack Obama, and I paid for this ad, and I'm now on a train out of the country.
As I say, ladies and gentlemen, always trust your instincts, particularly if you are an engaged and informed, involved person.
Guess what I have here?
Guess what I'm holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers?
I have a Zogby poll.
You know what it's from?
October 30th.
October 30th.
Despite President Bush's perpetually abysmal approval ratings, it appears his increasingly hostile rhetoric against Iran has drummed up enough fear of a nuclear Holocaust or World War III that a majority of Americans are in favor of a U.S. strike against Iran aimed at curtailing its apparent nuclear ambitions.
The Zogby International Survey shows 52% of Americans would support a strike on Iran, while 53% expect President Bush to do so before the end of his second term.
Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton is voters' number one choice to deal with Iran, with 21% saying that they would like to see her take on Tehran from the White House.
Giuliani is a second choice at 15%.
29, just 29% of Americans think that we should not attack Iran with one in five people unsure.
That's October 30th.
It's over a month ago.
Now, could it be, ladies and gentlemen, that the National Intelligence Estimate Report was designed to counter this?
Zogby shows 52% of Americans back at the end of October would support a strike on Iran.
53% expect the president to do it.
That just scares the hell out of the libs, especially the State Department.
Trying to take national security off the table.
You know, we've had previous NIEs been released.
I don't remember one, you know, dominating a news cycle for three days.
Like, well, two, like this one has.
Just something to think about.
There are really so few coincidences, ladies and gentlemen, in life.
All right, to the audio soundbites of the Democrat debate on NPR yesterday.
It was in Des Moines.
The moderator said, Senator Obama, do you agree with the president's assessment that Iran still poses a threat?
And do you agree that the NIE's news shows that isolation and sanction work?
I've been consistent about was that this saber-rattling was a repetition of Iraq, a war I opposed, and that we needed to oppose George Bush again.
We can't keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, knowing the ways in which they manipulate intelligence.
Manipulate intelligence.
We just had some intelligence that totally screws Bush.
But of course, this wasn't manipulated, was it, Senator Obama?
No, no, no.
We can trust all of this.
If, the proverbial if the Iranians and Mahmoud Madini Zad have actually shut down the nuclear program, it ain't because of sanctions and it ain't because of all this whatever.
It's shock and awe.
In March of 2003 in Baghdad, the Brett girl next decided to rip Hillary Clinton into voting to make Iran's military guard a terrorist organization.
Declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization.
That's supposed to be diplomacy.
This has to be considered in the context that Senator Clinton has said she agrees with George Bush terminology that we're in a global war on terror.
Then she voted to declare the military group in Iran a terrorist organization.
What possible conclusion can you reach other than that we are at war?
I say, really, they're jumping all over Hillary here on her Iran vote.
But what does she do?
Why did she do this?
I mean, in the midst of all this anti-war fervor in the Democrat Party and the Iraq situation, why did she sign this?
Why did she vote that?
Yeah, these guys are a bunch of terrorists.
It's because she wants to be president.
She's seen this poll.
I'm sure 52% want deal with Iran if they've got a nuke.
Senator Clinton, said the moderator, your reply.
I understand politics and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far.
Oh, yeah.
In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we've actually seen some changes in their behavior.
There is absolutely no basis for a rush to war, which I oppose and have opposed for two years.
But there is also a recognition that the Iranians were supplying weapons that killed Americans.
They were supplying technical assistance from the Quds Force, which is their special operations element.
So I think we've actually seen the positive effects of having labeled them a terrorist organization because it did change their behavior.
Oh, no.
Can't she get anything right?
She just sided with Bush and Cheney.
Listen to the brick girl.
I just want to be clear to the listeners that we have a real division here.
I mean, among the Democratic candidates, there's only one that voted for this resolution.
And this is exactly what Bush and Cheney wanted.
Yes, she voted with Bush and Cheney.
Can't she get anything right?
All right, moderator Robert Siegel had this exchange with the Kia Pet.
Clearly, many Muslims hate the U.S. enough to want to do us grievous harm.
Would you speculate on the reasons for their hatred of us?
Senator Biden.
Why?
The reason why we are disliked so much is because we are trusted so little.
The reason why we are disliked so much, obviously, I'm not talking about al-Qaeda.
I'm talking about the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world who look at us and when we say and do things as we're talking about now with Iran, conclude that this is a war on Islam.
Well, well, George Bush, obviously, the world hates us because of George Bush.
NPR, obviously, a bunch of libs.
Why do they hate us?
Can you Democrats tell us why do they hate us so bad that they hate it?
We're so scared.
Why do they hate it?
I don't care why they hate us.
It doesn't matter.
A hill of beans to me.
You know, the premise behind this question, why do they hate us, is absurd because it implies that we're guilty.
And of course, the liberals America is guilty.
The Brett girl then jumps in with this little chime.
Well, first of all, I think that it's what's driving this belief about America and the Muslim community around the world is the bullying, selfish, abusive behavior of George Bush in this administration.
Only the ignorant, only the blithering ignorant would be applauding an answer as vacant, as intellectually vapid as what you just heard the Brett girl say.
Well, first of all, I think that what's driving this belief about America, Muslim community around the world, is the bullying, selfish, abusive behavior of George Bush and his administrators.
What?
What?
It's embarrassing.
But yet, the ignorant in the Democrat Party goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You keep telling Bush, it's Bush, it's Bush.
We hate Bush.
Obama has a slightly different take on why we are hated.
Listen to the Republican candidates' debates and how they frame this issue.
And if you are a Muslim overseas listening to Rudy Giuliani say, they are coming here to try to kill you, which is the tenor of many of the speeches that are delivered by the Republican candidates, you would get an impression that they are not interested in talking and resolving issues peacefully.
Now, what we need to do is we need to close Guantanamo.
We need to restore habeas corpus.
We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not just our friends, but also to our enemies.
And once again, ignorance will applaud that answer.
Heath-forward-thinking Mr. Limbaugh.
I think Senator Obama, they spoke loud and clear on 9-11 when they came to New York to kill us.
Rudy was there.
Senator Obama, it was 9-11, 2001.
They came to kill us.
They came to New York to kill us.
You know what?
They went to Washington to kill us.
And you know what, Senator, they did.
Almost 3,000 of us they killed.
They came here.
And they were here for a long time.
I'm sure many Americans talked to them.
They went to Vegas for one last fling.
They're out there taking flying lessons.
I'm sure a lot of Americans talk to them.
I'm sure they probably liked a lot of Americans they ran into.
They came here, Senator, and they've said they're going to keep coming.
You go talk to them until you're blue in the face, and you can close Guantanamo, and you can guarantee our defeat.
More power to you.
That's right.
Having more fun than a human being shouldn't be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
One more soundbite here from the debate, and then we'll get back to your phone calls.
This is yesterday in Des Moines, Iowa.
One of the moderators, Michelle Norris, asks of Mrs. Clinton, when you traveled to China, and then when you returned to the White House, did you advise your husband on Chinese foreign policy or on foreign policy in regard to any other countries that you traveled to?
I certainly did.
I not only advised, I often met with he and.
Stop the tape.
Stop taping Reekewitt.
We know exactly what her advice was.
All the damn cash from these people in China that you can bill because we're going to need it for our legal defense fund because of your damn playing around.
Here's the answer again.
You listen to it in that context.
Well, I certainly did.
I not only advised, I often met with he and his advisors both in preparation for, during, and after.
I traveled with representatives from the Security Council, the State Department, occasionally the Defense Department, and even the CIA.
So I was deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team in the first Clinton administration.
Hell yes.
Had 500 FBI files, left the FBI out.
But where are the documents?
Tell us what she did.
They're still tied up, the National Archives, supposedly, at the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor in Arkansas.
And Bruce Lindsay's under guard and key, lock and key with those documents.
And Clinton says, I tell it, Limbaugh, you know I'm not lying about this.
I tell them to get those papers out there as fast as they can.
I have nothing to do with it.
We're trying to speed up the process, but there's gazillions of those things in there.
You know how much that woman talks about, document all that stuff.
And most of it was screaming at me.
We can't put that kind of stuff out.
Well, people are going to think of me.
I'm going to look like a wuss.
I'm going to look like an absolute pimp in here.
All I'm doing is getting yelled at by my wife throwing lamps and stuff.
I can't release that stuff, Limbaugh.
You ought to know that.
I love channeling Clinton.
I just.
Well, she says she's done all this stuff.
We're just supposed to take her word for it, but she can't do anything right.
And yet we're supposed to take her word for this.
She's done all these great things in foreign policy.
Good Lord.
Well, she traveled too, but as I guarantee you, he didn't like that.
What, you mean Hillary's gone on his trip again?
Damn it.
Damn it to hell.
How can I?
Well, let's cancel a trip.
It won't be any fun.
She can't get anything right.
And she's telling us she did all these wonderful things in the first Clinton term.
Well, I guess that means the first four years.
There wasn't much foreign policy in the second term.
All right.
Jennifer in Hemet, California.
I'm glad you called.
I really appreciate your patience in waiting.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Glad to get to speak to you.
What I'm calling about is the NIE.
And having read it, I wanted to comment on it as an intelligence document.
Bottom line on it is that it offers no accountable assessment of what Iran's intentions are.
What it does do, it's structured to imply that that first sentence is an indicator of what Iran's intentions are.
Right, plausible but unlikely.
Well, exactly.
And what the document does is allow CIA to lay out data that's out there without being technically misleading about it, but nevertheless leaving an impression that they don't counteract by making any statements about Iran's intentions.
If you look at the end of the document, they do not make an accountable statement about what they think Iran's intentions are.
And in fact, if you look up at the scope note on page four, their exact words are: We do not assume that Iran has the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Rather, we examine the intelligence to assess blah, blah, blah.
So it's an interesting way to put it.
A well, let me just say this: a well-crafted intelligence document would use that opening sentence of statement about the nuclear weapons program having halted as supporting evidence for an accountable assessment of what's going on and where Iran is headed with this program.
The exact words, we do not assume Iran has the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons?
Look at page four.
I'll read it to you.
This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.
That's actually in bold-faced type on page four of the NIA.
Well, that's absurd.
It's I mean, it's the kind of thing it's a Zen sort of statement.
You know, you could be communicating your stance on this, and then this is what I'm going to tell you.
It's not the way that a military officer who wrote something like that would get locked up by the commander and told to go sit in the corner.
Why?
Because it leaves an invalid impression.
You may lay out the exact truth with respect to each of your supporting points and comments, but if you say up front things that leave a misleading impression, then you should be shot.
Well, wait, but isn't it consistent, though, for them to say we do not assume they're pursuing nuclear weapons?
Isn't that consistent with the opening line and a key judgment?
Well, it leaves an impression of inconsistency, although I can tell you that an intelligence officer who wrote this thing would come back and say, well, that sentence doesn't mean that we don't think they intend to acquire nuclear weapons.
It just means that we didn't assume that in writing this NIA.
Oh, okay.
I misunderstood you.
I'm sorry.
Well, and I can fully understand how you would misunderstand that.
I wouldn't have written that sentence.
It's a CYA.
Pretty much, yeah.
It's an ambiguous CYA so that no matter what ends up happening in the future, they can't be held accountable for what they wrote.
That's how it comes off, yes.
When you learn to write intelligence, you learn to put your key judgment up front, meaning if you take nothing else away, remember this 25-word summary of the intelligence.
Which has got a lot of politics behind it in this case.
Exactly.
And I will tell you this, having worked with the DIA and the military service agencies, the way they probably were gotten to sign off on this, because their loyalty is to their military bosses.
They're not going to sign on to something that's misleading.
I imagine that the way they signed off on this was that it was couched in these kind of non-accountable terms.
Basically, everything CIA said is probably technically correct as far as they know.
It's the structure of this thing that makes all the difference.
Well, maybe so, but the opening line here, they've stopped their nuclear program in 2003.
Here it is four years later.
We're just now learning this, three and a half years later.
Whatever follows, drive-bys are not going to read it.
That makes the political point that paralyzes the president in terms of military action or even tightening sanctions.
I do wonder how something like that gets paid.
There's 16 agencies participate in this.
That's right.
And they all have to sign off on it.
Now, have you read the Wall Street Journal editorial today about the three primary authors of this, all State Department people, one of them very disgruntled with a grudge against the world because he's been trying to get our Iranian policy changed and nobody's been listening to him?
That I haven't read.
And I would be less competent to comment on anything like that.
I'm commenting on the way this document is assembled to leave an unaccountable impression, which it leaps out at me because I could never have gotten away with writing this.
Okay, so, well, you may not want to assume anything then.
I mean, you're obviously very precise and within the limits of your scope of experience and responsibility.
But somebody like me listening to you say these things, I have to ask why.
If this is so unprofessional, if this is so wouldn't pass muster in your experience, how does this happen?
Well, I would say that it's undoubtedly prompted by political concerns, and I don't want to speculate on who's got those concerns.
Don't worry, I'll take care of that.
Right.
I know you will.
You're very good at that, Russ.
My bottom line on this is that as an intelligence document, it's a waffling document in terms of where it should be accountable and make statements.
And that's what we, okay, if Iran halted its program in 03, what does that mean about Iran's intentions?
You know, how was Iran, in fact, influenced to do that?
And this document doesn't.
Well, what we're able to access doesn't say it, but I read a piece by Herb Meyer earlier today, who very deeply involved national security during President Reagan's administration.
And he said that the full report will never be made public.
It's too classified, but that members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees can get it simply by asking for it.
He suggests, because this conclusion and the key judgment is so at odds with everything we thought we knew.
And it's the only place in all of the intelligence we've had in the last number of years that states they gave up their nuclear plan.
He thinks that members of those committees ought to stop everything they're doing, cancel appearances, get the document, read the whole thing, and then find out what the justifications for the key judgment are, because they're not in the four or five pages that were released.
You're not going to be allowed to see the whole thing either, given your past, I would assume.
So he's suggesting they do it, and then if there's anything at variance with that key judgment, that they tell us.
And he certainly has every right to suggest that.
I would not stand in the way of that at all, although certainly they should be responsible about discussing any intelligence sources and methods.
They shouldn't do that.
What I will say about this NIE, though, is that if it contains in the classified version a key judgment that specifically addresses Iran's intentions, instead of leaving that to be implied by what they're saying about what Iran did in 2003, there's no reason why that could not be in the unclassified version that gets published.
It should have been.
Well, that's an excellent point.
If they quit, why'd they quit?
And do they intend to start again someday?
None of that's answered.
The whole question is, do they intend to start again?
That's, I mean, it's just like Iraq and WMD.
The whole question is, what are their intentions?
What are they going to continue to try to do?
As an intelligence person, does it matter to you what Ahmadinejad threatens and says for years and years and years?
Oh, absolutely.
Of course.
It doesn't seem to matter to these people.
Well, I realize that.
One thing that we have made a point of doing for quite a while now is making sure that we read the conspiratorial nonsense that comes from a lot of the Arabic newspapers.
Some of them are very good, and a lot of them are just tabloids.
But we make sure that we keep up with it because that's what a whole lot of people in that part of the world are thinking.
And you can't just dismiss what Ahmadinejad is saying.
You can't do that.
Well, Jennifer, thanks so much for calling.
I'm glad you got through.
This has been fascinating.
I hadn't looked at that passage the way you pointed it out, and I appreciate your clarifying that for me.
You're very welcome.
Thanks, Jennifer.
That's a good one.
Thank you.
You too.
We'll be back in just a second, folks.
Do not vanish.
Right as the program was ending yesterday, we had a story across the wire that Bill Clinton was out there in Arkansas.
He's actually in New Hampshire, I'm street, whining and moaning about the unfair coverage that his wife is getting in the drive-by media.
Now, of course, that's absurd, but it's that Clinton's playing victim.
And so we have the audio here of what President Clinton said.
It's web quality, but you can still hear it.
1% of the press coverage was devoted to their record in public life.
No wonder people think experience is irrelevant.
A lot of people covering the race think it is.
15% was devoted to their life stories.
Especially gentlemen, we don't want to know about people that want to be playing.
17% was devoted to their proposals for the future.
And 67% of the coverage was pure politics.
Stuff that has a half-life of about 15 seconds, won't matter tomorrow, is very vulnerable to being slanted and moved, and won't affect your life.
Right.
So he's upset here that only 1% of the press coverage is devoted to their record in public life, meaning Hillary's claim that she's experienced is being shortchanged by the drive-by media.
Let's go back.
Let's listen to Hillary again describe her experience in this question from the debate yesterday when you traveled to China, and then when you returned to the White House, did you advise your husband on Chinese foreign policy or on foreign policy in regard to any other countries that you traveled to?
I certainly did.
I not only advised, I often met with he and his advisors both in preparation for, during, and after.
I traveled with representatives from the Security Council, the State Department, occasionally the Defense Department, and even the CIA.
So I was deeply involved in being part of the Clinton team in the first Clinton administration.
What did she do?
She traveled with people.
She can't get anything right.
She traveled with people.
She traveled with representatives from the Security Council, the State Department, occasionally the Defense Department, and even the CIA.
I was deeply involved.
You know, it's hard to believe this because, A, it's a Clinton saying, but B, more importantly, remember, it wasn't that long ago.
It's a month or so ago that Bill Clinton came out and said, hey, by the way, that healthcare fast go, that wasn't Hillary.
That was mine.
That's all on me.
She really did run that program.
I mean, she helped set it up so far.
But I botched that.
I blew that all to hell.
It's my problem.
It's not hers.
So Bill Clinton has come out and said, she didn't even do that.
Now she traveled.
I'm telling you, if they had any evidence, documents that showed her experience in a favorable light, they'd get it out there.
But why she qualified for health care?
Because she cares about children.
And she has fought for children for 35 years.
She had fought for women's.
She'd fought, and she'd been attacked.
And from this, we are to conclude that she has massive amounts of experience.
Greg in Texas City, Texas.
Nice to have you on the EIB network.
Rush, thank you very much for taking my call on Merry Christmas.
Yes, sir.
I've been a longtime listener, first-time caller, and I want to tell you I respect you a lot more today than I did 20 years ago.
But I appreciate your stand on what's going on in the political world and the status of the United States.
I happened to be a military advisor in Iran in 1968 through 71, and I went back into the country from 73 until the fall of the Shah.
Well, right before the fall of the Shah.
And this NIE report, I agree with your previous call of the intelligence lady.
Wasn't she great?
Yes, she was.
And also the CIA man who used to work for the CIA and the extent and depth of the meaning of the NIA report.
This was a no-win situation for George Bush.
It's purely political.
And the only winner out of this would be the liberal media who is succeeding at winning the war for the will of the American people.
And the important issue is history and the ignorance or apathy to the facts.
Most of the callers that I hear are people that I hear commenting in 1979 when Iran, they've been at war with us since then, since they took over the embassy.
Most of these callers are in their 30s and 40s and maybe 50.
That means they really didn't have too much involvement to what was going on then.
But if the report says that they stopped this program in 2003, you said it a while ago.
You're absolutely right.
We rightly labeled Iran as part of the axis of evil.
Exactly.
Greg, I have to stop you there.
It's my fault.
I've run up against a heartbreak and I cannot.
Thanks so much.
Get his number.
I want to continue this with it.
Bad news for the left and the liberals and the Democrats.
Forecast sees no U.S. recession in 2008 despite housing woes.
Damn it.
No recession.
See you tomorrow, folks.
Back in 21 hours.
Be here.
▲
Export Selection