-- true. >> greta: that is your last call. thank you for being with us tonight. we'll see you tomorrow, we've got videos up there, open thread for debate, everything is there. gretawire.com, good night from washington. ever exhibit something approaching a fact finder. i am kimberly guilfoyle along with bob beckel, eric bolling, dana perino, and greg gutfeld. 5:00 in new york city and this is "the five." this afternoon the senate foreign relations committee voted 10-7 to advance the resolution on syrian intervention to the full senate. that debate starts monday. part of the rationale for action comes back to president obama's red line comments last august. today, the president is in sweden, tried to distance himself from his own remarks. >> i didn't set a red line, the world set a red line. congress set a red line when it
ratified that treaty. my credibility is not on the line, the international community's credibility is on the line and america and congress' credibility is on the line. >> what did president obama actually say in 2012? >> a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons being moved around or utilized. that would change my calculus, change my equation. >> i like to call that a communication snafu. dana, what do you think? >> they could say that, but what would have been better instead of being defensive, he could have said yes, i said a red line because it is the world's red line, add to it instead of subtract. he should say yes, i'm leading, that's why we have the red line and we are moving forward,
rather than it is a constant everybody is so mean to me. his subordinates for the past year have all been reminding reporters, reminding us that he is the president of the united states, commander in chief, and he is the one that issued the red line. i believe that's u.s. policy anyway. i don't think he needed to be defensive. there's a way to say that yes, of course, there was a red line and that's what i'm for. >> the problem is it seems to be never his fault. now he can turn around and blame it on communication advisers that chose the wrong words for him to say, that's why he is so horribly misunderstood through his presidency, first time, on-going, or could blame it on bush, his next favorite thing to do. >> this is really about language. it is about using jargon, pretending jargon is actually justice, whether talking about the red line or my calculus or let me unpack that question. remember he said that in the
beginning? we're a country run by a visiting professor out to impress his pals in europe. makes you long for the day for the simple language of that president, george w. bush, who said what he was thinking. can i just make a greater point about this? everybody says this is not about syria, they say it is about iran, that it is our inaction in syria that will embolden iran for a bomb. so why don't we push fast forward, skip past syria, pretend we did it, take out iran's nuclear arms. that way we will get the respect, we will stop the emboldening, do the symbolic work, put putin back in his place. the fact is if you have a rotten tooth, you don't yank out a different tooth, you yank out the rotten tooth. >> that happens from time to time. >> we are talking about iran, not talking about syria, right? >> we're talking hezbollah, hamas, iran. talking about a lot of things.
>> china, u.n. >> one of the things the president says, it was not artfully done the way he did it in stock home, he is referring to a treaty ratified by the united states senate several decades ago, and the world signatory to that did not include syria then because they were not there then, where the red line was drawn. it said we will not allow the use of chemical weapons. this was shortly after the first world war when mustard gas was used on thousands and thousands and they died. >> can i say something, i don't know who this guy is. i heard president obama and i was shocked, i stopped and wrote them down. what do you mean you didn't draw the red line. you absolutely did draw the red line. we always had the international community's red line, you're the one that brought america into it saying we will act if you do what we worry about you doing, and they did. president obama, you brought america into the red line discussion. that's why people are talking on
the senate floor. i have to do this. >> what is that, ketchup? >> we should be very selective on how and when we shed blood, ours or theirs. american patriots shed blood to protect our families, our country, our way of life. there's no reason to shed blood, ours or theirs, for a civil war between two radical muslim groups who frankly hate us. so we should be careful before we shed any more blood, ours or theirs, this is not our war. we need to stay out of the middle east. >> eric. >> where did you get that. >> it is ketchup. >> is that the code pink store. >> if somebody would have at some point would have brought up the fact that we are party to a treaty, and it compels us to take action on this. >> someone could argue that we have blood on our hands not acting up to now, if the red line was just on chemical
weapons and what have we done to 120 people th 120,000 died, when the inspectors first went in, that's when they first used chemical weapons against their own people. there wasn't ground work laid in congress, that's why they have to do it. the resolution passed in committee 10-7, it is on way to the senate. >> why is it our blood, why is it always us that has to go in and shed the blood, their blood, whose ever. >> i think it is the burden we have to bear for being leader of the free world, if we want to keep that position. i do. >> maybe it is time to say let china step up. they're outproducing us -- >> i am not comfortable leaving the world to china. >> china step up and care about other people? >> somebody bring eric napkins to get this off his hands. >> it is whether or not we have the authority to do anything any more, given the fact obama made it clear we were no longer
exceptional and we were no longer the authority or the policeman to do that. it was distasteful to flex muscles. had you can you flex muscles when you been wrong. we have been wrong. on iran in the green movement, let it die. egypt, supported muslim brotherhood. libya, blame benghazi on a video. the only security issue obama has been good at, he wears a helmet when he rides a bike. other than that, we have -- it is hard to trust them on these things. can't we just let them war each other out? take away penalties and flags, the game doesn't last as long. let it in on its own. we jump in, turn it into a double header. >> first of all, the answer is why is it us. we're the only ones with capability to take out their capability. >> bob, you said that yesterday. >> well, it is true. >> let it go. that's the most assanine
comment. >> why? >> germany doesn't have capability to do it. >> you know what, it is against our constitution, too. congress has to declare war. president obama said we're going in with 200 tomahawk missiles as a joke, that's war. >> you don't know it is 200. secondly, germany can't by pass their constitution. france is willing to. >> france is not with us yet. >> let's take a listen to secretary kerry and ralph peters who was on hannity last night talking about boots on the ground equal blood from the troops. take a listen. >> let's shut that door now as tight as we there will not be american boots on the ground with respect to the civil war. >> if you think you're going to secure the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons in syria with a handful of special operations teams and a couple of ranger
companies, you're talking little bighorn scenario. boots on the ground are definitely part of our future if we get into this. >> realistic assessment? >> not realistic at all, from a guy that probably shouldn't get the rank he got. >> why do you say that? why do you have to attack somebody personally because they disagree with you? >> because what he said here was not accurate. we're not trying to take out stockpiles of chemical weapons, we're trying to take out the ability of them to deliver chemical weapons. >> let's look at it this way. our enemies, al qaeda, have used chemical weapons in the past. they used chlorine, they've tested sarin nerve agents on dogs. they're the enemy of syria. what we're doing is we're emboldening people that use chemical weapons by going after syria. the fact is we don't know for a fact who did it. so why are we getting involved? >> let me point something else out, big boy. if we take out the delivery methods. >> who is the big boy? >> bob. you say we should take out missile facilities.
they can deliver chemical weapons via munitions, dirty bombs. if you do it, spend a billion dollars to do this, next day assad delivers it another way, where are we? >> what they were looking at was gas, sarin gas, u.n. inspectors, in an area that was bombed. it was not brought in by a dirty bomb. it was by missiles. >> we don't know that for sure, bob. it is amazing how you have more intel than the american people heard. >> they do have information. when you say we don't know yet, let's assume there's a compelling case by tomorrow that gets out, leaks out of congress, out of the white house that says in fact we do know they did that. >> somebody is forecasting a leak. >> if that's the case. >> they leaked everything else. >> would you not be in favor of taking this guy out? >> yes. if we know for a fact they did it, then i think we have a compelling case. >> why, on humanitarian grounds?
>> yes. >> what about u.s. interests? >> i think we have an obligation if they're killing thousands of people, then i think we have a stronger case to do it, and it is a better debate. but you're looking at two groups. one group those acid in girls' faces for going to school. another group, authoritarian regime that tries to keep these freaks in place. which side is more likely to use gas really? both. i think the radical crazy islamists are more likely. >> get dana back in. >> which group is the radical crazy islamists? >> i am not sure assad goes after christians the way radical islamists do. >> then why are we taking him out! >> that's my point! >> dana. >> if you read somebody that's been on the ground there for two years, a journalist that wrote in "the wall street journal" on saturday, you know, i'm not saying i know for sure, i am taking it from somebody that's been on the ground about the al qaeda influence being quite
contained and limited. if you look at the refugee camps, about 2 million people are now displaced outside syria, they didn't leave to be part of the government, because they were being attacked by their own government, and they don't want to join the rebel forces and fight. there are people that are willing to get out of harm's way, go to a refugee camp where basically there's sewage running through, united nations is doing the best they can. they expect 2 to 300 a day, they're getting 2 to 3,000 a day. i think there are people we could find. i guess this goes back to something you said about america being an exceptional nation and whether or not the administration believes that. i think it is reminding us that the united states is just different and it is better. the fact we can have a full debate and discussion and you can have a senator that's basically live tweeting decisions to vote for it, against it, vote for it, i think
that shows strength rather than weakness and we should lead with it. >> can i make another point. where they bombed in damascus is where the free syrian army was making head way against the syrian army. they were not islamists. there's no indication whatsoever that any of these islamist groups were in that neighborhood when this was going on. secondly, you believe the free syrian army will bomb themselves? >> yes! >> they're secular. >> it is a war tactic. bomb your own people to get the united states on your side. i am not suggesting they did, i am saying until we know, why are we going to kill people? spend money and lives until we know for sure. >> what level of certainty do you need? >> 110%. >> you would love to scream about wmds. how is this different. ahead on "the five," lots more of this, right? can't we all just get along? probably not. should partisanship and polls make a difference for congress deciding whether to support a
♪ welcome back to "the five." in what could be one of the biggest decisions of their political careers, members of congress could vote next week on possible action in syria as we have been talking about. most americans hope their elected representatives will try to do the right thing, not the partisan thing when it comes to decisions about war, but it doesn't always work out that way. have a listen. >> if he gets saved at all, i think it will be because of loyalty of democrats. they just don't want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national scene. that's the only reason i would vote for it if i could vote on it. >> we should be focused on
defending the united states of america. that's why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to do, you know, to serve as al qaeda's air force. >> inevitable politics enters into it. listen to this from general dempsey at the senate foreign relations committee. this is at the crux of the entire debate. >> the answer to whether i support additional support for the moderate opposition is yes. >> this authorization will support those activities in addition to responding to the weapons of mass destruction. >> i don't know how the resolution will evolve. >> what you're seeking, what is it you're seeking. >> i can't answer that, what we're seeking. >> when you go to testify in front of a jury or in front of america, you might want to know the purpose for which you are going to ask something. senator rubio voted no in senate relation committee today.
what do you make of the politics, kimberly, that evolved the past couple days? >> disheartening but not surprising. be realistic. this is going to have position and influence on what they decide. you have people saying they'll vote to support it so they can back up the president. he is my boy, i got his back. then people are saying i am going to be against it, it is against my party line, they're concerned about votes in their district, the electorate, making sure they have their supporters in their base solidified. i think a lot of that is at play. we're going to see whether or not we have interesting bipartisanship on voting. >> you had that already. the majority in the house leadership, boehner. >> and cantor. >> are in favor. across the board, leadership on both sides with the exception of mcconnell, i don't know where he has come out, have come out in favor of this thing. behind them, rank and file have not joined forces yet.
i think they probably will, but so far. >> they haven't lined up. >> they're holding back, eric, there could be good reason. the reuters poll that was taken august 30 to september 3, the question is should the u.s. intervene in syria, and 56% of people said no. >> not surprising. also a little on the breaking news, not sure if we have time to get to it, the saudis and other arab and oil producing nations say they'll finance the attack. i mention yesterday, why wouldn't they. they came forth today, told kerry they would do that. this is ridiculous. what does that make us, they will pay us to attack or kill assad. >> it is a bizarre development. >> yesterday talked about al qaeda hates assad, and all of the rest. >> flowchart. >> we hate al qaeda. russia is beginning to hate us, china is smiling and the saudis
are counting pet row dollars coming in. >> yesterday, greg, you had a good point about the hearing was just theater, it was a play that was going on, and later on we found out after the show there was a mini scandal with one of the senators playing poker under the table. >> yes, senator john mccain was playing poker. my feeling is he deserves to do that. if you have to pass time, five and a half years in a cage in a prison camp, you can do whatever the hell you want during one of these things. >> he's also sort of prepared. >> yeah. can i just go back, i don't think this is a political divide we're seeing, it is establishment versus renegades. you're also seeing something interesting. people who normally demonize the military are now ready to bomb. peace nicks are strutting like puffed up chicken hawks and i think that's pretty funny, and why are we doing this or why are some people for this that
previously they weren't, is it because it is president obama, because we want a strike to make him feel good about himself? that's a little weird. >> are you finished? >> i'll keep going. >> can i come in here a second? the fact is the liberal democrats are lining up for this are doing it for humanitarian reasons, because of what they're doing using the chemical weapons. if we were just talking about sending bombs to syria and no chemical weapons, you wouldn't have their votes. they're doing it for the same reason i am in favor of it. >> where was the humanitarian concern and media in pressing for answers from the government, our government, on this, when 120,000 were killed in the lead up to use of chemical weapons. >> but they did not have a definitive intelligence base to make that decision to move forward. >> nor ton said -- >> because of obama. >> i think very few people would have that -- >> bob, come on, don't be naive.
you know people will support this just because barack obama says go. >> can i defend them in a way, they're trusting him, putting their trust in the president, and loyalty is one of those things, i don't necessarily think it is blind, they trust he is -- >> don't discount it, whatever the reasons, motivation, they will follow the president, they believe him, trust him, or out of obligation. >> what about boehner and cantor? >> who knows. i can say but i would get in trouble for saying it. something that starts with r, ends with o, and is four letters. >> now you've done it, bolling. coming up, a stunning development. >> i am irritated, okay? we're going to talk about ariel castro, confronted by one of his victims in court. listen to this. >> i spent 11 years in hell. now your hell is just beginning.
thousand years. served 33 days. here is the math. 53 years old, life expectancy, 79 years ago. 30 grand a year, 780,000 we save by him hanging himself. gitmo. 903,000 per detainee, 150 million a year we save in gitmo if they all think about doing the same thing, here are a couple suggestions. i think ksm, nidal hasan. >> are you in favor of sending everyone on death row? >> maybe send a manual on how to tie the bed sheets. >> i say you have gone to the edge of the earth, man, i tell you that. look, the sad part of this, i think it would be better for the victims to have him live out his
life in prison where he has to pay that price every day. i think in some ways he robbed them of some satisfaction out of all of this. who knows what his thinking was, but i would imagine those three girls were probably not too terribly pleased when he did that. >> what do you think, greg? >> something tells me the guards were a little less attentive than usual, which means that whatever money was saved on taking care of castro should have given to maybe bonus vacations or something to some of the guards who perhaps took a little longer lunch hour than they normally have. when you guard a feind, that's one place where being bad at your job is good. >> yeah. i'll tell you, if he was on death row, he would have actually been closely supervised and unable to kill himself and wasn't in a strip down cell, he had sheets and things like that. they basically do a check on him, check every 15 minutes.
maybe someone took a little long longer. i don't think anyone is crying over it, but somebody will be in trouble, you can't let inmates whack themselves in jail. as far as the victims, dead anyway, fine. >> i think so. i think it was the best outcome. i don't understand why he had a sheet anyway. if he was in solitary, that's why i think there must have been -- >> it was a maximum security wing. >> why would he get sheets? i wouldn't have the first clue how to use a sheet and hang myself. i have no idea. how do you learn, i don't understand how he would have been able to do it himself. there was probably some -- maybe they did -- >> it is not that hard. >> you could attest to this, kimberly, when there are bad apples in the prison population, somebody that's a convicted child molester, they turn their back when other guys go after them.
a lot of guys are killed -- >> prison justice, he would be on the top of the food chain for people wanting to take this guy out, but he was in maximum security wing. again, had he been on death row, he would still be alive. that's the irony. >> can we talk about this montana judge who is now reconsidering his 30 day rape sentence. gave a convicted rapist 30 days. >> for raping a student three times, a 14-year-old girl, who then went and committed suicide and the judge disparaged the victim, basically suggesting she was complicit, that she was prekoeshs, she knew what she was doing, and that's the consistency of his transcript from the courtroom that day, and it isn't the first time he has engaged in this kind of behavior or turned a blind eye toward victims, for example, giving lenient sentences in one case to an 11-year-old boy raped by a man, he gave suspended sentence. this guy shouldn't even be on the bench. he should be impeached, recall
him. >> he has to run for re-election. all of a sudden he discovered there was a mandatory minimum by montana state law that would have required this guy to stay in prison for a longer period of time, and all of a sudden he discovers it, says by the way, just found out. what do you mean? >> he is finding a way to do it. he was choosing to ignore it, that was his truest sense of what he felt, it is shameful. he shouldn't be on the bench. now he can resentence, doesn't effect double jeopardy or anything, he should do the right thing, take predators off the street. he has an obligation to do so. >> it is not double jeopardy? >> it is not double jeopardy. ask greg. >> as a legal expert, this was a very stupid decision on the judge's part. >> leave it there. up next, in the spirit of labor day, a gutfeld monologue on the importance of work. later, bob is not happy atheists want "under god" out of
♪ so labor day was last monday, "the five" worked, not me. i slept until 4:00. ordered chinese food, ate it in my underwear. that's labor day for a lot of people. worse, it is everyday for a lot of people. labor day was started by unions in the 1890s after a deadly strike. i would like to focus on the first part of the name, labor. we all like days off, without work we would die. when men retire, they often croak. some put ships in a bottle, for me, bottles are for emptying. it scares me not to work.
people don't see the worth in work. in some states welfare pays as well as work. work is the greatest thing you can do. all should work, old, young, the disabled, i admire companies that welcome their efforts. as for disabilities it is a widespread label for stuff. you remove work, you remove will. why is that? we all have a hole to fill, call it a soul. no matter what you put in it on monday, by tuesday it is empty, then you have to fill it again. so i've had it with childhood obesity. i worry about work anorexia. you don't start feeding children when they turn 16. right away, you give them the nutrients. should be the same for work. kids need labor vitamins or they grow up anemic. for without work, you might as well twerk. kg, you have a young boy. when is he going to start working and earn his keep? he is what, five? >> he has three jobs, he is
pretty lazy. i am concerned actually. he takes out the trash. i give him a dollar a week. >> but that's good. >> but it is good. it is important to work. he sees i work hard. i explain you have this because mommy works, daddy works, that's important for children to learn the value of work ethic. i come from an immigrant family. come here for opportunity. i take it seriously. i value it and i respect people that work hard and appreciate a paycheck and that are passionate about what they do, you know. i only hope people can be so lucky to enjoy what they do. >> your father is from ireland? why didn't i know that. >> you don't remember. >> it is not a joke. i did not know that? >> where did you think? >> thought they were both from puerto rico. >> bob, there was a gallup survey showed a lot of people don't like their job. does it matter that you don't like it? find what you like to do? >> i think you know the fact is as you point out, you have to work to eat for the most part.
leave the welfare argument out for a second. but i think the other point you made which is an important one is that people that don't work, that get behind another force on the golf course, drop dead of heart attacks at quite a rate. some have to work, elderly, but a lot go back to work because they want to. they find out having nothing to do ain't the golden years they were promised. >> raising the retirement age, i am not going to retire, i refuse to. i would -- >> joy. how long do we have you around? >> kg, you would be distraught. that's for sure. eric, something culpable in the change? >> a 13 states pay more than if you go to work and get minimum wage. hawaii, if i am not mistaken, on average, you make $49,000 to go
on welfare. we are incentivizing people, saying if you don't want or can't work, that's not the way the system was set up. it was a temporary fix for people having a hard time and eventually get off food stamps and welfare rolls and they're not. >> one point about statistics, that's for a family, welfare you get hawaii or any place else is not for two working people. if both were working minimum wage, it would be more than that. it is a family on welfare we're talking about, not an individual. >> i am not sure why it matters. you make 49 grand and not work. >> it is more than minimum wage. it makes it sound like an individual gets more from welfare than if they work a minimum wage job. >> dana, i found it outrageous pets don't work. >> they should. i have been trying to get jasper a permanent endorsement deal, but nobody has taken me up on the offer. >> soon.
>> i think disability payments that we make in the program is something that is worth looking at and changing in the next presidential election, maybe somebody can come forward with something like that, orsee experiments in the states. one of the problems is the judges have a hard time determining, if you say you have back pain, it is hard to describe it, hard to know. somebody may have back pain, make it impossible for them to work. the problem is there's not a corresponding program that says if you have back pain, there are other things you can do, here are the things. it is disability payments, if you look at the numbers, it skyrocketed since the '70s. >> i know how to describe back pain, even when i don't have it. >> remember that problem, then you read the book, mostly psychological. >> and it changed everything. >> and kimberly walked on your back. >> in my heels, and he paid me $50. >> interesting. >> on that note, coming up, massachusetts supreme court. a case about removing under god from the pledge of allegiance.
♪ that is awful music. sorry. earlier today, massachusetts supreme court heard a lawsuit about the pledge of allegiance in public schools. an atheist couple wants to remove the phrase under god, claiming it violates students' rights. their attorney explains why. >> we have a pledge where children every morning are pledging their national unity and loyalty in an indoctrinational format in a way that validates religious god belief as truly patriotic, and actually invalidates atheism. >> he neglects to say you don't have to say the pledge if you don't want to.
dana, what about this argument? >> i am tired of them. i remember working in the justice department years ago when i first started right after 9/11 and a lawsuit like this came through. before the day had finished, the united states senate and house of representatives both passed resolutions saying they were for keeping under god in the pledge. i think our representatives have spoken over and over again and if these people really don't like it, they don't have to live here. >> that's a good point. does anybody know whether this under god was added to the pledge or was it part -- >> it was added. doesn't matter though. in god we trust is on our currency. they say they want that removed. but the attorney used not to take u.s. currency. >> greg, you're not an atheist. we know you go to church every day. does this outrage you? >> well, it is a pledge, not a prayer, it is a patriotic
exercise, in a sense basically saying thanks for giving us the freedom to be an atheist. this is one of the countries where you don't get killed if you don't adhere to whatever belief system they're forcing down your throat, like certain countries. >> if you don't believe, why do you care? >> you have to understand, it is not an extreme idea, it is called faith, religious faith for a reason. you have faith. the only way you can have faith is if there is no faith to compare it to. i understand they're the minority here. >> why should they be catered. i am not saying you say that, i find it offensive a few people, these children are pawns for their parents' political statements and beliefs to try to enforce it on everybody else and inflict their belief system, it is incredibly selfish, small minded, and i don't think the court should cater to them. there's no reason to do so. >> massachusetts is where the
♪ that was not uplifting, bob. it is time for one more thing. >> by unanimous choice of america, this banned phrase, boots on the ground. just say troops. american troops. say troops. >> i like that. there's a difference. there's troops on a ship. >> never mind. forget it. >> the fbi and intel officers go in, are they boots? >> i say loafers. >> that's cute. dana? you have a big reveal. >> i have one more thing yesterday, i saved it when i got back from congo, there was a box from a person with a great idea. the kind of ingenuity you need. somebody made these beautiful flowers. i wanted to give them to greg. a photo rose. they take old pictures, print
them, make them into roses and it won't die, so you could have this in your office. >> in a way, there are things that should die. >> so you're giving him pictures of your face. >> let me tell you something, guys would by this for their gals. >> this is a stalker's gift. >> no. >> look, every rose has a picture of you or jasper. this is a stalker rose. >> who's the guy there? >> george bush. >> thank you. i will cherish this. >> when i come to your office, i hope it is in a vase. >> getting weirder by the minute. no surprise. bolling, any more exploding packets? >> no more hand thing. anyway, this was going to be my one more thing on labor day, but we had to do a live show, got blown out. yesterday we stayed with that testimony all day. here is my one more thing.
it is end of the summer. every year we do this. picture on the beach. this is our group. same group every year for the last ten years. we just love the summer. >> i like the five. >> is this a way to show yourself tan and half naked. >> my wife on the left, my son in the white shirt, a bunch of friends. his pal behind in the black shirt. >> are the other kids yours? >> jersey shore, baby. >> just one. >> bob, please, don't blow up the end of the show. i beg you, go ahead. >> kimberly has been in a bad mood. >> correct. >> yes! >> i'm fragile now. go ahead. >> there was a lot of controversy about president obama when this picture was shown in the newspaper. there he is with his foot on the
desk, and eric and his pals went crazy. now i want to show you a couple other pictures that are also in the oval office, also on the desk. there's one. also a second one. we could have gotten -- >> be fair and balanced, bob. >> can i point out, i didn't have a problem. >> that's gerald ford. >> look at the picture, can you go back to obama? it was the hand i had the problem with, not the foot. >> what hand? >> and he is not wearing a jacket. >> can i point out a positive part. this is quite an improvement over what bill clinton did on that desk. >> oh, my god. now you've done it. now you've been worse than bob. go back to sniffing your dana roses. katie couric, congratulations for believing love can happen again. she got engaged over the weekend. they have been dating about two years. she said it was a great end to
the summer. >> do you care about this? >> you know what i love -- >> you know what i love -- welcome to "red eye." it is like two broke girls if by girls you mean above average height men, muscular to be my pilates instructor. due to andy levy's death at a rave for cats there is no pre game report tonight. let's introduce our guests. she is so hot the sun must wear diana say dough block. i am here with diane macedo. she anchors "business news" on imus in the morning weekdays on fox business network. and if hilarity was a game of horseshoes i would do him at a family reunion, possibly with my uncle. a first time best, comedian mike kaplan. he will be per