All Episodes
Previous Next
June 13, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
June 13, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hmm.
Let's see.
Let's see.
I got a couple of Supreme Court decisions here.
Still waiting, though, on the uh Ten Commandments.
That'll be the big finale decision, I'm sure.
The court understands theatrics and showbiz as well as anybody else in politics.
Lookie here, abstinence slowing AIDS in Uganda.
I guess who would have thought that?
Abstinence is slowing the spread of aids.
Can you imagine a backwards thinking?
They got that plan going.
Let's see.
We got all kinds of couple of Supreme Court decisions here, as I say.
New approaches against illegal immigrants, more on Howard Dean, and the uh the situation at Gitmo just continues to explode out there.
Uh and a couple of Republican congressmen have found a way to get their names in the press and in the newspaper by calling for us to get the hell out of Iraq even now.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program, and here we are, right here, firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone at the prestigious and distinguished Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
The telephone numbers 800-282-2882, and the uh email address is Rush at uh EIB net.com.
Uh we also have this story here, Robert Novak's column on June the 9th.
Uh and I guess this was I can't I have to look at the count.
I don't even know.
Jim, this is the 13th, but I can't count.
Okay, this was this came out sometime um on uh on Thursday, late Thursday, and and since I how'd they go Friday, by the way, with uh with Dr. Williams.
Yeah, that's that's that's great to hear.
Anyway, any funny wife stories from Dr. Williams?
Good, good, good, good.
I just well, I promoted them, so I just wanted to make sure we got some.
But you know, I I was uh I was gone this weekend, and I just I went to visit family folks.
I went ahead and seen the uh nephews and nieces for a while and and uh went went uh went back to Cape Girardeau was there for three or four days.
Was it three days?
And uh it never it never fails, it never ceases.
So Rush, who's the Republican nominee gonna be.
I don't know.
What would you say if I asked you?
So, Bill, who's the Republican nominee gonna be?
Well, I don't know.
I was thinking of asking you.
And then, hey right, what if No, my nieces and nephews weren't asking me that.
No, no, the nieces and nephews were.
Do you know what?
I've got a I got a four-year-old uh nephew, Scott.
This kid can't read a book yet.
He is proficient on the internet, like you wouldn't believe.
This kid can navigate the internet.
He can play games, he can do things on the internet faster than I can, but he can't read a book yet.
I mean, it was if it was fascinating.
They all these kids, I mean they're all using computers left lickety split, motivating around uh uh navigating around and playing games.
As long as it's object-oriented and got graphics on it, they can figure it out.
Uh his what?
Does it have a no, he doesn't have a blog yet, but but it won't be long.
Um funny story, kids.
You know, they say that you love the funniest things they say.
Uh it was the second day, and Scott's Scott looks at me, cute little kitty says, I thought I thought you were gonna stay for three nights.
And I said, I am.
Do you want me to stay longer?
Oh!
*laughter*
It was fun.
I had a good time with them.
Anyway, uh everywhere I go.
They've been what who's the Republican nominee going to be?
And Rush, what are we gonna do about Hillary?
You know, it it just never ends, and I remembered having read this uh this Novak piece before I left on uh on Thursday.
And it let me just share it with you in in case you missed it.
Uh back east, well-placed Democrats have agreed that the party's 2008 nominations all wrapped up.
Better than three years in advance.
They say that the prize is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's for the asking, and that she's sure to ask.
But here on the left coast in Los Angeles, I found surprising and substantial Democratic opposition to uh going with the former first lady, both the Hollywood glitterati and the more mundane politicians of Los Angeles are looking elsewhere.
They've seen plenty of Senator Clinton over the past dozen years.
They don't particularly like what they've seen.
Two far less well-known Democrats, Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Indiana Senator Evan Bye, were hits on recent visits to California, mainly because they weren't Hillary.
They didn't get a lot of news coverage because they're not Hillary either.
The concern in the in in Los Angeles, Southern California with Clinton is not born in fear that she might fail to carry California.
Um their fear is that uh Clinton cannot win in red state America, which would guarantee a third straight Republican term in the White House.
Party insiders in Washington and New York, including many who ran the last two losing Democratic campaigns, say that they've never before seen anything like the way Clinton has sewed up the nomination.
In particular, they say she's cornered Eastern money in a way that nobody else ever has done at such an early date.
At a dinner party in a private room of a Los Angeles.
Now stick with me on this, folks, because it it's going somewhere.
At a dinner party in a private room of a Los Angeles restaurant attended by eight Democratic politicians.
I was asked to assess the political scene.
This is Novak again.
I concluded with a preview of the distant events of 2008.
And while there had not been so open a race for the Republican nomination since 1940, Clinton was dominant for the Democrats.
For someone who is either neither an incumbent president nor vice president to have apparently locked the nomination so early is without precedent.
And as I made this analysis, the liberal Democratic functionary across the table from me shook his head in disagreement.
He said there are eight Democrats in this room.
I've taken a little poll.
None of them, none of them are for Hillary.
They think she is a loser.
Talking to some of them, I found concern that Hillary carries too much baggage from her turbulent marriage and her husband's presidency to do any better than John Kerry did.
One female orifice holder was looking hard for another Southern moderate who could bite into the Confederacy as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had done.
Another woman officeholder was hostile to a Clinton candidacy on a more personal basis.
Don't think that Hillary has the women's vote, she said.
I'm never going to forgive her for sticking with her husband after he humiliated her.
It's something I I can't get over.
Well, but the bottom line here is, folks, it's it I don't want to go in.
See, I told you so, because it is only eight Democrats.
And it's hard to take uh anecdotal evidence from eight people and project it nationwide or even party wide.
But the idea that there's massive total love for Hillary Clinton out there on the Democratic side, and that the Democratic Party has already given up its quest and fight and chosen its nominee three and a half years out is just it's it's absurd.
Uh all these presumptions and assumptions that are being made here are way too soon.
And the bottom line is that Hillary just is not looked at as somebody who can do any better than John Kerry did.
But you you look at the names Mark Warner and Evan by, and the reason that those two names are popular with some day, and by the way, they went out, they had fundraising trips, and they raised as much money as Hillary did.
It just didn't get reported.
They were well-received, but it didn't get reported because they're not stars like Hillary is.
And I'll tell you something else.
The reason why people are excited about them on the Democratic side is because one of them is a governor, and governors do better at winning presidencies than sitting senators do.
But they have an image that is more palatable to people than Hillary does.
They don't have nearly the negative turnout consequences just on the basis of their name ID that Hillary Clinton does.
And I've been saying for the longest time, but I just don't buy into this conventional wisdom this far out.
And, you know, she's got a massive spin machine that spins the media.
Uh and they've done an excellent job of doing that to the point that they think the Democratic race is uh is over.
And I just this this early, I just have refused to believe that.
Too much can happen in a short period of time in politics, much less uh uh, you know, the three and a half years that we have left to go.
All right, uh when we come back here, I want to get into this gitmo business a little bit on the on the war in Iraq.
Uh, and rather than try to just tee it up and summarize it, uh, I'll just start at the beginning when we get back and go through this.
Have some audio sound bites, a couple news stories, and some thoughts uh on all this that have been bubbling and effervescing inside my fertile, fertile mind and cranial cavity.
And today's the time to share it all with you.
So we'll do that.
We come back.
Don't go away.
Again, the phone number is 800-282-2882, and I promise that at some point today we will get to your calls.
Coming right back, stay with.
And we're back.
El Rushball, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
A Republican congressman has called for a deadline to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, while some other members of President Bush's party urged Sunday that his administration come to grips with a persistent insurgency and revamp Iraq policy.
Representative Walter Jones, a North Carolina conservative, said on this week on ABC that he would offer legislation this week, setting up a timetable for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
He said, I voted for the resolution to commit the troops, and I feel we've done about as much as we can do.
Other Republicans on Sunday talk shows joined Democrats in criticizing the administration for playing down the insurgency while overestimating the ability of Iraq's fledgling forces to fight with U.S. soldiers in lead in failing to plan for the post-invasion occupation.
Senator Lindsey Graham back in action here said the insurgency is alive and well.
we underestimated the viability of that insurgency.
Representative Kurt Weldon, by the way, And I I just want to remind you people of what did I say early on in this?
Did I tell you that there's no insurgency?
It's a bunch of terrorists, and who are we really at war with?
I said this has to go back six months to a year.
We are really at war with Iran in Iraq.
That's who's sending people in, also Syria, but I said we're actually battling Iran.
This is not a bunch of Iraqis that are rising up to the well, it was with a certain element of the Saddam Party, the Bathists.
Uh but this this is I don't even think it's correct to call this an insurgency.
These are just a bunch of terrorist imports.
An insurgency inspires homegrown rebels.
And that's not who this is.
Representative Kurt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican who just returned from Iraq, joined several Democrats saying the administration has to be more candid and acknowledge that it could take about two years to train Iraqi forces to replace U.S. soldiers and allow a significant pull out.
He said we can't come back to America and have our people being convinced that the Iraqi troops are prepared to take over when they're not.
He said this on Meet the Press yesterday.
Weldon also said the administration must come to grips with a rising insurgency boosted by fighters from Syria and Iran.
Yes, as you and this program have known for over a year.
Uh Weldon said some reason our intelligence community does not want to acknowledge or deal with this rising insurgency.
Well, if if the insurgency comes from Syria and Iran, it's not really an insurgency at all, is it?
I mean, I'm I'm not trying to split hairs on the definition of words here, but I just I just don't think that this is uh this is not an insurgency.
This is what it's always been.
This is a battle against worldwide terrorism, and the playing field happens to be Iraq, because that's where we went.
Uh and and the the terrorists all over the world are coming to that spot to fight this.
But uh tell you, it's it's it's clear that that uh there's starting to be some wavering even on the Republican side in this.
Remember the story I told you last week, and I I think I have a bit of an understanding of why this may be happening.
I think some of these people are hearing from their constituents.
And their constituents are watching television every day.
And on television, you see ten more Iraqis killed or ten more Americans killed, or a car bomb here or a car bomb there.
And these constituents uh say, well, what are we accomplishing here?
Well, we all we're hearing are we losing people.
We don't seem to be winning anything, and I think I mean there obviously could be other reasons for this as well.
I mean, it's this is one way for Republicans to get their names in the paper and on the wire services is to criticize the administration.
You know the press will love them for that.
Uh, but that's pretty widespread.
I mean, with Kurt Weldon and Walter Jones and Lindsey Graham, uh, John McCain Jr., uh, but nevertheless, uh, these comments are being made.
Then, of course, Time magazine has this great profile of just how horrible Gitmo is.
And we've got this controversy raging here about whether we should close down Gitmo.
And uh Vice President Cheney is is said we're not gonna close Gitmo.
The president has never said we're gonna close it.
We're not even thinking of closing Gitmo, but this came up last week in a way that was reported that the president was considering it.
And that would be an absolute disaster, particularly in the face of all this criticism, to uh close down Gitmo and move these troops, uh, these these prisoners of war elsewhere.
And and that leads me to some thoughts.
Folks, and I if if you are a constituent of Lindsey Graham or Walter Jones or Kurt Weldon, or if if you um if you're a citizen concerned about the day-to-day news coming out of Iraq, ten Iraqis killed here, twenty Iraqis blown up there, ten Americans killed a car bomb here, an insurgency attack there.
Let me try to put some things in perspective for you.
I'm not trying to sound cavalier about that, but I want to try to bring some historical perspective to this again.
Anybody remember Iwo Jima?
Oh, there he goes, Rush going back to the old funny duty archives.
Well, this is World War II, Iwo Jima.
It's a famous landmark battle in uh World War II.
We've even got a monument based on a photo taken when we planted the flag there.
Do you know that we lost 7,000 Marines in a little over one month on Iwo Jima?
7,000 in one month.
I think we're up to 1,300 uh soldiers dead in Iraq.
Close to 1700 and 1700 dead after a year and a half, we lost 7,000 Marines just over a month at Iwo Jima.
So I just want to ask you to imagine if today's media and today's liberal politicians existed back then.
We lost thousands on the other islands too, Guadalcanal Midway.
Why hasn't today's media run any stories on how prisoners of war were treated back then?
For some context, why no stories about the internment of 110,000 Japanese, which would show how Bush has been an icon of civil liberties when it comes to fighting a war.
I mean, we we're we're fighting a war in the most humanitarian way, a war has ever been fought, folks, particularly regarding our enemies.
We're treating our enemies sometimes better than we treat some of our friends.
And we're doing this with this new humanitarian umbrella over everything, and the media reports it as the absolute worst it's ever been.
We're a gulag, according to Amnesty International, and we are just losing our humanity all over the place.
We never get stories about how U.S. prisoners of war have been treated over the years in World War II in Vietnam.
Well, other than McCain's story.
But we never hear any context on this.
7,000 Marines dead in a little over one month in Iwo Jima.
Now, Tom Brokaw wrote this book called The Greatest Generation.
Remember that?
That the greatest generation that Tom Brokaw wrote about would not have cared about kicking a Koran.
He wouldn't have cared about treating a German, Italian, or Japanese prisoner of war in accordance with some group like Amnesty International.
Member the greatest generation wouldn't have given a ranch rear end about rounding up suspects without probable cause, about providing lawyers and due process to illegal enemy combatants.
They didn't care about, and they're called the greatest generation.
They are the greatest generation.
Broko wrote the book, everybody picked up on it, and they didn't give one rat's rear end, folks, about civil liberties and humanitarianism in the middle of a war.
And they were called the greatest generation.
Now, what's changed?
As I've said to you countless times in 1960s, the same people who undermined our war effort in Vietnam, that same bunch of peoples at work today, the worst generation, if you ask me, and I'm a member of it.
The 1960s, we're still fighting the 1960s generation, which controls the mainstream media, which controls the Democratic Party, and which controls academia.
You know, the the greatest generation uh than the worst generation, and that you can compare these two, how the same people who rightly hold that generation up as a model really don't.
If if the people who bought Brokaw's book, the greatest generation had read it and really riveled in these people and really hold them up as the greatest generation, how in the world can they do that and believe what they believe today?
Because the greatest generation wouldn't have been caught dead having its hands tied the way we're our hands are tied today, either in Iraq or at Abu Ghrab or at Gitmo.
We're tying our hands to the point.
The only way we can win a war is if the other side decides to give up.
Because they're making it impossible for us to succeed militarily and with any kind of sense of real victory and triumph.
And it's the same bunch of people that gave us the template of how to get a Republican president out of office in the 1970s and gave us the template of how to report and write and think about any war that the United States is involved in, which started back with the Vietnam War.
Where are all the stories and how we handle the prisoners on Iwo Jima or throughout Europe and North Africa?
Let's see how we did it back in the World War II that we won.
Where's the context?
That's what you get on this program, folks, the truth.
You gotta have courage to face the truth, otherwise you will go batty.
You will go nuts.
Take a look at liberal Democrat websites for the evidence.
800-282-2882.
Here's my point, folks, however inarticulately made here.
The the liberals uh who who, you know, praised Brokaw's book, The Greatest Generation, they love to talk about the greatest generation, but they must not really accept it.
Certainly not when it comes to the brutality of war and how it must be fought to be won.
I mean, I'm not I'm not, I don't mean to be criticizing our treatment of POWs in World War II, but why aren't the liberals, since they demand lawyers and meals and Korans and all kinds of treatment uh uh to prisoners, why why aren't they looking back at what we did at World War II and criticizing that?
If the U.S. has an institutional problem with all this, why do they on the one hand cite World War II in the greatest generation and glowing terms, and yet take a look at what's going on now and condemn this country.
I maintain that the way we fought World War II, the losses that we incurred and the losses that we handed out, and the treatment that prisoners of war got, we in turn 110,000 Japanese.
What in the world are we doing today that comes even close to that?
Zilch zero Nada.
I don't know what we did to POWs in World War II, but I'll guarandam to you we didn't we didn't go out of their out of our way to make them feel comfortable to give them whatever they demanded and wanted.
We certainly didn't have lawyers come in and and uh uh give the the right to these people to be represented before U.S. courts of law.
We are allowing the debate over this war to be argued in the context of the anti-war mentality during Vietnam rather than the mentality that existed in World War II.
And I've always said that one of the things that worries me, and I've been saying this for 20 years, by the way, is that someday this country's gonna elect a president that has no memory in his lifetime of a United States victorious in war.
And it seems to me that that's what we've got here.
Forget the president in this case George W. Bush, we've got a whole generation whose template for war is Vietnam.
And that template includes we have to lose it, we cannot fight it, it's immoral, it's ignoble, it's unjust, it's all that rot gut.
We shouldn't be there, we're too powerful, it's not fair, we cheat, we're not honest.
All of these things, that's the template under which this war is being fought, but not any other war.
We don't go back and look.
It's it's no different than in your personal life.
If you have a dream, a career dream, or any other kind of dream, go talk to the people who've succeeded at it.
Why in the world you want to surround yourself with a bunch of failures and a bunch of embittered people who are only gonna tell you that you can't make it because they didn't, and it's not fair, and the business will eat you up and spit you out and this sort of stuff.
That's exactly what we're doing here.
We are listening to people who do not think we should win a war, who cannot, who think we cannot win a war, who think that we cannot do one fairly, who think that we cannot behave as civilized human beings.
That's the template under which both Iraq and this whole Gitmo and Abu Ghrab thing is taking place.
And it's being done on purpose.
The template that was created in the 1960s from the Vietnam War is what is animating the media today, the Democratic Party today, and it's why I asked last week, I don't understand.
Well, intellectually, I actually I do.
I I But it still is amazing to me how whenever a controversy arises around the world, how it is that so many people in this country can instinctively blame this country.
That whenever there is an open question about anything, the instinct is to point fingers of blame at us.
This country is to way too many people reviled and despised.
And I'm talking about people in this country.
I understand that we have enemies around the world.
We've got enough enemies within our own borders here that we have a real problem with this as well.
You know, some of these people who praise the greatest generation, some of the very people who are the most rejectionist when it comes to applying the values and standards of the greatest generation in fighting and winning a war.
If there's a template for winning a war, it's World War II.
If there's a template for losing a war or botching it, it's Vietnam.
Which template is being used today by the Democratic Party and the media.
And I, you know, you could argue I don't want to get in an argument over do we lose Vietnam or not, because I know that that's that's a that that's something that's open for debate as well.
But the PR spin, the image clearly is that we were humiliated and we got out of there and that we did not achieve victory.
And of course, in one sense, that has to be correct because we had all this genocide afterwards, and we have communism that reigned over North and South Vietnam and Pul Pot and Canadian in uh in Cambodia and then all that.
I I predicted that if the uh enemy combatant issue ever came to our court system that chaos would ensue, and it has, you cannot fight a war in court.
You cannot fight a war in court, particularly when you have too many liberal judges on the bench who are willing to insert and assert their power over the commander-in-chief.
When have we ever had lawyers for prisoners of war who can sue in federal court?
Where do we get that template?
When did that come from?
At Gitmo, they're not even garden variety POWs.
They're the worst of the worst.
They don't even receive the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
That's how bad they are.
They legally are not entitled to them, which were adopted after World War II.
I wonder why.
What do you think went on in World War II to cause the Geneva Conventions to come into action?
They're come into being.
And what do we do with these barbarians that are at Gitmo?
We have a federal judge who has ruled that they cannot be returned to their home countries unless we can guarantee they won't be tortured.
A federal judge, even if we close the place down, where are we gonna send them?
We can't send them back to their home countries unless we guarantee they won't be tortured.
How the hell can we guarantee that?
Especially when to the media and to the Democrats in this country, we are the sole architects of torture.
There is no other torture.
Oh, I know there are beheadings, but that's not torture.
These people are entitled, they're the enemy of the U.S. They're smaller.
They have to do what they have to do, Rush.
They have to do what they have to do because they're going up against the biggest superpower in the world that's ever known.
It's just, it's maddening.
And as this debate continues, I have to tell you I get frustrated that there's there's not more of an assertiveness on all this from high levels of the of the administration.
If we if we if we if we bring these these prisoners on uh U.S. territory, for remember, Gitmo is a leased base in perpetuity uh on on foreign soil.
If we bring them to the United States, for example, if we close Gitmo and have to move these people to the U.S., then all kinds of rights for these people kick in.
So we have all this talk about missed opportunities.
This is the 9-11 Commission report.
I cannot help but mention that within the context of all this.
We have all the talk about missed opportunities, how the FBI and the CIA didn't communicate, how they didn't connect the dots, how the intelligence was bad.
And we're going to take some of the best sources of information, the most violent Al-Qaeda types, and deny ourselves the ability to extract information from them.
It's just to me um, well, I say inexplicable, but it's not.
I totally understand it because I understand liberals.
And I understand their desire to defeat George Bush, no matter what the consequences for this country, no matter what the consequences to any individual in this country, meaning a soldier, male or female wearing the uniform of the United States.
Whatever it takes to beat Bush, whatever it takes, even if it means losing the war on terror.
Then I I keep hearkening back to the lament after 9-11.
The Democrats are all out there saying, Boy, you know, it's just too bad this didn't happen when Clinton was in office.
He didn't get a real challenge.
He didn't really get a real crisis here to define his presidency.
Even jealous of Bush that 9-11 happened on his watch.
Well, now that it happened, and now that Bush is trying to do something about it, guess who's trying to tie his hands.
We have some audio sound bites as well.
This Time Magazine story, they talked to the reporter who did the big article on Gitmo in Time Magazine.
And I've got some sound bites in this, and it's amazing.
Uh just just what this guy who wrote the article, just savaging us and how rotten things are and how Gitmo really works.
When you listen to this guy on television talk about it, why you wonder how the article could have gotten written the way it did.
Quick timeout, we'll be back, and I'll show you what I'm talking about right after this.
It's amaz I just it's amazing.
I just got an email.
Rush, we didn't treat those hundred and ten thousand Japanese harshly.
For crying out loud, for we didn't treat them harshly.
You're missing my point.
We in turned a bunch of American citizens that had nothing to do with Japan.
We FDR 110,000.
Oh, they weren't treated badly.
Uh this is not about treatment for crying out loud.
I think this is this is this is one little email sort of expresses uh uh or illustrates the dichotomy that we have here.
We have some phone calls coming up, but I think will too.
Now, the White House, according to Duncan Hunter, uh Congressman from California is split over whether to close Git Mall.
Uh and this this comes as Time magazine has its big uh big story about how horribly we're treating uh prisoners down there.
Duncan Hunter, Chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said that some members of the Bush administration wanted to close the camp to end a high profile debate over allegations of abuse at Guantanamo.
It's not gonna end anything.
If we close the base and press and everybody in the Democratic Party is gonna go nuts, say, see, Bush admits it we are inhumane, we are treating people rotten, and then we're gonna follow wherever these prisoners are sent, and we're gonna have press access to see how they're treated wherever we send them, or wherever we put them.
It's just gonna ramp it all up.
It's not it's not gonna, it's not gonna quell this or stop it.
Here's uh here's Brian Bennett.
Brian Bennett, the Washington correspondent for Time Magazine was on Fox this morning.
Edie Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Steve Deucey.
They're talking about the uh the log at Gitmo, the logs that are outlined in this week's issue of time.
And Steve Deucey says, What what are some of the things according to your report that the guys at Gitmo were doing to the captives?
For D Tane 063, um he was captain stress positions, uh, which is a technique that uh Rumsfeld himself had approved uh for you, specifically on this date, detainee and another couple of detainees.
Um he was chained to the floor in a sitting position for hours and hours on end, or made to stand for hours on end.
Um and you can see in in in the log that it's recorded that his limbs started to swell up.
Um uh a doctor was coming to check him out.
That's too bad.
I really feel bad about that.
Uh first off, his limbs started swelling up, but he did give up some other people among the 500 that were possible bodyguards for Bin Laden, correct?
Yes, he did.
And while his limbs were swollen, he he gave that up.
Yes, he did.
He gave up uh the names of uh of detainees that were also Guantanamo Bay that he said were members of Al Qaeda.
I thought this was supposed to be a story about how rotten we were behaving down there.
This is what goes on in war.
We got good information from the guy, and he ended up getting a doctor.
Next question from um uh uh Deucy says, Brian, do you have any evidence that anything the guards did now at Getmo or the interrogators did was against the law.
There's one technique which was um simulating suffocation by dripping water on the head that uh Rumsfeld had not approved, and there isn't a log um mention of uh constantly uh pouring bottles of water on the head of the detainee.
Um that is uh unclear exactly uh which techniques um had followed that course.
Oh man, folks, I'm so embarrassed.
How do we deal with this?
This is horrible.
This is unspeakable.
We poured water on these guys' heads.
We poured, I used to, you know what?
Maybe I ought to turn myself in to the Cape Girardo police because on Halloween, when I was a little kid, and I was 10 or 11 years old, when I got too old to go trick-or-treating because it just wasn't cool.
You know, I would camp upstairs in a bedroom window above the front step.
And when these little urchin trick-or-treaters would come in there in their, you know, humorous, wort, you know, rotten-looking little costumes, bamboo, I'd bomb them with water balloons.
Soon as my mom closed the door after handing out the candy, bamboo, there went the water balloons.
And I I struck gold a bunch of times.
My mom never even knew it either.
You know, because they ran off.
They didn't come back and tattle, they ran off.
By the time the next trick-or-treaters, it was dark out there.
My mother couldn't see the water stains on the sidewalk.
I must have done this for two hours.
I didn't know.
I was engaging in torture.
And I wasn't even trying to gain any information from these little kids.
I didn't even want to get the candy back that my mom had given them.
I just wanted to bomb them with water balloons, because I thought it was harmless little fun.
They were pretty big balloons.
I mean, but they're not not too big, but just big enough that uh maybe the size of a grapefruit.
Time you filled them up with water, just lob them out there.
Ps it was fun.
I can't believe this, folks.
Uh dripping water on the head.
Uh, and uh constantly pouring bottles of water.
You know, it's hot down there at Gitmo.
This might have actually felt good to these guys.
Here's Duncan Hunter.
He's on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
And he uh he has a little story here on how the guards are treating the detainees.
Uh in fact, what he hit what he's gonna read here is a menu.
The menu for the prisoners of war at Gitmo.
How do we treat these people?
I sent down yesterday for the menu from Guantanamo so that the average American could understand how we're brutalizing people in Guantanamo, and I've got it right here.
They're going to be having uh orange glazed chicken, uh fresh fruit group A, steamed peas and mushrooms, rice pea loaf, another form of torture for the uh for the hijackers.
We treat them very well.
If you go back to Sunday, it looks like it's lemon-baked fish as an entree.
And if you look at the food, and you also look at the list that we has been prepared for the Armed Services Committee, which lists abuses of the uh a way that you can abuse a prisoner, feeding them the food that we feed our soldiers, that is the MREs, which is the new sea rations, is considered actually to be a form of abuse, something probably the manufacturers of sea rations or the new rations don't agree with.
Precisely my point.
What our own military eats is considered abuse when given to uh a prisoner.
And these these are barbarians down there, folks.
These are these are not these are not just uh I mean there's a story out today.
Do you know there's even some miners?
We are holding some miners to get mo, how horrible.
There's a 12-year-old and a 14-year-old.
Does anybody remember the name Lee Boyd Malvo?
Lee Boyd Malvo was 16 when he was shooting people in the Washington sniper case.
I mean, I I it it's it's come to pass.
What I have feared has come to pass.
We just do not have apparently a significant number of people who were alive to remember an America victorious in war.
We have way too many people from the 60s generation whose template of war is the U.S. deserves to lose because the U.S. is institutionally corrupt and satanic and evil and mean.
And that's what's guiding all of this today.
Get out of Iraq.
It's not fair, it's not right.
We didn't find any WMDs, so we need to split.
Totally ignoring what's really going on there now, and then this Abu Grab and Gitmo stuff.
New York Times, what did I see today?
This is the first day since April that there has not been a front page story on Abu Grab.
I think that's I'll have to check this.
I'm not sure, but it's a long time.
There have been many consecutive days, front page stories, Abu Grab.
New York Times.
Quick timeout, we'll be back after this.
So we are pouring water on the heads of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
At least they still had their heads.
Try to keep this stuff in context.
How about all you football and baseball players that have given your coaches Gatorade showers?
Did you know that you were engaging in torture out there?
There will be fines in the NFL, I'm sure, for this in the upcoming season.
We'll be back and continue right after this break at the top.
▲
Export Selection