All Episodes
Previous Next
June 4, 2015 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:17
June 4, 2015, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back my friends.
It's great to have you here.
This, the Rush Limbaugh program, where we execute assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
That's because I do the assigning.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and the email address, ilrushbow at eibnet.com.
The politico has the story.
Hillary Clinton, who has aggravated reporters with her limited press availabilities, will not take questions after her speech today at Texas Southern University.
I don't even, she may have given the speech already.
I don't know what time it's scheduled.
But the SCRUL informed reporters of this decision yesterday.
The university said there will be no opportunities to interview Hillary Clinton.
Her speech will be her interview.
Folks, this is absolutely fantastic.
It captures Hillary perfectly.
I mean, it's words that will live forever.
It's genius.
Her speech will be her interview.
It's quintessential.
It is iron fist.
It's Soviet wordsmithing.
Her speech will be her interview.
Now, as I said in the first hour, I have pulled this stunt, but for entirely different reasons, or Mrs. Clinton.
When I first started this program in 1988, I was so naive, and I was naive for many years based on, well, I guess I'd have to call them hope, based on inflated and naive expectations.
But I really, even there's certain things I knew about the media.
I mean, I knew about bias, and I was I don't mean to say I wasn't completely uninformed, but there were certain things that I understood to be true that weren't.
For example, I'd find myself at home reading a story on somebody, either in the entertainment world, the political world, wherever.
And I made the assumption, and I think probably a lot of people do, that, well, there's a reason there's a story here on Person X.
And the reason has to do with the person's done something noteworthy.
The person has achieved something.
The person is an acknowledged, accomplished expert, or something that would warrant a big profile like this or a story.
I thought it was all genuine, in other words.
I thought it was all merit-based.
I thought that profiles and stories on people and things actually happen because, well, it was warranted.
It was deserved.
I didn't have the slightest idea.
It's a tough thing even now to admit.
I didn't have the slightest idea that most of journalism is the result of PR Flax pitching ideas to reporters or PR Flax getting to know reporters, becoming good friends, or the reporter, journalist being an activist, wanting to promote something his or herself and goes and gets to it.
I was dead wrong about why certain people have things written about them or profiles done on them in the media.
I thought it was all merit-based.
And the fact is that very little of it is.
It happens for reasons other than that.
Some of it is, but most of it I have learned is not.
But everybody wants you to think that it's merit-based.
Everybody wants you to believe that it's total genuine, totally genuine, as to why some issue here or some person here is being heralded.
I'm not talking about hit pieces.
I'm talking about pieces that laud the subject, promote the subject.
Much like every sports page story lauds the athlete or a series of athletes in whatever day's game just happened.
You know, in the reporting of what happened yesterday, the players sacrosanct and so forth, very little, although it's not universal.
Well, anyway.
So when I started my program, I labored under so many misconceptions.
And one of them was, okay, here I'm new.
Nobody's ever heard of me because I worked in obscurity.
I did not network.
I didn't get this job because anything other than I worked hard got noticed.
It was not a conspiracy.
It wasn't a result of networking who I knew per se.
I didn't have any inside anything.
It just happened.
I've always believed it does happen, which is also naive.
But I've always believed that most success, I still do believe this, is merit-based.
I do believe most success is genuine.
I now know some of it's trumped up and phony.
Anyway, so when the media came calling and wanted to interview me, I thought because they were genuinely curious.
Here's this new guy.
He's saying things on the radio that we don't hear too many play.
Who is this guy?
I thought they genuinely wanted to get to know me.
It took me a long time to understand that's not why they wanted to talk to me.
And I labored under a bunch of misconceptions that they were interested in what I had to say and that I did have a chance to change their mind about things.
I literally thought they were open-minded.
I knew they were liberal.
I know this sounds contradictory, but it got to the point that I found out very quickly that they were not interested in what I had to say.
There was no chance of persuading them.
And going in to interview any interview with that objective was a total waste of time on my part.
And I had no mentors in this area.
I had nobody instructing me.
I didn't know anybody who had experience with this who could then guide me.
I wish I had because I wish there had been somebody that told me way, way early on, look, they don't care what you think.
If they ask you, if they want to do an interview, just take the occasion to say what you want to say.
Don't answer their questions.
The questions are setups.
The questions are designed to cast you in a light that isn't you.
Just take the occasion of every question and say what you want to say, no matter what the question is.
I didn't learn to do that for the longest time because I was laboring under these false impressions.
So in the process of this, I began to get bitter.
Not bitter.
I began to get wise.
And I quickly understood that whenever somebody wanted to talk to me in the media, it was not to make me look good, and it was not to promote me, and it was not to do anything laudatory.
It was quite the opposite.
So in my case, if I'm out making a speech somewhere, say in a local community, on a Rush Do Excellence tour, the local media want to do an interview.
I said, nope, nope.
Just have them come and watch the show, and that's where they'll learn what I think.
You'd be amazed at the number who refused to do that, by the way.
Who still wrote about it or write about the five protesters outside and not the 5,000 people inside.
So I've done what Mrs. Clinton is doing here, but for a wholly different reasons.
She's doing it because she's horrible one-on-one.
She does not, Mrs. Clinton simply can't do interviews that in any way are not puff piece.
And she's not in that place right now where the interviews are guaranteed to be puff piece.
You know, she's stiffing them.
She got this foundation stuff going on.
She does not want to answer questions about that.
And she's not talking about that.
So that's why she's saying no interviews.
Her speech is her interview.
She's doing it to hide.
She's doing it to mask what I really think is incompetence.
And I mean that too.
I am not in this camp that is dazzled and afraid and scared of Hillary Clinton like so many people on the right and in the Republican Party appear to be.
I'm not, never have been.
So I can understand telling the press, I'm not talking to you.
You listen to, same token, listen to my radio show.
Why don't you read my website?
If you don't have a chance to listen, what I say is right there on the website.
You don't have to go to some third-party media watchdog that's going to distort what I say.
Why don't you just listen?
I've done that a number of times.
In fact, even now, when the requests are constant, network morning shows.
And I say, you know, I don't really need to come on your show.
I say everything I believe on my radio show.
All you got to do is just run a little tape on that and play that and have your people commentate.
I don't need to be there.
I'm not going to say anything new on your TV network that I haven't said on my radio show.
And I reserve what I say on the radio show for my audience.
Why should I go somewhere else and say it?
But that's, in my case, they're not really interested in that.
In Mrs. Clinton's case, she's trying to hide.
So her speech will be her interview.
But in Mrs. Clinton's case, that is not presidential.
Isn't this fascinating?
In a way, the Republicans on their side get a little grief for going to places like where George Stephanopoulos is.
Specifically now, especially now since we know who and what Stephanopoulos is, he's just a Clinton hack and an operative disguised as a journalist in ABC.
And Rick Santorum still went there.
And so the reaction on our side, why are you wasting your time going talking to Stephanopoulos?
Why are you wasting your time on the drive-by media?
So our side does.
Mrs. Clinton doesn't.
Mrs. Clinton, I'm not speaking to him.
And it's criticism for two different behaviors here.
But one side, Mrs. Clinton, is absolutely hiding and not appearing presidential.
Our side is told, if you don't go on with Stephanopoulos, if you don't face the media, you're showing the American people you don't have the guts.
You're showing the American people you don't have what it takes to take that path wherever it takes you to become president.
So the Republicans dutifully say, you know what, you've got a point.
The media is what it is.
It's an obstacle, but I got to face it and I got to overcome it.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, is given a pass.
And the media are her friends and she still doesn't want to face them.
And nobody says, you had better face them.
You had better go on those shows.
You'd better subject yourself to questions.
It doesn't look presidential.
Now, they may start to say that about her.
I'm telling you, there's some nervousness out there in the Democrats.
Slate.com has the story today about the polling data that CNN had yesterday.
Her approval numbers are down.
Obama's approval numbers.
Bush has a higher approval number than Obama does.
Hillary is plunging, and the Democrats are concerned about it.
And Slate.com has a story to say, don't be concerned about Hillary.
The headline is, Democrats don't freak out.
It's too late.
She's the nominee.
There's nobody on the Democrat side that's going to unseat her here, so don't sweat it.
But those people are saying, what do you mean, don't sweat it?
She's going to eventually have to face the Republicans and the media, and that is going to be a problem.
So they are, there's not universal love and acceptance.
Then you add to that one of the reasons why she's not speaking is this business we have learned now.
The news about the Clinton Crime Family Foundation just keeps coming.
And now we find out that Clinton Crime Family Foundation was intimately involved with FIFA and Cutter and helping Cutter get the 2022 World Cup.
It involves Erickson, the Swedish company, donating, I think, or paying Clinton $750,000, I think it was, to give a speech.
I mean, it's just, it's dirty what this stuff is.
It's pay-for-play.
There's no question what's happening out here.
And Hillary obviously does not want to answer these questions.
And she's going to try to structure this so that she won't have to, maybe ever.
That's their objective.
So I understand why she's doing it.
I've done it myself, but for entirely, wholly different reasons.
Got to take a brief time out.
We'll come back and continue in just a minute.
Get back to the phones in an El Gifo.
But first, did you hear the joke about the Crime Family Foundation that took in $26 million while Hillary Clinton ran interference for Swedish companies desirous of doing business with Iran?
You haven't heard this joke?
Okay, here it is.
Bill Hillary, Bill Clinton and Hillary and the Crime Family Foundation walk into a Swedish bar.
And in there's a bunch of Swedish companies, all the CEOs of a bunch of Swedish companies.
The Clinton Crime Family Foundation just walks in to have a drink.
And at the same bar, there are a bunch of Swedish company CEOs.
And they've got strong ties to their government.
And they're trying hard to avoid sanctions by the State Department run by Hillary Clinton because they're doing business with Iran, these Swedish CEOs.
They're mining their own business, having adult beverages.
Door opens, and here comes Bill and Hillary and execs from the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
So the Swedish CEOs at the bar, sitting there mining their own business when the Clinton Crime Family Foundation walks in, decide that they're going to approach members of the Clinton Crime Family Foundation and offer them a bunch of money in exchange for being protected for having violated the sanctions against Iran.
The Swedish arm of the Clinton Foundation sucks up this cash.
It was not disclosed to the State Department despite an explicit agreement to do so.
And everybody lived happily ever after until this was all discovered by John Solomon and Kelly Riddell of the Washington Times.
Bill Clinton's foundation set up a fundraising arm in Sweden that collected $26 million in donations.
At the same time, Sweden was lobbying the State Department run by Hillary to forego sanctions that threatened Sweden's thriving business with Iran.
This according to interviews and documents obtained by the Washington Times.
The Swedish entity of the Clinton Foundation is called the William J. Clinton Foundation in Slums de Flesse, whatever the Swedish word is.
And it was never disclosed.
Never disclosed to, it was never cleared by State Department officials.
The Clinton Foundation set up an arm in Sweden designed to take money from Swedish companies.
While Hillary Secretary of State, $26 million changed hands from Swedish companies to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation while Hillary is Secretary of State, all in the hopes that these Swedish companies would not be accused and held accountable for violating sanctions with Iran because they were doing business with Iran.
And the money did flow.
As the money flowed to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation arm in Sweden, Mrs. Clinton's team in Washington declined to blacklist any Swedish companies, despite warnings from career officials at the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm that Sweden was growing its economic ties with Iran and potentially undercutting Western efforts to end Tehran's rogue nuclear program.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Sweden was violating sanctions while Hillary's Secretary of State.
They got away with it by giving $26 million in various forms and ways over certain periods of time to the Clinton Family Foundation.
But that's only half of the PSA, if you will.
Company called Erickson, makes cell phones and stuff, gave Bill Clinton $750,000 personally as a fee for a speech.
Erickson, one of the firms at the center of the Iran sanctions debate.
So Erickson alone gave $750,000.
In addition to $26 million, Erickson sends $750,000 to Clinton, ostensibly for a speech.
But they're paying protection money.
Sweden is violating sanctions.
Hillary says, well, I'll look to get away if you give a bunch of money to our foundation if that's what happened.
And none of this was reported to the State Department.
The Clinton Crime Family Foundation branch office in Sweden was not reported to the State Department.
None of this was reported.
The Clinton Swedish fundraising shell, it was a Shell Corporation, by the way.
What they set up in Sweden was another pass-through.
You know, when low-information people hear Shell Corporation, they think 1% stealing money and getting away with not paying taxes and all that.
But the Clinton Foundation shell escaped public notice because its incorporation papers were filed in Stockholm, which is 4,000 miles away from America.
And the identities of its donors were lumped by Clinton's team into the disclosure report for the U.S.-based charity.
So all of these Swedish donors' names were just dwarfed by being lumped in with all the names of people donating to the American branch of the Clinton Foundation.
And this served to blur the lines between what were in reality two separate organizations incorporated under two different countries' laws.
So just to strip all this away, Sweden is violating Western sanctions against Iran while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is secretary.
They find a way.
The Clinton Foundation sets up a shell corporation in Sweden for the purposes of accepting Swedish donations exclusively.
Those donations come in to the tune of $26 million plus a $750,000 payment direct to bill for supposedly a speech from Erickson.
Sweden is allowed to continue violating sanctions in the State Department.
Nobody there is told a word about this.
You want to know why she's not answering questions.
By the way, folks, a question.
So here we have the Clinton Foundation setting up a Shell Corporation in Sweden.
And by the way, there's a name, the Clinton Foundation Arm or branch, the Shell Corporation in Sweden has a name.
It's called the William Jefferson Clinton Inslamming Stifle Telsi.
That's, I'm pronouncing it phonetically exactly as it is spelled.
In Somling Stifle Telsi.
It's a Swedish word.
I have no idea what it means.
Probably means shakedown.
In the meantime, while the Clintons are allowing the Swedes to continue to violate Iranian sanctions just for paying them $26 million and Clinton $750,000 directly, who are we investigating?
Who are we knocking down doors trying to find out what they've been doing?
FIFA!
FIFA!
The football bunch.
FIFA!
While the Clintons are over here while nobody's looking except everybody's noticing.
And then when you dig deep into FIFA, guess what?
If you'll find the Clintons are knee-deep, hip-deep, in Cutter's bid to get the 2022 World Cup, the Clintons are out there fronting for the government of Qatar.
And she, al-Binwad, Al-Talibi, or whatever, whoever he is, got the deal.
They're going to play soccer at 120 degrees in anyway.
It's just, it's the reason Mrs. Clinton, it's the reason why she goes and makes speeches and they say her speech is her interview.
And she's not going to talk about any of this stuff, particularly the Swedish.
Here's Dave in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Glad you waited, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
You're a great American.
I appreciate your call, sir.
And my compliments to Mr. Snerdley, or should I say Staff Sergeant Sterdley?
Staff Sergeant Snerdley, whatever.
Hey, reference your topic regarding women and the Rangers.
I'm a former United States Marine Corps officer, Rush.
And I've got to tell you the same issue is confronting the United States Marine Corps with IOC, which is the infantry officer course.
Right.
They're trying to run the females through, and they just can't make it.
And, you know, there's a lot of men that can't make this course as well.
It's very rigorous.
It's essentially hazing.
It's very intense.
It's designed to weed people out.
So I've got to say that unless standards are drastically relaxed or reduced, I just don't see how the females are going to make it.
Okay, now I need to go back to something you said earlier because you chose terminology that, while I'm sure you didn't mean it in a provocative way, it's going to be taken that way.
You said, and obviously the women can't take it.
What does that mean?
Before you even described it as hazing, you said, and obviously the women can't take it.
What does that mean?
Well, what I meant to say was it's not only the women, but the men.
A lot of the men can't take it as well.
So it's a very rigorous, it's a very rigorous curriculum.
It's essentially hazing.
It's designed to weed out the average and the weak from the strong.
Would you go so far as to say that if it happened on Main Street on a Saturday night, some of it might be criminal, the way people were treated?
I would say it could, in today's Lexican rush, yes, absolutely.
I mean, hazing is a good way to hazing is a good way to describe.
I don't, you know, Dave, I'm not sure how many people know.
We don't get to see movies on what SEAL training is, or Delta, or Ranger School.
We don't really, we think we know what it is, and there are some allusions to it.
But I think in our culture today, if the wrong civil rights, human rights groups saw some of the training, they'd try to shut it down.
It's cruel and inhumane.
Well, and Rash, that's why I've waited one hour and four minutes because I'm compelled to discuss this topic with you.
But it's necessary.
That's necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And that's why we have the high standards currently in the Marine Corps, the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
No, I understand.
I get it.
But what goes on at these schools is so, it's such a stark contrast to now even the toughest aspects of American culture generically.
If you let the wrong people find out specifically what's happening in some of this training, and I guarantee you that the hand-wringers out there would be trying to shut it down.
It's cruel and inhumane.
I mean, if tell me this, Dave, is waterboard exposure and training part of the process?
Waterboarding, I know.
I've never experienced, but I know it's part of the SEER training, which is survival, evasion, resistance, escape, which is something that all the air crews go through.
Right.
So we subject our recruits to waterboarding, the same thing a bunch of left-wing lawyers are trying to shut down Guantanamo Bay over.
Yeah, it's yeah, he said that obviously the women can't take it, which is a provocative thing to say, but he didn't follow the drum.
Most men can't either.
Not even come close.
That's how unique these people are.
I mean, the people that go through Ranger school and complete it, and Delta and the SEALs, they really are the closest thing we have to Supermen in this country.
I mean, look at Pat Tillman, who played for the Arizona Cardinals.
9-11 happens and he wants to go to Ranger School.
And everybody thought, well, he's going to be a lock.
I mean, these guys in football, I mean, that's training like you can't believe.
That's toughness.
And it is.
But he was not a lock.
Now, he made it, obviously.
And sadly, he was killed in a friendly fire incident.
But it's really rigorous.
And to hear the Navy Secretary talk about relaxing standards so that he could up the percentage of female recruits in the Navy, but specifically the SEAL program, that's not good.
Just on the surface.
Anyway, Dave, I appreciate the call very much.
Ray in St. Louis, you're next.
It's great to have you on the EIB network.
Hi.
Yeah.
Greetings from Missouri.
First time caller.
We've been listening to you for as long as I can remember.
I was listening to your show earlier this morning, you know, early in your broadcast, and you were talking about Bruce Jenner, isn't everybody, and wondering what's he waiting for or why does he do this?
I just thought I'd update you there that he's waiting for probably, if this is when he came out, he's probably going to wait a year before he does anything about it because it's a medical requirement.
They, you know, they don't, psychologists and whatever will.
And it's on the DSM-4 manual.
It says wait for one year of real life, real life experience so that you can find out what it's like, real life, you know.
Now, wait, I don't know.
Look, I'm glad you called because I've got some questions about this.
Because I'm just listening to what Jenner or any of the others transgendered people say.
Why do you have to go through a year?
Why is a year of psychological adjustment required when you do this in the first place because you think, if you're a man, you think you're a woman?
Why do you have to wait a year to find out if you're right?
I mean, why do this in the first place?
I'm told that people, I knew I was opposite sexual five years old or eight years old or whatever.
And I love wearing my mom's clothes.
I knew it.
So why do doctors say, no, we've got to give them a year after they make the announcement and do some of the surface changes to find out if it sticks?
I think it's partly because they want to, for litigate, you know, for insurance purposes, because any, first of all, if this person's going to spend $20,000, $30,000 for this surgery, and then they're going to, you know, and the surgeons who do this, the better ones, they won't even accept somebody for surgery without at least one year's real-life experience.
It's to give the person time to chicken out or realize they can't take it or whatever.
Yeah, I hear you.
I understand.
I just don't understand it.
You either are or you aren't.
And I don't know why you need a year to adjust.
Now, I noticed the medical people, I'm not doing this until this person's sure.
What I hear when I hear a doctor saying that is they don't really know they're playing around here.
And we're not going to do this until we're really convinced they're serious about this.
By the way, what we're talking about here, folks, if you're just joining us and you're trying to decipher this, Ray here called because we had some soundbites in the first hour.
Nancy Grace, headline news on the case, asking the media expert at CNN, the media expert, Brian Stelter, if he knew whether Bruce Jenner still had a penis.
Because Nancy Grace says, if that's the case, then all of this is academic.
There's no transgender or anything that's going on here.
I mean, people run around putting on makeup and long hair and doing hormone shots, but if that woman still has his penis, then what are we talking about here?
And I don't know why she thought the media expert at CNN would know, but that's who she kept drilling.
And so that's what Ray is calling here.
Well, the doctors wait to do that surgery for a year because there's a lot of stuff that has to happen here if this is serious.
I mean, you've got to go down to DMV.
You have to change your burst.
You have to do everything.
You've got to change every bit of paperwork about yourself.
And believe me, you don't want TMZ following your, if you have TMZ following you around doing that.
I don't know, this whole thing, all of this, there's something about it that I don't know, if you really, I'm deciding whether I want to finish my sentence here.
If you really, really, really want to do this, then why does all of it have to be on TV?
It seems to me that if really, really, really, you wouldn't want all the TV array.
You just want to get this done in private.
If you really, really, really, really wanted to do this, that you would get it done, you would get it dealt with because it's who you are.
Instead of making this big bally hood pop culture television episode out of all of it.
Anyway, I appreciate the call, Ray.
I'm up against it on time.
Be back after this, folks.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Rush Limbaugh at 800-282-2882 and El Rushboat EIBNet, if you would like to be on the program.
Sally in Maryland.
I'm glad you waited.
Great to have you here.
Hi.
Thank you for letting me join your program.
Yeah, you bet, of course.
I am a very proud parent of one of the women that tried out for the Ranger class.
Aha!
Excellent.
Now, there are 160 women that were accepted to try out.
And what that means is that they have a pre-training, a two-week pre-training.
And you have to pass that pre-training before you can walk on to the actual Ranger class.
Of the 160, 19 made it.
Made it to qualify for training.
That's true.
To walk on to the Ranger class.
To the Ranger School, okay.
And then what?
Was your daughter one of them?
She was not.
Now, she tried twice.
She tried to go through twice.
These girls do not want to have the standards changed.
Now, that I believe.
No, I totally believe that.
They want to make it as is, correct?
That's right.
They are athletic.
They are patriotic.
And boy, are they determined?
So is there a reason, a specific reason that you can explain to people why the women that didn't make it didn't make it?
Well, how grueling it is.
What were the stumbling blocks?
The stumbling block was that this is a beta class.
And the women that were chosen, as you explained before, had to go through a rigorous application process.
They were not given a lot of notice prior to trying out for the Ranger class.
And it's not the fault of the Army.
It's just because it's the beta class.
Most of the men have at least a year's advance notice that they're going to try out.
When you say beta, you mean this was the first women's class that was given access to the school?
That's right.
Right, okay.
So they didn't have a lot of time to prepare themselves for the standards, unlike the men who would have had many more months to get themselves ready.
So does that mean that your daughter, for example, may not have known everything she needed to know simply because she didn't have time to learn it?
I think it's more that you've got to get yourself physically ready.
Why did she want to do this?
The same reason that the men want to do it.
Well, now the men that I had a chance to talk to said they wanted to do it.
They were already in the Army.
They were already serving in different branches.
This is where you go to become the best you can be in the Army, they said to me.
Well, the girls are no different.
So is your daughter military?
Yes, she is.
She's in the Army.
And so she just, she wants the pinnacle.
She does.
So how did she deal with not making it?
Initially, it was difficult, but she's determined.
She's athletic, and she's going to try again.
And does not want the standards.
Did she tell you what the hardest thing was?
Or did she even talk about it that way?
I'm trying to understand what it is.
I know it's two months.
I know it's grueling.
I know very few specifics, though.
They have to pass a very rigorous test, athletic test, before they can walk in.
And they're very demanding on having those push-ups be perfect, those pull-ups be perfect, sit-ups exactly to the standards that they want.
And I don't think that a lot of these girls understood those particular standards.
That's interesting.
Why?
I can't answer that.
Now, why the because you're not saying, I know you're not saying the women expected to be able to get by with just doing the number, not the specific, exact technique, just the number.
I mean, they had to know that the standards are really high here.
They did, but I don't think that there was good information before she walked in as to exactly how they wanted her to do a pull-up, that your legs cannot swing.
That has to be in a dead.
It has to be a dead pull-up.
She didn't know that.
Dead vertical.
Simple things, right?
Now, that's, I don't know why, but that's, I wonder if some of it's the societal conditioning places that she'd been before.
Anyway, I'm glad you called.
This stuff is fascinating to me, and I'm really glad that you're in the audience and got through today.
I appreciate it, Sally.
We've got to go, though.
Out of precious, busy broadcast time.
Back in just a second.
General Petraeus making no bones about the fact that we are not winning in Iraq because Obama pulled us out of there.
Have details on that.
▲
Export Selection