All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 10, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
December 10, 2007, Monday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Here we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
There are no graduates and there are no degrees because the learning never stops.
You want to be on the program?
We'd love to have you.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, lrushbow at eibnet.com.
We've changed the email address.
We had the same address for a long time, and a bunch of spam was showing up in there all the time.
It was too tough to weed through all the spam, despite the filters, to find notes from you people.
And I'm sure it'll happen again as the years accumulate.
But so we've switched it up.
El Rushbow at EIBNet.com.
Do you remember, by the way, you know, everybody, Bill Moyers and all these people upset here that I call refer to Mrs. Clinton's testicle lockbox?
I feel very honored, by the way, to have forced that term on PBS.
Moyers used it Friday night talking to Kathleen Hall James and asked her what it meant.
Do you remember during the 1992 presidential campaign, George H.W. Bush running against the Schlichmeister?
And I don't know if it was what was her name, Ma Richards.
You know, she had the old line at convention, poor George, he can't hip it.
He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
I don't know if it was also her or somebody else, but the people in that campaign were running around suggesting that George Bush reminded women of their first husband, which was intended to contrast George Bush's blandness with the Rhett Butler type roguishness of Bill Clinton.
Do you remember that?
Of course, this prompted me to say that Mrs. Clinton will remind men of their first two ex-wives who they married for all the wrong reasons and then suffered through a couple of decades of psychic abuse and so forth.
So they just can't, you know, they can start stuff, but they just can't take it.
And if you're just joining us, here's what Andrew Young had to say about Bill Clinton.
And it's web quality, by the way, at newsmakerslive.com, a website focusing on African-American issues.
An audience member, he's a former mayor of Atlanta, by the way, Andrew Young.
Audience member said, two words, Barack Obama, would you care to comment?
I want Barack Obama to be president in 2016.
Barack Obama does not have the support network yet to get to be president.
The Clintons have he's the smart, he's brilliant, but you cannot be president alone.
Hillary Clinton, first of all, has Bill behind him.
And Bill has ever been as black as Barack.
He's probably going to have more black women than Barack.
Now he did say, I'm teasing or I'm joshing or joking or whatever, but nevertheless, it got a lot of applause.
Andrew Young then continued.
You read about the Clintons.
When Clinton decided to run, Hillary set up a defense committee, and that's what they called it.
And you know what it was?
It was to go around and neutralize all the women that he'd ever been involved with.
And then she got her friends to be the defense committee to protect him from the attacks.
Now, do you understand?
He is saying that's why she's qualified.
He started out by saying Barack Obama doesn't have the support network yet to get to be president, but Hillary Clinton does because she spent all those 35 years on the bimbo eruptions protecting her husband against women who were attacking him, women Andrew Young says he had been involved with.
So Clinton was on the early show today on CBS.
And Harry Smith, I get the way Harry Smith frames the question.
Your good friend Andrew Young actually said in a group setting for cameras, everything else, that you were more black than Barack Obama.
He said he was joking.
Well, we've been friends a long time.
And, you know, my office in Harlem, I've always been close to the African-American community.
I think we're trying to build an America where we're all pulling in the same direction.
And, you know, Hillary and I have been working on a lot of these issues together that are very important to African Americans now.
When I met her in law school, she took an extra year to work for Marion Wright Edelman at the Soviet Defense Fund.
And when she went out of law school, she turned out all these offers and went to work for her because she cared about these issues.
Yeah, and then she turned down other offers to go to Arkansas with you.
Yip, yip.
Whoop, whoop.
Big deal.
But did you notice Harry Smith did not ask him, what about this business?
Andrew Young says you've been with more black women than Barack has.
Now, again, you can ask, why, Rush?
You don't need me to answer the question.
They're not going to do anything to upset the Clinton bandwagon or juggernaut or whatever.
They're going to cover for it.
That's what the purpose of this question and appearance was.
Andrew and I, we've been friends for a long time.
Screw him.
But I got my office up there in Harlem.
We know what's going on in black people's lives.
Hillary and I have been working on for years.
The fact they haven't improved doesn't mean anything because we're still working.
We're going to keep working on it.
And they're not going to improve because our policies don't help anybody improve.
Our policies keep where they are, so they keep needing us.
That's it in a nutshell.
From Albert Hunt, this has got to hurt.
Maybe.
Albert R. Hunt used to be with the Wall Street Journal, the Capitol Gang.
Now he's at Bloomberg News.
Letter from Washington, his column is entitled The Faltering Clinton Campaign.
To appreciate Hillary Clinton's fundamental political problem, consider the 11 Democrats from Philadelphia who gathered last week to discuss the U.S. presidential race, almost all of whom would vote for her in a general election.
The focus group was moderated by an expert on such forums, Democrat pollster Peter Hart.
The participants were informed, enthusiastic about their party prospects, had no interest in the Republicans or third-party candidates, and were about equally balanced between the frontrunners, Clinton and Barack Obama.
When Peter Hart pushed the group during a two-hour conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates, a different picture emerged.
Obama, they worried, can't win the nomination.
Voters aren't ready for an African-American president, and he may not be sufficiently experienced.
The concerns about Clinton are that she is devious, calculating, and fairly or not, a divisive figure in American politics.
And those are a lot tougher to overcome.
It was revealing, too, when Hart pushed them to envision these senators as leaders of the country, or as he put it, their boss.
Obama, they say, would be inspirational, motivating, charismatic, and compassionate.
After praising Clinton's experience and intelligence, they said she would be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.
So, Bill Moyers and Kathleen Hall Jameson, you can now ask yourselves again, why does the visual image of a testicle lockbox where Mrs. Clinton is concerned worked?
These are Democrats who say she'd be demanding, difficult, maybe even a little scary.
Candor and authenticity were repeatedly cited.
Allison Lowry, 30-year-old human resources consultant from Philadelphia, said, I don't feel like I look at her and see someone who's telling me the whole truth.
I'd like to see her approach a problem without the polls, helping her make a decision.
And there are other comments like this that just cannot be pleasing.
This isn't an anti-Hillary crowd, writes Mr. Hunt.
She gets high marks for her experience, her intelligence, and toughness.
These qualities, they suspect, are what voters demand.
Their hopes and dreams, though, are with Obama.
If he can dispel misgiving, by the way, they're saying he's too young and too inexperienced.
If Obama does get elected, he's going to be not.
What was Clinton when he's elected?
47, 48 years old?
Obama's 46 now.
If he gets elected, he'd be 47.
He'd be older than JFK, and he's been in the Senate.
They need assurance from Obama that he will be ready from day one.
Conversely, Clinton, in trying to get to the top of the mountain, Peter Hart said, has looked at one face of the mountain, her experience, the emphasis on strength and toughness.
She has not recognized the other side of the mountain.
She hasn't allowed voters to see who she is and her personal dimension.
The Clinton camp, writes Mr. Hunt, has similar research.
Things are tense in Hillary land these days.
Hillary's campaign is off balance.
And her campaign has a near obsession with what it perceives as a hostile press.
She hasn't allowed voters to see who she is and her personal dimension.
Perhaps it is that she has done that.
And that people are seeing it for what it is.
So, Mr. Hunt says the Clinton organization has clear plan A.
It envisioned the candidate as the choice of the party establishment, a natural heir to the presidency, to so dominate 2007 she would be able to corner, not have to capture the nomination.
It worked perfectly for almost the year, the whole year.
The strategery has imploded now, writes Mr. Hunt.
In a similar situation, Bill Clinton would have changed plans on a dime.
He could have gone from B to E during a rest stop.
Now, I don't know.
The conventional wisdom is that she's in trouble.
Conventional wisdom is that the campaign's imploding.
But remember what I said at the very outset: this business of inevitability is one thing, and her desire to want to capture the nomination or corner it rather than have to capture it.
But the fact is, she also needs to show she can overcome a challenge.
And what better challenge to overcome than Oprah Winfrey?
So, you know, when I read columns from people who I know are going to vote for Clinton and want her to be president, you know, my little red flags go up and I say, okay, what's the real reason this stuff is being written right now?
Quick timeout.
Your phone call's coming up right after this.
I just love this stuff.
I just love this Mannheim steamroller music.
It's the holiday season.
I had a lot of cold weather football games, a lot of spinning snow and some sleet.
Overcast gray days.
So beautiful to look at when it's 80 degrees outside where you live and a basically cloudless sky.
Yes, I will admit there's some smugness attached.
It's great to see winter on television.
Striking a note of musical diplomacy, the New York Philharmonic plans to visit North Korea in February.
The first U.S. cultural visit to the reclusive country.
Pyongyang's invitation to play a concert comes as North Korea is disabling its nuclear facilities under an agreement in February after years of six-way talks is beginning to see a thaw in its relations with the United States.
Should also add here in light of this news that moves are afoot for the New York City gay men's chorus to tour Iran now that per the NIE they have stopped their nuke program.
If this tour were to occur, according to Mahmoud Ahmadine Yazad, these would be the only homosexuals ever to be in Iran, the gay men's chorus tour.
I'm joking.
I realize as I say this, I'm making this sound very believable.
Did I get you, Don?
You think it was true?
I saw this over the weekend and I just about shouted.
Four top members of Congress, including the current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002.
They offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to an article that was out Sunday in the Washington Post.
On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding.
The briefer was specifically asked if the methods, including waterboarding, were tough enough.
Waterboarding has become the pariah of interrogation techniques.
Porter Goss, former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefing, said to the Washington Post, among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing.
And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.
Remember, this is the year after the 9-11 attacks.
And the CIA brings four powerful members of Congress, including Pelosi, and gave them virtual tours of detention sites and the kind of techniques to be used to interrogate prisoners, detainees.
And when they saw what they saw, you sure that's tough enough.
And they saw waterboarding.
An official who discussed the details noted that the briefings took place while the September 11, 2001 terror attacks were still fresh in lawmakers' minds.
People were still in a panic, but there was no objecting and there was no hand-wringing whatsoever.
I'm not sure.
I think that Jay Rockefeller was part of this group that was there, Jay Rockefeller and Pelosi.
They try to talk about the hypocrisy of conservatives and so forth.
This is an illustration, once again, of how the Democrats look at everything through the prism of politics and opportunity and not the substance of any particular issue.
National intelligence estimate, British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear Weapons program, as a U.S. intelligence report claimed last week.
Analysts believe that the Iranian staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation.
The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and make an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.
I have heard some of the wildest theories to explain this NIE and the timing.
Now, one of the, to set up some of these theories, let's go back to Friday, where we learned that this past June, this past summer, one of the three authors of the key judgment, that being that the Iranians have shut down their program in 2003, Thomas Finger, testified before Congress, it just seven months ago, five months ago, something that, yes, we're very concerned the Iranian nuclear program prepares unabated.
Our weapons program, they're enriching uranium and so forth.
So now all of a sudden, a few months later, nope, they stopped in 2003.
Now, we've all heard the theories that this is a bunch of rogue intelligence analysts who have an axe to grind trying to sabotage Bush administration policy.
There are also those who think that these intelligence people are simply trying to become policymakers and go beyond their charge as intelligence analysts.
But here's the most interesting theory that I have heard.
And it's just a theory.
And it's backed up by a piece of information.
And I think this was in the Washington Post over the weekend as well.
That members of the United States, some Intel people or whoever, I forget off the top of my head who met in Iran in 2005 with Hashimi Rafsanjani.
Now, Hashimi Rafzanjani is one of the wealthiest men in Iran.
He was the Ayatollah Khomeini's right-hand man all during the 80s.
It was Hashemi Rafsanjani who persuaded and convinced Khomeini to end the eight-year war with Iraq.
And I mentioned this only to give you an idea of his influence.
He apparently still very, very, very powerful in that country, even though he's not part of the official leadership structure that you would see anywhere.
Apparently, some Americans, some people had dinner with Rafzanjani in 2005.
He told them, look, we're not doing a nuclear thing for nuclear weapon, but we do want to show the world that we could if we had to.
And apparently that was factored into the NIE, that Hashimi Rafzanjani said, no, we're not, you guys have got it all wrong.
We're not trying to build a nuclear weapon, but we want to show the world we can if we have to.
Hashemi Rafzanjani would be one of the most affected Iranians if sanctions were tightened further.
He got offshore accounts.
Apparently, the wealth that he has acquired and accumulated since his days with Khomeini is immense.
Now, that backs up another theory.
The wildest theory I've heard is that this is something the White House has done on purpose.
And I'm not going to be able to give you all the details before the break, but basically it is to put pressure on the Israelis and the Saudis to get serious about a Middle East peace deal, the Palestinians, because none of these people in that region want a nuclear Iran whatsoever.
And so to stop a nuclear Iran force, because the Annapolis thing didn't go well, none of these peace conferences ever do.
We'll be back.
I'll give you this in more details.
It's a theory now.
Keep it in mind.
By the way, something, before I get back to this theory on the NIE, a question or two on the fact that four high-ranking members of Congress, including Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller, knew of waterboarding in 2002, saw all the techniques being used, and said, are you sure those are tough enough?
Will these do the job?
If certain members of Congress were informed of waterboarding, and if waterboarding, ladies and gentlemen, is torture and thus illegal, then I assume that these members of Congress will be charged, or at least subject to subpoenas and testimony in subsequent litigation.
I mean, all these left-wing groups bringing lawsuits insist on questioning Pelosi.
You know, there are all kinds of, well, what did Pelosi know?
When does she know it?
Will they be criminally investigated by a special counsel?
They knew what was going on.
They didn't sing about it.
They, by virtue of their silence, sanctioned it.
We have to get to the bottom of this.
These Democrats were involved in knowing full well that torture, as they define it, was going on with waterboarding.
And now they're going to be given a pass.
In fact, this is typical.
They sit around, they help create the mess.
And then when the mess surfaces, they act like they were just spectators and demand to get to the bottom of it.
Now, back to the theory.
And look, it's really, it's sort of off the charts.
But this is so, folks, it is so odd.
You know, people are trying to explain this because I can't recall ever when a report, an ambiguous bureaucratic report, so undercut the strategy of the president in war or peace.
And I really think every candidate on both sides should be asked how they intend to get control of the shadow governments here that run this country from the State Department and the United Spooks of America in the CIA.
You know, we should ask Obama and Hillary, you're going to negotiate with the United States Department of America?
You're going to negotiate with the United Spooks of America?
Really, this is why people are trying to figure out what does this really mean?
Because this is the only time that this intelligence analysis has been offered.
And it's from four years ago.
It's four years old.
And people are saying, nothing in Washington is ever as it seems.
So what's really behind this?
So, told you the story of Hashimi Rafsanjani, whose full name is Ali Akbar Hashimi Rafsanjani, Sahib Skyhook.
And he would be dramatically affected negatively by sanctions.
He's one of the wealthiest men in Iran.
The theory goes that the Middle East peace situation is something crucial.
It has to have some movement.
The Annapolis conference didn't do anything, coupled with the fact that the United Arab Emirates, the Saudis, the Israelis, all of the oil states in the Middle East, not one of them wants anything to do with a nuclear Iran.
Okay?
Then out of the blue, U.S. intelligence says, hey, guess what?
They're not trying to put together a nuclear weapon.
They stopped in 2003.
And the Saudis say, what?
Why, we can't trust that.
And the Israelis say, B.S. We know this is not true.
The United Arab Emirates say, oh, my, oh, gee, we're trying to build this big palace and vacation resort area over here.
What?
And then, of course, the guys in Qatar do the same thing.
In Britain and in France and Germany, they're saying, What?
Even the IAEA says, Well, this doesn't quite jibe with what we have, and we're not even being allowed to inspect.
Now, you add to that the fact that the Iranians have not had to demonstrate they got rid of it.
We're just trusting the word of the NIE and whoever told them.
And so, people say, This doesn't make any sense, it makes no sense whatsoever, unless, and this is the theory the United States government wants to pressure Israel and the Saudi Arabians to get serious about peace in the Middle East.
And the best way to do it is to isolate them and to say, Guess what?
You can't be distracted by Iran.
There's no nuke problem there.
You got bigger problems.
And the Israelis and the Saudis, we can't trust this.
The United States could then move in and say, Okay, look, we know you don't trust it.
We'll help you.
We will pledge to defend you.
We will, if there's any, if you guys feel the need ever down the road to launch an attack against the Saudi against the Iranians, we'll be there to back you up.
We'll help you with a blowback and we'll defend you.
But you got to do that.
The theory is that this is a strategy to get the Israelis and the Saudis and others in the Middle East to get serious about doing something on peace there.
Now, it sounds bizarre, and even if it or elements of it are true, it is really, really dicey.
It is dicey as it can be because the Israelis militarily could launch a strike here or there in areas of Iran, but they couldn't do it without us because they would need refueling capability.
It's long distance, they'd need refueling capability, a lot of planes, which they have, but they wouldn't be able to get back to Israel without refueling.
And so, the intrigue on this is not going away, it is just the exact opposite.
And I didn't, I happened to see today, and I know this is so off the board, I'm not endorsing this, I'm just sharing a theory with you.
Then, today, right before noon, the AP wire clears a story from the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Omert, who says, Okay, we are going to get serious about peace.
We are going to seriously exist.
I've got to find this and I print it out.
I don't want to trust Helena.
I've got it right here.
I can talk to you at the same time I'm finding this thing.
Getting close, getting close, hang in there.
Be tough.
Here it is: Omert promises serious peace effort.
And serious is in quotes.
Here it is by Joseph Federman.
Olmert promises serious peace effort, promised Monday to forge a historic path toward a final settlement with the Palestinians at this week's first peace talks in nearly seven years.
Now, I saw them.
I said, Whoa, a little bit of a double take.
Shortly after, the NIE comes out and says that there's no Iranian nuclear threat.
The Israelis, okay, we're going to get serious about peace here with the Palestinians.
Remember, the theory is that this is designed to cause just this.
I know it's far out.
You know, it's over the top.
But this is what happens when something inexplicable happens, which is what the NIE key judgment is.
It's inexplicable.
And people are trying to make sense of it.
Bruce in Fort Wayne and Ianna, great to have you on the program, sir.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
An honor, sir.
Thank you.
Months ago, you made a prediction that Mrs. Clinton had an 80% chance of winning the presidency unless things have changed.
And with Obama and the recent PR, have things really changed?
Well, according to polling data, and that's all people have to go on, yes.
Basically a three-way tie in South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Iowa, with Mrs. Clinton losing ground in Nevada as well, which she owned.
So you'd have to say things are changing.
The caveat here is that I also said back then that Mrs. This when the press remember they're doing all the puff pieces on Obama, building him up to be second coming, something fresh never before seen in American politics, all that rotgut.
I said they're doing this because Mrs. Clinton has to, even though they want the inevitability, they want the ease of inevitability, got to make it look like she really had to fight for this.
Really had to overcome an obstacle.
And guess what?
That option is now present that she's got to fight.
She's got an obstacle.
She's got Obama and the Oprah.
And if she beats them back and overcomes them, do you realize what that will allow them to say?
Why, she's tough.
She can handle.
She didn't panic.
What do you mean, candidate of inevitability?
She can get it done.
You can trust Hillary Clinton.
Smart, decisive, blah, So, you know, 80%, maybe it's down to 60 because of this.
Her negatives are going up.
But nothing with the Clintons is coincidence.
Just like nothing in Washington is ever as it appears.
So we're just following this.
But here's a date for you to keep in mind, because the Hawkeye Kaucai are on January 3rd.
The New Hampshire primary is the week after.
We've got, I know the Obama camp is convinced they have to be locked in by December 23rd because they don't think there's going to be any chance to change significant minds during the holidays.
Once the holidays hit and families get together and people leave home and start doing all kinds of things, and candidates can't go, you know, heavy metal campaigning during that week because they'll be able to fend people.
Hey, it's the holidays.
Can you people leave us alone?
You've been here for two years, you know, in Iowa, New Hampshire.
Do you have to come around our house on Christmas Eve?
Can you at least live as alone until after New Year's Day?
So the Obama camp is concerned.
They've got to get it locked in.
And that's why, and college students go home.
You know, and the Democrats love the Utes vote.
And so they're trying to zero in.
They're always going to miss this because the Utes aren't going to vote.
They're going to say they're going to vote and they're going to go all excited.
So they're trying to zero.
And I think the Clinton campaign is probably doing the same thing, trying to zero in on that December 23rd date because after that, it's going to be harder to move things.
That's why the intense pressure from now until then.
You know, I love anything that bucks conventional wisdom.
And here's a story from the AP bucking conventional wisdom, a trade group for real estate agents on Monday, said that the battered housing market is on the verge of stabilizing and inched upward its outlook for 2007 and 2008 home sales.
The revised monthly forecast from the National Association of Realtors calls for existing U.S. home sales to fall 12.5% this year, the lowest level since 2002 to 5.67 million.
They also forecast sales will rise slightly in 2008 to 5.7 million.
It should be up from last month's prediction of 5.69.
Numerous.
Yeah, we're supposed to have a recession.
So that's why the AP went out and said that numerous other economists, however, far less optimistic than the trade group, they predict weak sales and falling prices through the next year and beyond and emphasize that those problems could worsen if the economy sinks into recession.
They had to go out and find some experts, talk about recession.
Normally, isn't the housing price coming down a great deal?
I mean, if you live in a house and the value is plumbing, yeah, it's plummeting, it's not good unless you're going to sell it tomorrow.
But if you're going to continue living in it for a while, ride the market, ride the wave.
In the meantime, how many years have we been treated to the deathly doom and gloom news that the average price for an American starter home is rising to the point that most Americans are frozen out of the market?
We heard that so long that we got the subprime deal.
And so people had no business being in the housing market and got in there.
With adjustable rate mortgage, now where we are with it.
You know, one thing I've noticed about people, they love to tell you how much they paid for their house, and they love to tell you how much you screwed the auto dealer when you bought your car from him.
They love to tell you how cheap the car was.
Well, how much off sticker they got, but they didn't love to tell you how much the house was.
And they love to tell you how much their property taxes are.
And they love to tell you how much equity they have in the house.
By the way, I need to make a correction.
I think I said Jay Rockefeller was on the waterboarding group.
He may have been, but I don't know that.
It was not the waterboarding group he was part of.
The Georgetown law professor, Marty Letterman, who, writing at a blog called Balkanization, a legal blog, criticizes two Democrats in Congress who knew about the CIA's destruction of interrogation videotapes.
Jay Rockefeller claims that the Intel committees were not consulted on the use of the tapes nor the decision to destroy them.
But he does not deny that he was informed of the agency's intent to dispose of the tapes.
And he acknowledges that he learned of the destruction one year ago in November of 2006.
Lederman also writes that Jane Harmon also knew of the intention to destroy the tapes, and she at least urged the CIA in writing not to do it.
But he notes, when she found out the CIA had destroyed the tapes, where was her press conference?
Where were the congressional hearings?
Where was Rockefeller?
So now they're all going nuts here over the destruction of CIA tapes.
And we got guys like Biden who wants a special counsel now in this tape case.
He said Sunday the Attorney General should appoint a special counsel to investigate.
Well, then if you're going to have a special counsel, you better investigate Jane Harmon.
And you better investigate Jay Rockefeller because they knew that it was going to happen and they didn't say peep.
So what did they know?
When did they know it?
And why'd they shut up?
Just like if you're going to go after these people on waterboarding, you better go after Nancy Pelosi because she knew about it back in 2002.
She may have been the one to say, are you sure this technique and these other techniques are stringent enough?
So this is special counsel to investigate the CIA.
They keep secrets.
You know, get all concerned about the outing of Valerie Plame.
Why, this is horrible.
We need a Bethel Counsel, Mithrilimbaugh, to find out who destroyed her career and put her life in danger, Mithr Limbaugh.
Yes, we do.
And of course, she wasn't even covert.
She was a desk jockey.
And now, of course, we've got to get to the bottom of the CIA tapes that have been degaused, destroyed, in order to find out who the agents were that were doing these interrogations so that we can destroy them, say the Libs.
Who's next?
This is Robert in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey.
Robert, glad you called.
You are on the EIB network.
Thanks, Rush.
I'm a Dem, and I'm currently on the fence between Hillary and Obama.
Now, I was previously leaning towards Obama, but then I started hearing a lot of conservative talk show hosts and other people on the airwaves pumping up Obama.
Then Karl Rove gave Obama tips on how to beat Hillary.
That set up a warning flag to me telling me that this is the guy that the repubs want to run against, that they think they can beat.
Now, I'm assuming that it's because they think that a black man with a Muslim last name will never win the general election.
So I wanted to get your take.
Who do you think out of the two Dems has the best chance of beating any of the repubs?
Who's the best chance of beating any of the republics?
Well, first is, I want to correct one thing.
I'm not sure Michelle Obama's Muslim.
Well, he just has a Muslim last name.
I don't think he's Muslim either.
Right.
Well, in fact, Hillary had to fire a second staffer in Iowa for sending out emails accusing him of being a Muslim who wants to secretly take over the country and make it Islamic.
Let me, you know what?
I've run out of time here on this break, but if you'll keep listening out there, Robert, I will endeavor to answer your question when we come back.
Stay with us, my friends.
Which candidate is more capable of beating Republicans, Obama or Hillary?
Neither.
Neither is the truth when you get right down to it.
Neither.
▲
Export Selection