All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
May 21, 2009, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
It has been a fascinating morning, ladies and gentlemen, dueling national security speeches by Fidel Barack Obama.
We got Castroed.
We got Castroed by Fidel Barack Obama.
It just kept going and going and going.
I have never seen President Obama as defensive as he was today.
Greetings, my friends, the former titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Our telephone number, if you want to join us today, 800-282-2882 and the email address, El Rushbo at EIBNet.com.
So I've been watching some of the commentary after he had Obama speak.
Folks, I felt like I was watching a Castro speech.
It just on and it was defensive as it could have been.
Never seen Obama this defensive.
And I watched Cheney and I watched some of the commentary afterwards and the libs.
The libs on all these cable networks are just foaming at the mouth over Cheney.
Lawrence O'Donnell, the learned leftist who was a writer and consultant for the West Wing TV show, said Cheney's speech was the sleaziest speech since Spiro Adnew.
Bob Beckel, our old buddy on Fox News, I think has gone out and bought some shirts with larger collars because he gets so agitated on there, his neck swells up.
Looks like he's going to just burst out of the shirt collar.
He was just, I mean, these leftists are fit to be tied.
And I, you know, I'm thinking about the American people watching this stuff.
I mean, you had two clear presentations here on national security, and nobody that I heard commenting on Cheney was angry about anything, commenting on Obama was angry about anything.
And I'm not going to be angry, just doing some analysis.
Well, boy, these libs, these libs coming on, commenting after Cheney are just foaming at the mouth.
The rage and anger is palpable.
And as I've always believed, I think one of the reasons why is that Cheney is effective.
Cheney gets results.
There's a poll out from CNN.
His approval numbers are up.
Cheney's numbers are up eight points since last week, since he started going public defending the Bush administration and defending the United States of America.
But I really thought that President Obama today was defensive.
I keep saying this, I know, but I want to drill it home.
It's as though, you know, one thing you can say about Club Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, this is his exclusively.
When you get to the U.S. economy and the bailout, say, of the automobile companies and TARP, you know, Obama and his supporters could say that a lot of that started before he took office.
So, you know, it's going to be tougher to tie economic results to Obama for a while, although we're going to succeed in doing it.
But Guantanamo Bay is 100% Obama.
Two days after he takes office, he announced he's going to close it.
He didn't have a plan for closing it.
His own party says, no, we're not going to pay for that.
No, we're not going to have terrorists released into the United States at Dingy Harry.
Obama says the White House, Obama White House yesterday said, well, it was a hasty decision.
They are really not coordinated on this.
The White House yesterday, Gibbs out there saying, yeah, closing our announcement to close Guantanamo is a hasty decision.
We're thinking about Obama comes out there today defiant as hell.
Hell's Bells, I'm closing the place.
It was almost as though he was a lawyer, that the perspective that I saw him adopt was as a lawyer making the case for terrorists and having access to the U.S. court system, not making the case for terrorists and their actions.
Don't misunderstand me here.
But he almost sounded as one who had to speak up in defense of the terrorists and their legal rights and how those legal rights had been bastardized and destroyed by the previous administration.
I have never heard a president in a speech use the word I more than Obama did today.
And I've never heard a president in a speech use the term previous administration more than Obama did today.
Now, why was he defensive?
I think I know.
I know the personality type.
Barack Obama has accomplished nothing.
Barack Obama is where he is because of his perceived brain power.
He's perceived to be smart and brilliant, a great speaker.
But what's he ever done but organize a bunch of election fraud experts over at Acorn and pow around with some dubious characters.
One of his best friends is a terrorist, in fact, Bill Ayers.
So he goes off to Harvard.
He goes to Chicago Law.
He goes off to all these places and he rave reviews for his intellect and so forth.
And all of his life, I mean, his adult life, he's spent in academia where nobody's challenged.
Nobody's challenged in academia.
If the students challenge you, it's the students that have a problem.
So, and then he's out there, you know, organizing the Acorn election fraud experts.
And he's out there teaching Saul Olinski's book to him, Rules for Radicals.
And now he's in government.
He's in the Senate.
Now he's the president of the United States.
And I think this guy is intolerant of challenge.
I think his attitude, I think his essence is, don't challenge me.
I'm sort of a miniature messianic complex.
You know, I say it and that's it.
You don't challenge me.
Well, he's being challenged.
He's being challenged by Cheney.
Hence, he has to go out and make this speech today.
He, in this speech, repeated what he said yesterday.
He said, I will make no mistake, let me be clear, I will not endanger U.S. national security in any decision I make.
Well, why do you have to say that unless there's some doubt about it?
Unless you think somebody has raised credible doubt about your intentions regarding national security, why would you go out and have to make that clear?
This is this, and it was, you cannot win wars with apologies.
One of the things that Cheney said in his speech is, when terrorists see us divided, debating whether they should have constitutional rights, they don't stand back and reassess their opinion of us and say, you know what, maybe we're wrong about the United States.
What they see is weakness.
As Andy McCarthy, and Obama was all over the notion that Guantanamo Bay led to the creation and recruitment of more terrorists.
Ignoring the fact that we were repeatedly attacked by terrorists long before Guantanamo Bay was opened as a terrorist prison.
Ignoring the fact that as Andy McCarthy pointed out to me in an email, the number one terrorist recruitment act is a successful terror attack.
And there has not been a successful terrorist attack on the United States since 9-11, eight years.
And the terrorists, we could say, suffered a defeat in Iraq.
So recruitment for terrorism.
And then we have the story out of New York that these four guys who were converted to Islam while in U.S. prisons.
See, here's another thing.
Obama wants to bring all these people from Guantanamo Bay to prisons in the United States.
He made the case, hey, we got terrorists here.
We got Ramzi ben Oshib.
We got, not ben Oshib, Ramzi Youssef, and we got the blind shit.
We got all these people in our prisons, and our prisons are safe.
They're not escaping.
They're not getting out.
Well, these four guys that were, I mean, they were blithering idiots.
I mean, they bought faulty fake bombs from FBI informants, but they were going to blow up Jewish synagogue, a temple, and some other things in New York.
They got nabbed, and they were all converted to Islam in prison in United States prisons.
So he's making the case he's going to bring all these prisoners here.
And Guantanamo is somehow immoral and unjust.
But it was all so much on the defensive that it was stunning to watch for me because normally you see Obama as confident and self-assured and the chin up as he gazes out over the audience, over it, not at it.
He gazes out over the audience.
There weren't a whole lot of applause lines in his speech, and he took after waterboarding.
He just said, he made it plain.
We've got the sound bites.
I don't know if I'm going to waste your time with them.
Do you want to hear them thirdly?
Do you really?
Yeah, I'll say he wants to hear my reaction.
Well, I guess that's true.
Most everybody wants to hear my reaction more than the sound bites themselves.
Probably true.
Especially now that I am the former titular head of the GOP.
But he went on the warpath here on waterboarding.
They said it's torture.
We're not going to torture.
We've lost our moral values.
We've lost our values.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
The methods of enhanced interrogations have been released by Obama.
Obama has released to the terrorist community around the world our techniques, those memos.
He has not released the content of the answers nor the results of the interrogation.
Now, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two others, just so you remember folks, led to the successful obstruction of an attack on the city of Los Angeles.
Every one of you in Los Angeles should know that had Barack Obama been president the last eight years, your city would have suffered a nuclear attack.
Waterboarding saved an attack on Los Angeles.
Now, if you're in Los Angeles, you can feel guilty or you can feel grateful.
But using Obama's professed techniques and not using waterboarding and other things that he hit hard today, rest assured, we would not have gotten the information that allowed us to thwart a terror attack on Los Angeles.
Terrorist attack.
Did I say nuclear?
I'm saying terrorist attack, terrorist attack.
I'm sorry.
I did.
I misspoke.
I'm allowed to misspeak now that I am the former titular head of the GOP.
We'll take a timeout.
We'll come back.
We're going to incorporate your phone calls into all of this.
Thank you for correcting me on that.
But, you know, make no mistake about it, Mahmoud Ahmedini is launching missiles that can reach Israel.
They're ramping up their nukes.
Oh, oh, speaking of which, remember the Dubai ports deal?
You remember how the country just rose up in unified opposition to the Dubai ports deal, allowing the United Arab Emirates and a Dubai company, Dubai World Ports, whatever, to control several terminals, not full ports, but several terminals at U.S. ports.
I, in fact, found nothing wrong with it.
They do it all over the world, and they're very good at it.
But the country wanted no part of it because they were, oh my gosh, these are Muslims.
I mean, turn the ports on.
Guess what deal President Obama just made today, actually announced it yesterday with the United Arab Emirates, which is where you find Dubai, you find Dubai and Abu Dhabi.
Barack Obama has made a deal to offer nuclear technology to the United Arab Emirates for the express purpose of the UAE only generating electricity to power their growing empire.
It has rings of deals with North Korea, although I'm not equating the NORCOMs with the United Arab Emirates.
My take on this is, and by the way, the United Arab Emirates are going to have to make promises that they will not enrich the uranium, the spent fuel rods that are used in all this into nuclear weapons.
You'll have to promise it.
That's not my focus.
That's not my focus.
This is the way you need to look at it.
While we are going to send expertise and materiel to help the United Arab Emirates go nuclear with their power, what the hell are we doing?
We are looking into freaking windmills.
We are examining freaking solar panels.
We are in the process of trying to take out the coal industry.
We are in the process of building little cars with propeller whirlibirds on top that have no more power than a lawnmower.
We are taking ourselves back to the freaking stone age when it comes to the generation of power.
And meanwhile, we are helping the United Arab Emirates go nuclear with their power.
I'm talking about generation of electricity.
Forget going.
I'm not even talking weaponry here.
We can't go nuclear.
We can't do any more nuclear.
It's shut down.
But we're going to help the rest of the world do it.
We're going to give away our tech, sell it or whatever we're going to do.
I'm all for it.
Don't misunderstand.
I got no problem with it.
But at the same time, I don't want to sit around and have to live in a country where I have to look at a windmill every damn day and hope and pray the wind's blowing just to be able to turn on a 40-watt fluorescent compact stupid spaghetti light bulb.
It's not enough light to do anything by.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Hi, and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, most listened to radio talk show in the country.
Great to have you along with us.
I must confess, and let me be clear, these kinds of Obama speeches are getting old to me.
And I frankly think the economy is crashing because of speeches like this.
But as to the Obama speech itself, ultimately every speech Obama makes is about him, and this one was no exception.
And that's because his followers all have a personal emotional investment in Obama.
Obama knows that he's got to fuel it.
But I am here to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that only a charismatic demagogue highly skilled in the low art of political seduction would try to weave his personal story, talking about his two communist parents who both abandoned him, by the way, into a discussion on national security.
Let me say that again.
Only a charismatic demagogue highly skilled in the low art of political seduction would try to weave his personal story into a speech or discussion about national security, as if Obama's personal story, misguided as it is, is the foundation for everything.
And if you're a cult follower and if you are an Obama supporter simply because of emotional investment, Obama knows that emotional investment has got to be reinforced.
So he's got to tell his personal story.
How his father faced all these long odds in Kenya to get here because this was the land of the free and the home of the brave and yada, What is all this meant to do?
All of this is meant to say, hey, I am an American and I care about America.
Now, if you're having to weave your personal story into a speech on national security when you are president of the United States, you are defensive.
You are having to explain to people, for some reason in his own head, he thinks their people doubt, this is Cheney's effectiveness, his bona fides and his credentials on national security.
So if it appeals to Obama personally, then it should appeal to all of his followers, including the slavish drive-by media.
This is dangerous.
And it is tiresome.
This low art of political seduction he practices is the height of narcissism.
But I, ladies and gentlemen, believe that it's indicative of his leadership style.
Obama, everything is a tug and an appeal to popular sentiment as opposed to substance and what it takes to keep the nation safe.
Obama said today that terrorists captured on the battlefield should be given trials, full rights.
Now, that's not going to play well if these people are released into various states.
People, these states do not want people who have designs blowing up people in the United States on this country's soil.
Most people find nothing wrong with keeping these people at Guantanamo Bay.
Had I been a terrorist, were I a terrorist, I would have been prompted to give Obama's speech a standing O today.
It would have been tempting to give him a standing ovation because essentially, Barack Obama apologized to terrorists all over the world for the past eight years of the previous administration.
And then he goes on, he talked in this speech about this being a nation of laws.
Very convenient for him to say he cares not a whit about the law when it comes to taking over private sector businesses and putting private sector businesses out of business.
The rule of law, it is his ignoring the rule of law that permits his domestic agenda.
President Obama today kept talking about how the practices at Guantanamo Bay and the fact that it exists as a prison acted as a recruitment truel for terrorists around the world.
We know that the waterboarding of three of the terrorists down there helped to prevent or did prevent an attack on Los Angeles.
So a logical question for those of you in Los Angeles would be this.
How much of a recruitment advantage or tool would a successful attack on Los Angeles have been after a successful attack on New York and Washington?
If they had hit Los Angeles after New York and Washington, what about that recruitment tool?
You think they would have been able to recruit terrorists all over the world far greater and far more numbers?
And because of the existence of Gitmo, by the way, they were recruiting terrorists and attacking Americans and America long before we opened Guantanamo Bay.
Christian Science Monitor today with an interesting observation.
Obama ran late today.
Obama's speech was supposed to start at 10 o'clock.
Now, it's not uncharacteristic for Obama to run late, but they were 28 minutes late.
Obama took the stage nearly a half hour later than scheduled.
And according to this is Jimmy Orr at the Christian Science Monitor, you can make a case Obama was trying to make it difficult on the networks to carry Cheney's speech afterwards.
And I don't doubt that for a minute.
I think it's a great observation.
I think Obama was late.
He didn't want the networks carrying Cheney's speech.
They don't want Cheney to be heard.
That's why they keep telling Cheney, shut up and go away.
Let's listen to some of the great soundbites here from Vice President Cheney.
Let's start with 27, and we'll just go in order there.
This is the vice president on waterboarding.
It's self-explanatory.
Listen to it.
It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation.
You've heard endlessly about waterboarding.
It happened to three terrorists.
One of them was Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9-11, who's also boasted about his beheading of Daniel Pearl.
We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country, things we didn't know about al-Qaeda.
We didn't know about al-Qaeda's plans, but Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and a few others did know.
And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we did not think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time if they answered them at all.
Irrefutable logic, irrefutable logic.
Why let them answer the questions on their time when they know what's coming next?
And what was coming next, among other things, was an attack on Los Angeles that was thwarted.
One of the things that grates me, and I have to tell you, grates me greatly, is to hear Obama, and he did this all during the campaign.
And by the way, his speech today was just an extension of the campaign speech, his whole campaign.
And one of the things that constantly grates on me is how Obama talked about how Guantanamo Bay and our entire approach to terrorism somehow was a sacrifice of our values, that we'd somehow lost our way, that we had lost our values, that we had not adhered to our values, that the moral beacon that was the United States disappeared in the seven years after 9-11 with Bush and Cheney in charge.
Vice President Cheney dealt with that today.
We hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative.
In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.
People who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about values.
Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9-11.
We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance.
Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings.
They were trying to prevent future killings.
To call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims.
What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future is unwise in the extreme.
It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness and would make the American people less safe.
This soundbite is why I made the observation earlier that Obama's speech today was essentially an apology to terrorists.
As Cheney is sitting here saying, to call this program torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims.
And that has been the approach of the Democrats and President Obama for the last seven years.
These terrorists in Guantanamo are just innocent victims, oh, poor people.
And we have to run around the world apologizing for all of this.
So all of this talk on values that Obama professes is just empty rhetoric when compared to the substance of the success of the program to protect the country in the years after 9-11.
One more, well, not one more, several more soundbites of Vice President Cheney.
This here, his thoughts on the compromise between good and evil.
The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism.
But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground.
And half measures keep you half exposed.
You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.
You must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.
Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy.
When just a single clue that goes unlearned or one lead that goes unpursued can bring on catastrophe, it's no time for splitting differences.
There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people hang in the balance.
Now, yes, right now, wrap it up, one of the things that I have to observe, I found Cheney's speech to be compelling.
I found Obama's speech to be extraordinarily defensive.
And obviously, you people are going to think I have a bias about this.
If I have a bias, it's toward the truth.
If I have a bias, it's toward love of country.
If I have a bias, it's love of freedom.
And there clearly are differing approaches to securing freedom and securing national security.
And the current crop of people come up way short on both counts.
In my opinion, as an adult and as an observer.
Here's Obama, well, Cheney, commenting Obama's hasty decision to close Guantanamo Bay.
On his second day in office, President Obama announced he was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo.
This step came with little deliberation and no plan.
Now the president says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system.
Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries.
But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists.
So what happens then?
On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many of the president's own party.
He went on to say how they don't want a lot of mountain gitmo.
They don't want to transfer him here to the United States.
It was just wonderful to hear the vice president today.
And a lot of people, I've checked my email, they're saying, where was this during the Bush administration?
Why didn't they speak up and say this kind of thing when they were in the midst of these personal attacks and assaults?
I don't know.
I can't answer it.
But nevertheless, it's happening now.
Cheney's poll numbers are rising.
Dick Cheney is getting results.
For all that Obama said today, almost every national security policy for the Bush administration is being continued by Obama.
You want me to list a couple of them for you?
A couple of them are in increasing troop strength in Afghanistan.
We're not getting out of there.
He's holding on to the warrantless wiretap program, warrantless searches and wiretaps of foreign terrorists.
He is reserving for himself Obama is the right to do enhanced interrogation techniques.
He said that in his speech today.
He's reserving the right while ripping the previous administration.
You know, Obama, folks, I'm going to tell you something.
It was never more clear to me than today.
They say he's cool.
He's not.
He's cold.
And this guy's angry.
This guy has a chip on his shoulder.
He is angry that anybody dares challenge him as president on any decision he makes or any speech he makes.
He's angry that anybody dares challenge him on his policies.
And he has a partisan anger directed at Bush and Cheney and Republicans that he mostly manages to keep beneath the surface.
But a speech like he made today that's defensive, it came roaring into plain view by everybody.
We've got sound bites.
I'll let you hear some of them as the program unfolds.
Here is a couple more before we go to get the break.
Vice President Cheney explaining the recruitment tool theory.
Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a, quote, recruitment tool for the enemy.
On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have supposedly fallen short of our own values.
This recruitment tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the president himself.
And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do.
It's another version of that same old refrain from the left, we brought it on ourselves.
Amen.
And nothing could be more compelling and nothing could be more truthful.
This is the essence of a Democrat Party position.
Guantanamo Bay, Agro, Abu Ghraib, that created terrorists.
That made them hate us even more.
It's our fault.
We are to blame.
We brought it on ourselves.
Blame America first.
And when you get one of those people as president, the blame America first guy then runs around the world, not only blames America, but apologizes for it.
And all of this is done under the guise of enhancing the respect nations have for us around the world.
It does no such thing.
It just displays our weakness and it causes people who intend us harm to laugh at us at this at the sophistry and the silliness of people like Obama.
Final bite, Cheney nuking it here.
Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values.
But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things.
And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them.
Amen.
Time out.
Back with more in a moment after this on a Rush Limbaugh program.
Your phone calls are coming up.
And by the way, folks, we're not going to spend all day on this Guantanamo Bay stuff.
I'm not going to get distracted from some of the other stuff going on.
The economic news today is a disaster.
The economic news today is disastrous.
After hope and change, after all the stimulus, after all the bailouts, the economic news today from the Federal Reserve is disastrous.
And I'm not going to ignore it.
So we've got all kinds of other things to do besides this.
And I want to get your phone calls in, too.
By the way, the teleprompter today really shafted the eloquent President Obama.
We have our CIA Director Leon Panetta.
We have our Secretary of Defense, William Gates.
William Gates is the founder and chairman of Microsoft.
The Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates, ladies and gentlemen.
So the teleprompter teleprompters scored one there on the eloquent Barack Obama.
Now, we've told you all about Obama's speech, and you've heard a lot of Vice President Cheney's reaction to it today.
You've heard that Barack Obama basically apologized to terrorists for the last eight years, said, we're not going to do this again.
We're not going to suffer more elapses like we did.
We're going to do...
But the New York Times today has a fascinating story.
On page A18, President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House Wednesday yesterday that he was mulling the need for a preventive detention system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried.
This according to two participants in the private session.
The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity, because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.
He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can't charge and detain.
Can I translate this for you?
Page A18 of the New York Times.
Barack Obama wants statutory right to go out and say, we think you're going to blow us up and put you in prison before you've done a thing, before you have committed one act.
This is called preventive detention.
So while making this speech today, he's telling human rights people yesterday in the White House in an off-the-record talk that wasn't supposed to get out, but it did get out, even though it got buried on page A18 of the New York Times.
So essentially, everything Obama said today was BS and smoke and mirrors designed to defend himself and to continue to tell his personal story and to establish his bona fides and so forth and to rip the Bush administration, to rip conservatives, to rip Republicans, to rip the United States, while he's out there looking for preventive detention and the need for it.
Later in the article, Jane Mayer wrote a piece about this in the New Yorker about what this might look like.
And she said that White House counsel Greg Craig was looking at whether the number of hard cases, suspects who may be difficult to convict under American legal standards of justice, under American values, but who may pose a threat if released might require preventive detention laws.
I know we have it.
It's called Guantanamo Bay, which he wants to close.
That's simply closing the loop on his campaign with his leftist buddies, the unions, and everything else.
Folks, I'm telling you, this is striking.
It is just, it's just stunning.
Greg Craig, the White House counsel, looking at whether a number of hard cases, suspects who may be difficult to convict under our legal standards, our values, but who may pose a threat if released might require preventive detention laws.
This thinking goes beyond the Guantanamo Bay detainees.
The difficulties Obama's having shutting down Guantanamo and perhaps his daily intelligence briefings must be leaving him with more hard cases than he thought.
This is from the hot air blog.
So it's just amazing.
This guy says things in public that are in direct contradiction to the things he's telling people in private and to the things that he's doing.
Well, you could say it's incoherent.
It's not incoherent.
This is studied low art of political seduction.
This is convincing a bunch of Americans that he is going to be righteous and protect American values when in fact he's turning into a, into a, oh, I'm having a metal block on the word because I'm being restrained.
But I mean, this, all I'm telling you is it looks incoherent because it's not at all similar.
What he's saying in public, what he's saying in private.
What he's saying in public is designed to let him get away with what he's doing in private with nobody knowing it.
All right.
Quick timeout.
In other words, he's not what he says he is, which is my whole point.
Pay no attention to what he says because it's how he says it that has gotten him to where he is.
Federal Reserve now expects unemployment to rise to a range of 9.2 to 9.6% this year.
They predict a sharper decline in GDP than they forecast in January.
The economy is getting worse.
▲
Export Selection