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, I know I'm just telling you what the Zogby thing said.
You know, we really need to end these discussions uh before the hour begins.
Because I gotta start when I gotta start.
If she's still talking to me, I still gotta start.
Anyway, greetings and welcome back, folks.
Uh, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am your harmless lovable little fuzzball host, L. Rushbow, the all-knowing, all-caring, all sensing Maharushi.
Yeah, we just finished talking.
Phone number, by the way, 800 282882.
Just finished talking about the uh Zogby poll that's out.
Not much change in terms of who's doing well and who isn't.
Uh from their last poll, Hillary's still in this poll, is comfortably ahead in Iowa.
Uh, but but the the uh interesting thing was that the anger of the American people in Iowa, the anger.
82% of Democrats, 75% of Republicans, fed up in the whole political system, fed up.
Now, the Zogby analysis of this is negative ads aren't gonna 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 ringing, oh, it's so terrible, it's so horrible.
It's because they work.
So if I'm a candidate in New Hampshire and I see the Zogby polishes, all this disgust, and that people are fed up at politics as usual, which we also hear every election cycle.
Uh I'd 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 Hiller, I'd put Barack Obama, 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, have to put whatever you about Edwards.
This is the guy who's gonna mandate that every time you need health care, you gotta sign 15 forms at the nearest government agency, and he's not even gonna give you a can of hairspray in gratitude.
Obama, poor Obama out there is just he's just uh lifeless.
And according to the Zogby poll, lifeless might work.
Uh if they're right that people are fed up with all this uh contention.
Uh, the Rasmussen report, the uh 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 uh 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 represents a seven-point decline over the uh past week.
Huckabee's gained eight points in the same time frame.
Also in the Rasmussen uh poll, uh, you find that uh uh Hillary is at her lowest point since she announced.
Nationally, this is uh this is a national poll, and of course, right now that might not mean much because the 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 uh shared a South Carolina stage with dozens of supporters, accepting what organizers said were endorsements from nearly 90 minute 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.
Do 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...
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.
Correct.
Can't she can't tip a waiver.
Can Hillary do anything right?
You know, they talk about competence.
So what has she done that's right?
You know, and 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 didn't know anything.
You know, really, 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're just impressed with gangsters.
Uh, you know, we we've got we've got all of this funny Shue indicted, and of course the drive-by's 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 uh Carrie'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.
Uh I hope that I hope Kerry finds something like a dotted I that's not dotted or a T that's not crossed, something inconsequential, and and Boone Pickens pays up.
Uh just just for the the the the show, and then Boone can say, well, you know, it was a I'm I'm happy to pay Senator Carey a million dollars here for fact I forgot to cross a T. Uh or whatever, but uh uh anyway, it's just it's just she can't do anything right.
Carrie couldn't do anything right.
Bungle everything.
Um, this back to this angry voter business.
These numbers are fluid and they're obviously people are angry at uh at politicians generally.
And if, if, if if Capitol I Capital F, if they don't like negative politics and Hillary is in big trouble.
Uh if if this is, you know, this time around, if this is uh if this is accurate, uh Obama does come across as very positive, regardless of his other defects, like he's lifeless.
Uh but you know, lifeless might work here.
We don't know.
We will uh 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 one of my answers.
This is Hillary Clinton.
But it just 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 you if you are an engaged and informed, involved person.
Guess what I have here?
I have a Zogby poll.
You know when 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 Zagmi 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 the 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 was over a month ago.
Now, uh 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 in Iran.
53% expect the president to do it.
This 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, a two, like uh 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 sound bites of the Democrat debate on NPR yesterday.
It was in Des Moines.
Uh 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?
What 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.
Uh if if if if if if if the proverbial if the Iranians and Mahmudinizad have actually shut down the nuclear program, it ain't because of sanctions, and it ain't because of all this uh whatever the it's shock and awe in March of 2003 in Baghdad.
The Breck 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 have 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 the jump it all over Hillary here on her Iran vote.
But what does she why did she do this?
I mean, in the midst of all this anti-war fervor in the Democrat Party and uh the the uh uh uh Iraq situation, why did she sign this?
Why did she 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 you 52 percent want deal with Iran if they've if they've got a nuke.
Uh 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 coulds 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?
Um, Moderator Robert Siegel had this exchange with uh the Kia Pet.
Clearly, many Muslims hate the U.S. enough to want to do us grievous harm.
Would you speculate on the reasons uh 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, concluded this is a war on Islam.
Well, well, George Bush, obviously George Why the world hates us because of George Bush.
Is it now NPR, obviously a bunch of libs.
Why do they hate us?
Can you Democrats tell us why why do they hate it so bad that they hate it?
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 American America is guilty.
The Breck girl then jumps in with this little chime.
Well, uh, 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 Breck 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 minister.
What?
What it's embarrassing.
But yet the ignorant in the Democrat Party goes, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
You keep telling them 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, Muther 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 911 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 three thousand 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 talked 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 till 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 should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh with half my brand tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair.
One more sound bite here from the uh from the debate, and uh then we'll get back to your phone calls.
This is yesterday in Des Moines, Iowa.
One of the moderators, Michelle Norris, uh asks of Mrs. Clinton, when you when you travel to China, and then when you return 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 tape and re-cuitt.
We know exactly what her advice was.
Get all the damn cash from these people in China that you can bill because we're gonna need it.
For our legal defense fund because of your damn playing around.
All right, here's the answer again.
You listen to it in that context.
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, uh at the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor in Arkansas.
And Bruce Lindsay's under guard and key, lock and key with those documents.
And uh Clinton says, uh tell it, Limbaugh.
You know I'm not lying about this.
I tell them to get those papers out there as fast as I can.
Uh I have nothing to do with it.
We're speed up process, but there's gazillions of those things in there.
You know how much that woman talks?
We have to document all that stuff.
And most of it was screaming at me.
We can't put that kind of stuff out.
Well, people are gonna think, I mean, I'm gonna look like a wuss, I'm gonna look like an absolute pimp in here.
All I'm doing is getting yelled at by my wife's throwing lamps and stuff.
I can't release that stuff, boy.
You ought to know that.
I love channeling Clinton.
I just says she'd done all this stuff.
We're just supposed to take her word for it, but we she can't do anything right, and yet we're supposed to take her word for this that she's done all these great things in foreign policy.
Good lord.
Well, she traveled too, but is it look at is as uh I guarantee you he didn't Dan will didn't like that.
Well, 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.
Um, and as 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 uh Hemet, California.
I'm glad you called.
I really appreciate your patience in waiting.
Welcome.
Hi, Rush.
Uh, glad to get to speak to you.
Uh what I'm calling about is the NIE, and uh having read it, uh, I wanted to comment on it as an intelligence document.
Uh bottom line on it is that it offers no uh 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 uh intentions are.
Right, plausible but unlikely.
Uh well, exactly, and uh what the document does is allow CIA to lay out um data that's out there without being uh 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, they 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 uh it's an interesting way to put it.
A well uh 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 a an accountable assessment of what's going on and where Iran is headed with this program.
Wait, i i the exact words we do not assume Iran has the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Uh look at page four.
The I'll read it to you.
This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.
That's actually in bold face type on page four of the NIE.
Well that's absurd.
Uh it's uh I mean it it's the kind of thing it's a zen sort of statement, you know, you you could be communicating your stance on this and then this is what I'm gonna tell you.
Um it's not the way that uh 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 lead that leave a misleading impression, then you should be shot.
Well, wait a minute it 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?
Uh well, it leaves an impression of inconsistency, although I can tell you that an an intelligence officer who wrote this thing would come back and say, Well, that that sentence doesn't mean that we don't think they're per their they intend to acquire nuclear weapons.
It just means that we didn't assume that in writing this NIM.
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.
Uh 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.
The when you learn to write intelligence, you learn to put your key judgment up front, meaning if you take nothing else away, remember this twenty-five-word summary of what we're doing.
Which has got a lot of politics behind it in this case.
Exactly.
And uh I 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.
Um I I imagine that the way they 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 as they know it's the structure of this thing that makes all the difference.
Well, maybe so, but you're you're you're the opening line here uh they've stopped their nuclear program in two thousand three.
Here it is four years later, we're just now learning this three and a half years later.
Um That's all i whatever follows uh uh drive-by's are not going to read it.
That that that makes the political point that paralyzes the president in terms of military action or even tightening sanctions.
Uh I do wonder how something like that gets paid.
Sixteen agencies participate in this.
That's right.
Um they all have to sign on for it.
I mean, now d have you read the Wall Street Journal editorial today uh about the th the three primary authors of this, all State Department people, one of them very disgruntled with a grudge uh against uh the world because he's been trying to get a our Iranian policy change and nobody's been listening to it.
That I haven't read.
Um, and I would be less competent to comment on anything like that.
I I'm commenting on the way this document is assembled to leave an unaccountable impression.
Um which is it's it leaps out at me because I could never have gotten away with writing this.
Um so well, you may not want to assume anything then.
I mean, you're obviously very precise uh 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.
Um my bottom line on this is that as an intelligence document, it is a it's a waffling document in terms of where it should be uh 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 uh I read uh read a piece by Herb Meyer earlier today who very deeply involved national security during President Reagan's administration, and he said that the uh the full report will never be made public is 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, uh, and then uh find out, you know, what the justifications for the key judgment are, because they're not in the four or five pages that that were released, and then we uh well, you you're you're not gonna be allowed to see the whole thing either, given your your your past, I would assume.
So uh he's suggesting they do it, and then if there's anything at variance with that key judgment that they they tell us.
And uh he certainly has every right to suggest that.
Um I would not stand in the way of that at all, uh, although, you know, certainly they should be responsible about discussing any intelligence sources and methods, they they shouldn't do that.
Uh what I will say about this NIE, though, is that if it has uh 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, uh there's no reason why that could not be in the unclassified version that gets published.
And 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 of course.
It doesn't seem to matter to these people.
Well, I I realize that.
Um have made a point of doing for quite a while now is making sure that we read the the conspiratorial nonsense that comes from a lot of the uh the Arabic newspapers.
Some of them are very good, and a lot of them are just uh they're 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 you can't do that.
Well, Jennifer, thanks so much for calling.
I'm glad you got through.
This has been fascinating.
I 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 for having me.
We'll be back in just a second, folks.
Do not vanish.
Right as the program was ending yesterday, we had a story cross the wire that Bill Clinton was out there in Arkansas, is actually in New Hampshire, I'm sorry, he's whining and moaning about the uh unfair Coverage that his wife is getting in the drive-by media.
Now, of course, that's absurd, but it's it's uh the Clinton's playing victim.
And so we have the we have the audio here of what President Clinton said.
It's web quality, but uh you can still hear it.
One percent of the press coverage was devoted to the record in public life.
No wonder people think experience is irrelevant.
A lot of people cover the race negative.
15% was devoted to their life stories.
That's legitimate.
We don't want to know about people that want to be covered.
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 his uh his upset here that uh only one percent of the press coverage devoted to their record in public life, meaning Hillary's claim that she's experienced as being shortchanged by the drive-by media.
Let's go back.
Let's listen to Hillary again describe her experience uh in this in this uh question in from the debate yesterday when you travel to China, and then when you uh 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'd 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 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, uh that health care fast, go, that wasn't Hillary, that was mine.
I've that's all on me.
She really did run that program.
I mean, she helped set it up so far.
But uh I botched that.
I blew that all a hell.
That was 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 if they had any evidence, documents that showed her experience in a favorable light, they'd get it out there.
But um 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 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 in there.
I've been a longtime uh listener, first-time caller, and I I want to tell you I respect you a lot more today than I did 20 years ago.
But I 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, and well, right before the fall of the Shaw.
And this NIE report, I agree with your previous uh call of the intelligence lady and 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 NIE report.
This was a no-win situation for Georgia Bush.
It's purely political.
And the only winner out of this would be the liberal media, uh, who is succeeding at winning the war uh for the will of the American people.
And the important issue is history and the ignorance are apt to the facts.
Most of the callers that I hear are people that I hear commenting in 1979 when Iran uh they've been at war at us with uh since then, since they took over the embassy.
Most of these callers are in their 30s and 40s, and maybe 50.
That means uh they really didn't have too much involvement to what was going on then.
But yeah, if the report says that they stopped this program in 2003, you you said it a while ago.
You're absolutely right.
Uh we rightly labeled uh Iran as uh part of the access of evil.
Exactly.
I have to, you know, Greg, I have to stop you there.
It's my fault.
I've run up against a hard break, 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.
Uh 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