All Episodes
Previous Next
June 14, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
June 14, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, based on my email today and based on my email last night, I am going to shock a lot of you people today.
Based on my email today and last night, a lot of you are going to be stunned and filled with wonderment and disbelief.
And some of you might even be angry at me.
But you know me.
I've never moistened my finger and put it in the air to figure out what you want me to say.
And I'm not going to start today.
Greetings and welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the award-winning Thrill Pact Ever exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds, Rush Limbaugh program, where nearly as many Americans consider me to be a journalist as they do Bob Woodward.
Did you see this in the Washington Post today on the AP?
Here's a telephone number, by the way, 800-282-2882, the email address, rush at EIBnet.com.
So I'm sitting here yesterday afternoon and minding my own business.
I'm bothering nobody.
And I get this email from the PR people.
And they say that our old buddy Will Lester at the Associated Press wants a comment on this latest Annenberg survey that shows 27% of the people in America consider me a journalist.
55% don't, and something like 17% don't know.
And 30% think Bob Woodward is, and 55% don't know, and 17% think he's not, or what have you.
And they wanted my comments on this.
And then Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post sent me an email shortly after and wanted my comments on this.
And I sat around.
They both gave me about a half hour to react to it if I wanted to react to it.
And I thought, well, I was conflicted.
I was really conflicted.
I mean, I'm not a journalist.
I've never pretended to be a journalist.
For one thing, I laugh.
And for one thing, I enjoy life.
You know, I'm not dour.
I'm not filled with doom and gloom.
And I'm not a pessimist.
And I don't dislike the country.
And I don't suspect my country's guilty every time there's some sort of international conflict.
I don't know.
I'm not a journalist, but I am America's anchorman.
I am America's anchorman.
For nearly 17 years, I've been doing play-by-play of the news here.
And so I wrote them that.
I said, I'm America's.
I'm not surprised.
I'm America's anchorman.
I've been doing play-by-play of the news for 17 years.
And I think this is just further evidence that the monopoly-like existence of the old media is finished.
And then Kathleen Hall Jameson, who is the dean of the Annenberg School, runs this division, said that there's a huge disconnect out there between what the American people consider a journalist to be and what journalists consider a journalist to be.
And I said, that's right.
And I said, I think the journalists, the mainstream media ought to really heed her warnings and try to understand how the viewers and readers of their work see them these days.
But I mean, to be considered a journalist, I never wanted to be a journalist.
I'm an advocate.
I'm a commentator.
I mean, I do so much more than just journalism.
I mean, I do tell people things they don't know.
I mean, that is the strict definition of a journalist.
I even looked it up in the dictionary just to be sure.
You never know what the dictionary definition of a term is going to be these days.
And it said somebody who writes news for broadcast on radio or TV.
So the broadcasters themselves are not journalists.
The people who write it are.
So the people who put the teleprompter together for the evening news anchors are the journalists.
Well, that's according to the dictionary definition.
But anyway, you can count on the fact that our buddies in journalism, they are...
No, it did include...
People who write for newspapers were automatically included, but it said people who write for radio and TV broadcasts.
It didn't say broadcasters or journalists, but people who write for them.
But I mean, it was a foregone conclusion that reporters and so forth are journalists.
But I just know the mainstream press is pulling its hair out over this.
What really got him, 40% said Bill O'Reilly is a journalist.
And that's going to really tee him off, especially when Woodward chimes in there with like 30% to consider him a journalist.
And a whole bunch don't know, and a whole bunch disagree and don't think that he is.
Nevertheless, that's out there.
Drudge has linked to the Washington Post version of this, the Howard Kursk story.
And the AP has got it floating around on all their various links out there that you can find at various newspaper sites and so forth.
All right.
Now, let me move on to something here, folks.
I did not watch, I mean, I'm sorry, I did not talk about the Michael Jackson trial on this show, except for a few scant references.
And they're hardly even worth remembering here.
They were so few and they were so small.
I mean, I made a comment about how long the jury was out, how hard the jury was working, but I, you know, we didn't talk about it.
No Michael Jackson none of the time was our philosophy here.
Because you can see it anywhere else you want to go.
And I said, just didn't talk about it.
But I watched it.
I watched a lot of the coverage at night.
I watched some of the television shows that devoted themselves to analyzing the day's activities.
And then as the verdict was announced yesterday, or as we were told that a verdict was going to be announced, here came the emails from all my friends.
Or hey, Rush, what do you think happens?
And I said, the worst, this is what I replied to people.
The worst that's going to happen is he's going to get convicted on a misdemeanor for giving Jesus juice in Coke cans to kids, you know, the alcohol to minors.
But I said, he's not going to be convicted on a conspiracy.
He's not going to be convicted on a lewd behavior.
He's not going to be convicted on any of that.
And people wrote me, why?
Have you watched this?
He's guilty.
I said, if you ask me, this has been one of the dumbest prosecutions I've ever seen.
I said, this, this, he may be guilty.
I'm not arguing whether he's innocent, but I'm telling you that the prosecutors out there did not prove this case in any way, shape, manner, or form.
And I have to tell you, I'm proud of this jury.
I think this jury did a fabulous job of looking at the evidence they were presented.
You know, even in California, there's a relatively new law that lets the prosecution include 10-year-old, 20-year-old news if it relates to the alleged behavior.
And the jury ignored that, which I think is proper too, because it had nothing to do with this case.
He was not being charged for a pattern of behavior.
He was being charged on specific things.
And it was overcharged.
There were way too many counts.
It was just, it was over the top.
But the point I want to make to you is this.
Every time, and I didn't watch it all, but every time I did watch, and I'm not going to name names because it's not the point that I want to make.
But every time I did watch on TV the analysis of the day's events in court, there's a huge disconnect here between what's happening and what these people are seeing.
They would report what happened.
They would report that the mother had testified.
They would report the kid had testified.
The kid changed his story five times.
The mother was a totally unlikable person.
And yet at the end of each program, Jackson was going to fry.
Jackson was guilty.
They were excited.
They wanted Jackson to go to jail.
They were already making plans to find out what his jail cell would be like and so forth.
And folks, this is an important point here.
Because if you watched last night, you had to see that all these pundits were just stunned.
They couldn't believe it.
And you know something, folks?
I'm going to tell you, the same people who thought that the Terry Shivo judge and all the legal proceedings in that case were ideal and made perfect sense are the same people today saying that the court system in California has gone to hell.
It doesn't make any sense.
There's a huge disconnect out there.
All of these pundits that I saw got it wrong.
No one that I saw in the media represented what we heard from that jury in their interview last night.
The jury told us why they decided the way they did.
Throughout the period of time that I was watching coverage of this, I didn't hear one reaction from, well, I can't say I didn't watch it all, and there may be some pundits that got it, but I mean, based on last night, none of them did.
We didn't hear during the course of the trial one bit of analysis of the day's testimony, be it from the mother or whoever, that we heard from the jury.
The jury's interpretation of what they saw was 180 degrees out of phase with what the media, the punditry, was telling us happened in that courtroom.
And many of those people were not even in the courtroom as they were offering their punditry.
Some of them were, but some of them weren't.
It has been my contention that big media, mainstream media, is woefully out of touch with mainstream America.
And you know we've talked about this before.
We've even made jokes about the fact that the mainstream media has got to send foreign correspondents to Missouri and Arkansas to find out what's going on in the red states of their own country.
Every time there's an election, the mainstream pedia is stunned.
They thought Kerry was going to walk away with this election in 2004.
Whenever Bush does well, whenever polling data comes out that goes against their conventional wisdom, they're stunned.
And I'm just telling you, there is a huge disconnect.
And it was never more obvious than in this Jackson trial.
If ever a group of people were just aligned in an out of touch and off-base manner, it is the vast majority of the media that covered this trial.
They just don't see things the way average people do, the way average citizens do.
And I know some of you people are just like him.
Some of you out there think Jackson should fry, that this is a miscarriage of justice, that celebrity carried the day.
But you're wrong about this.
This jury did its job for once.
This is a jury that for once did its job.
It looked at the evidence and it said to the prosecution, you have brought forth a bunch of people we can't believe.
He may be guilty.
And I think some of the jurors think he is based on some of their comments.
I wouldn't let my daughter go up there.
One of those jurors said that.
But still, the case wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
The witnesses that they brought forth were obviously sharks and hucksters.
This whole family, if you ask me, charges need to be filed against this mother.
And she needs to be put on trial for what she just did to the court system out there.
I mean, I think this is so back-ass words out there that it's just uncanny.
And the fact that not one pundit that I saw had this view of things is astounding to me.
And I had this view of things all along.
We didn't talk about it here because, you know, we don't talk about these celebrity things.
We've got more serious things to do.
But this, folks, is about something we talk about on this program constantly, and that's the media and are they in touch or out of touch?
I just, I looked at that jury last night.
This jury was just a bunch of average, honest people, and they don't live on the same planet as the media machine in this country does.
They just don't.
It was stunning.
A friend of mine sent me a quote last night from a former Los Angeles Times and New York Times reporter and editor who has since left the business.
And this is what person had to say.
That's what I learned being on the other side of the story.
There was little reflection of reality.
And that's why I'm out of journalism.
I no longer respect the profession.
Everyone should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
And that last line has to do with the media and the Jackson trial.
It was you talk about watching something with prejudice.
These people did.
And then you watch their commentary.
And whether it, you know, I don't know how much you're aware it might have influenced you, but clearly, those of you who think that this jury screwed up, you had to be influenced by somebody because I don't know any of you that were in the courtroom.
And I don't know any of you who saw all the testimony or trial.
You know, a juror said she believed the mother had taught her children to lie to gain money or favors from celebrities.
She said, as a mother, the values that she's taught her kids, it's hard for me to comprehend, the juror said.
I wouldn't want any of my children to lie for their own gain.
I didn't hear one pundit ever address that fact during the course of the trial, that the mother was out there lying and setting her kids up to go out and run a scam.
The only question that I ever got from the media was, oh, wow, are they going to be able to convict Michael Jackson?
Can he withstand this assault?
It's sort of like when the press accuses Bush of forging documents.
They never go out and question whether or not that's true.
They assume that it is and ask can Bush survive it.
It's the same thing here.
But the disconnect, the disconnect between the punditry that covered this, the mainstream media, the media people that covered this, and the jury is just, folks, it's telling, and it is exactly what we talk about on this program every day.
I got to go because I'm long in this segment.
We will be back.
We will continue in mere moments.
Stay with us.
All right.
Welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh here, executing assigned host duties flawlessly.
Zero mistakes.
Come to you from the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Let me grab a phone call.
Bob in Meadville, Pennsylvania.
You're next.
And actually, you're first.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Ditto to you.
Thank you very much.
I'd like your take on the prosecutor.
His name is, I believe, is Thomas Sneddon, I believe it is.
I'd like to know your take on that.
The media is saying there's a lot of, there's a vendetta there.
And I'm just like to hear your take on that.
Thank you.
I don't, I don't, well, I don't know Mr. Sneddon, and I don't, I couldn't, I can't.
That's my point.
I can't comment on his motives.
I haven't the slightest idea what his motives are.
I don't know him.
All I can tell you is that the case he brought didn't convince a bunch of average citizens in his county.
And he, you know, I heard his press conference yesterday afternoon, and he said, we don't have a vendetta.
We do things that we always do.
Somebody brings us evidence and we look at it.
We look at it, see if we can get a conviction on it.
It makes sense to bring it to trial.
I don't know how you get past these people that were the prime witnesses.
It's a mystery to me.
But whether he's on a vendetta or not, who knows?
I don't even want to speculate on something like that.
I haven't the slightest idea.
All I know is the trial took place, and there was commentary on this trial each and every day.
And when the verdict came out, the jurors had a take on this trial that none of the media did.
And I think there's a huge disconnect here.
And I think, folks, it's a bit, and remember, most of the pundits were not in the courtroom.
Some of them were, but most of them were not in the courtroom, the ones that were telling us, not on a daily basis.
The jurors all were.
And it just, I think this disconnect between the mainstream press, whatever branch of it you want.
I mean, even in sports, I think there may be a disconnect in sports journalism and average people.
But it's noteworthy to me.
And that is the reason I brought it all up.
Bob and Meadville, thanks to the call.
This is Rob in Toledo.
You're next, sir.
Hello, and welcome to the EIB Network.
Rush, it was refreshing to know that Michael could get a fair trial amongst his peers and that Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton aren't out complaining this morning that he didn't get a fair trial.
I thought about that too.
When this was over, I said, you know, if we had a, I don't know what to characterize this, but look, Jesse Jackson and the race industry ought to be happy about this and they ought to be able to acknowledge that some movement has been gained.
They tried to make this a race trial.
It never was.
Race was never a factor here.
And it had nothing to do with it at any point.
And so, yeah, the Reverend Jackson, but he was still on television all night last night talking about it.
He was still all over the place offering his opinions on what Michael Jackson needs to do in the future and forth.
Look, folks, I don't want to spend time talking about the trial or any of that.
I just wanted to share with you this one observation.
And I wanted to use the opening moments of the program here to do it because it is consistent totally with everything we discuss on this program.
Just to me, especially watching the punditry last, they were angry.
There was livid rage among some of these people on television last night that Michael Jackson was not convicted.
And, you know, prosecutors have a whole lot of power.
They really do.
And the jury system is the equalizer.
And in this case, we've had so many trials, the OJ trial and others, where the jury was seen to just be a bunch of dolts and idiots and goofed everything up.
I just wanted to share with you, I think this jury did a great job.
Now, this is my opinion, too, as a journalist and as a commentator and as a cultural analyst, as a play-by-play man of the news.
You know, my version of this is the evidence was weak.
And I don't know whether, you know, the verdict then is not guilty.
It's not innocent.
The verdict is not innocent.
It's not guilty.
That means they didn't prove it.
I don't know if he did it or not, which is not the point.
They didn't have the case.
They didn't make the case.
And this is one of those times where you're happy to see that somebody who didn't make the case was held accountable for it.
We'll come back.
All the other exciting stuff of the news right after this.
There's some fireworks yesterday and this morning involving Gitmo, and it just continued tonight.
We've got audio soundbites of much of it.
And you have to hear this stuff.
This is especially when we get to it.
Michael Duffy, a Time magazine reporter this morning on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, admits that journalists don't pick sides in the war because they can't as journalists.
They can't show bias.
Don't pick sides my rear end.
We know which side they've picked.
It's rather damned obvious.
And you talk about a disconnect.
Here are American journalists saying, well, well, we're journalists.
We can't pick sides in the conflict.
Yeah, right.
You talk about a disconnect.
They are Americans and they can't pick sides in a war.
We'll get to all that.
I want to start with Dingy Harry.
Late yesterday afternoon, a press conference on Capitol Hill, Dingy Harry says that Gitmo has humiliated the country.
From the time of Abu Ghraib, this country has been embarrassed and by many minds humiliated.
And Guantanamo is just another series of problems that we have with the whole Iraq policy.
Wrong, Dingy Harry.
Senator Reed, it is you and your fellow Democrats who are humiliating this country by giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
You are the ones who are humiliating this country.
Gitmo, Abu Ghraib have not humiliated the country.
Americans are not humiliated about this.
You acting humiliated and upset and apologetic for it all over the world are accomplishing what you fear.
You are humiliating the country.
It's just, by the way, you know, I read there was a piece today, some guy who writes for, where did this appear?
It might have been the L.A. Times who writes for Slate.
Don't remember his name.
His point is, you know, Rush, this Abu Grab, he said this Abu Ghraib stuff, that's Gitmo, rather, Gitmo, that's club med compared to other U.S. prisons.
He said the prison at Bagram and a couple of others is worse than anything.
And we really, we got to close them all.
We got to shut them all down.
We got to reform the whole prison system because Gitmo is actually not the worst of them all.
But reporters aren't allowed in these other places.
And because reporters aren't allowed in these other places, they just don't know.
But it's real mean at other you.
There's one on Diego Garcia that's really, really bad.
And the one at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan that's really, really bad.
I don't know.
If reporters can't get in, you tell me.
I don't know how they know either.
In fact, folks, I'm going to tell you something for you evangelical Christians and white Christians and you Republican Christians, after everything I heard yesterday from Duncan Hunter about Gitmo, we may want to go there.
We may actually want to go there.
Actually, you could post the Ten Commandments on the wall.
Look at the food they're serving down there.
And you could pray four or five times a day.
You can have church service, all that.
I mean, you can do all kinds of things at Gitmo that you can't do in this country.
Religiously, I mean.
I mean, Gitmo may actually be a great vacation spot for oppressed Christians in the United States.
Head down there and be free to practice your religion.
I mean, we need to look at this through a different prism.
Here's more of Pat Leahy.
Senator DePenz took to the Senate floor yesterday to say that Gitmo is a threat to our security.
Guantanamo Bay, in addition to Abu Gharib, is a national disgrace and international embarrassment to us, to our country's ideals.
It's also a festering threat to our security.
This is an absolute joke.
Well, okay, they're on the same page.
And what's happened here, folks, is that the talking point has gone out.
All the faxes have gone out to these people, and they're just not going to get off of this.
Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, what have you.
Now let's move on to Duncan Hunter.
This is after the program yesterday, and this was going on about the same time that the media was buzzing, buzzing, buzzing about the upcoming Jackson verdict.
And so you probably haven't seen this.
You probably haven't heard about this.
Yesterday we had audio soundbites for you of Duncan Hunter, Armed Services Committee Chairman in the House of Representatives.
He's from California.
He was talking about the menus down there, how great the food is at Gitmo.
Well, yesterday, he speaks about the need to keep open the prison at Gitmo, gives examples and samples of the food served to the prisoner.
He actually set a table for the media of the actual food that we are giving prisoners down there.
We have a couple of sound bites.
I've got two of the entrees.
One is the oven-fried chicken right here.
This is the oven-fried chicken entree.
It has broccoli, it has peas and mushrooms, it has rice, it has pita bread, and it has two types of fruit.
This is what Osama bin Laden's bodyguards will eat several times a cycle, several times a week.
This is lemon chicken, rice, broccoli, carrots, bread, and two types of fruit.
Duncan Hunter then continued this another portion of his remarks.
So I wanted to see if there's any of my great press corps here, maybe Otto Kreischer from my hometown who would like to participate with me.
And, Otto, you can either have the lemon fish or you can have the oven-fried chicken with double vegetables and two types of fruit.
And maybe you'd like to have – remember that lunch I always promised you, Otto?
Well, now is the time.
And before we proceed with that lunch, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Okay, so he got some questions.
A snotty little reporter asks Hunter if he thinks they're being treated too well.
The reporter says, since they're being treated so well, according to the information that you've been getting, you feel that maybe they shouldn't be treated so well?
What I don't like is the idea that they are being treated well, and yet the story is being given that somehow they are being abused.
They are not being abused.
They are being treated well.
We've gone to great lengths to take care of them and to give them food which is consistent with their religious practices.
At the end of Ramadan, we give them for a breaking of the fast honey and dates because that is their traditional breaking of the fast.
Now that's in the tradition of Muhammad.
So they are treated exceptionally well.
And I think it's appropriate that we set the record straight on this.
I tell you, well, the more I hear about this, it sounds like a great place to go.
Particularly if you're suffering religious oppression here in your own country.
This Gitmo sounds like the place to go, folks.
More from Duncan Hunter.
This next question was from his reporter pal, Otto, who he invited up to share in this feast.
Hunter says, what is it, the lemon fish or the oven-fried chicken?
Which torture are you going to take from Guantanamo?
And the reporter replies, with the question is whether you're going to put me in prison to go along with the meal.
Part of the problem is the American system is based on justice, and none of these people have been given a trial.
None of them have been convicted of anything, and yet they're in unlimited incarceration.
Is that a form of illegal punishment?
Osama bin Laden's bodyguards have been picked up on battlefields.
Mr. Khatani has given us enough information that we know that he was the 20th hijacker.
He was at that airport to meet Mohamed Atta, to drive those planes into those buildings in New York and in the Pentagon and kill thousands of Americans.
So we know who he is.
Now, once again, of the people who have been released, and quite a few of them have been released, 12 of them have shown up on battlefields shooting back at Americans.
This is exactly what I mean.
The disconnect.
Here you have this reporter who's just been shown the lavish meal options that these prisoners are getting.
He's, yeah, yeah, yeah, but it's meals in jail.
You think they ought to be in jail?
They haven't even been charged.
They don't have any trials.
It's a war for crying out loud.
Where does this disconnect come from?
These are not people been picked off the streets of the United States of America on some petty charge of being locked up for two years.
These are enemy combatants picked up on the battlefield.
These are people, this guy particularly we're talking about, the 20th hijacker.
And we're worried about the fact the guy's getting great food in jail.
This is a classic illustration of a whole disconnect I'm talking about.
The average American watching this press conference or listening to it replayed on this program today doesn't understand this reporter's question at all and gets aggravated and angered by it because this reporter doesn't have the ability to see what's actually in front of his face.
Instead, he's got an altered sense of reality based on his template as a journalist.
And his template as a journalist is that we're doing something wrong.
America's breaking some law.
America's violating somebody's humanity.
America is violating somebody's civil rights.
Even if we are feeding them like it's Thanksgiving every day, they're still being fed in jail.
What right do we have to put these people in jail?
A 20th hijacker captured on the battlefield, confessed, doesn't seem to permeate or penetrate the boundary that this reporter has.
Up next, last night, this is the news hour with Jim Olara and reporter Jeffrey Brown interviewed Adam Zagoran of Time magazine.
And Brown says, there were some moments when things get quite tense.
He's made to bark like a dog at one point.
Yeah, there's a lot of more than tense moments.
Anger.
There's even violence.
He lashes out at them.
At one point, they're giving him involuntarily fluids, intravenous fluids, because he's refusing liquids.
And so he actually bites the IV tube in half at one point.
They restrain him.
And you get a lot of conflict.
He gets angry.
He yells.
At other times, he cries.
He cries repeatedly through the log.
So here you have another one, a huge disconnected Time magazine reporter lamenting the anger and conflict during the interrogation of the 20th hijacker and reveals that at one point the terrorist cried.
He's refusing fluids, so we give him an IV.
That's a humane thing to do.
If he's refusing fluids and we give him an IV, he doesn't want the fluids.
He doesn't want to be able to talk.
He doesn't want to be cogent.
This is just amazing.
One more with this guy.
The reporter for the news arwa Jim Olara says, one tactic was to have a female interrogator with him.
Yeah, it's not clear the extent to which she's present in every scene because the interrogators, by the way, work in shifts.
So he's always on, but they work in shifts.
The female interrogator enters his personal space.
It's not clear what that means in every case, but he objects to it very, very strongly.
And at one point, he actually threatens to commit suicide rather than have this woman violate his personal space.
Well, this is...
I can't believe that we are capable of such under-the-table tactics, folks.
You believe this, that one tactic was to have a female interrogator with him?
Well, we can't offend them because women don't count as human beings to these animals.
Women aren't human beings to these barbarians.
And so we can't offend the 20th hijacker by bringing a woman in his space.
And we're going to write a story in Time magazine about how dirty rotten the United States is because we deign to do things like this.
It's not clear the extent to which he's present in every scene because the interrogators work in shifts.
So he's always on, but they work in shifts.
The female interrogator enters his personal space.
It's not clear what that means in every case, but he objects to it very, very strongly.
Well, so what?
Anyway, I'm letting you hear all this.
I want you to hear all this because this is simply a tremendous ongoing illustration of the huge disconnect there is between journalists in this country and average citizens.
We'll be back after this.
Don't go away.
You know, this guy, Katani, the 20th hijacker.
This guy's getting better treatment than Terry Shaivo got.
I kid you not, folks.
This guy's being treated more humanely than Terry Shaivo was treated.
And yes, I mean every syllable of that.
I want to know how it is that the lawyers for these terrorists didn't notice the food that their clients are receiving.
I want to know how is it that Amnesty International missed this?
How is it the reporters who've been there didn't report the way these prisoners are being fed, the way their religious needs are being met?
How is it that Mike Issakoff and Newsweek did not know this?
And if Duncan Hunter knows this, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, all the other political ambulance chasers know this, yet they demand we shut down the place rather than helping to explain the truth about the treatment.
Now we have to add political correctness to interrogations because we can't let females interrogate these militant Islamists.
I'm going to tell you something, folks.
If we are hit again, if we are hit again, we need to hold these people in our country who are undermining our efforts responsible.
It ain't going to be the FBI's fault next time.
It isn't going to be the CIA's fault next time.
It isn't going to be some bureaucracy's fault next time.
It's going to be the fault of politicians, left-wing groups, and the like who have names and identities and spend their every waking moment trying to obstruct our ability to secure intelligence information for our own national security.
You want some names?
Leahy, Biden, Durbin, Boxer, Kennedy, Reed, Newsweek, Time, The New York Times, Amnesty International.
If we get hit again, these are the names of the people and organizations we need to look at when we're trying to find out why and how it happened.
And I'll tell you something else about this Gitmo business.
It's time to use a little absurdity here.
Time to be absurd to illustrate some.
We need to shut down this Gitmo prison.
Well, don't shut it down.
We just need to start an advertising campaign.
We need to call it Gitmo, the Muslim Resort.
Any resort that treated people like this would have ads all over the New York Times trying to get people to come down and visit for some R ⁇ R, for some rest and relaxation.
Any resort promotion would brag about its amenities that cater to the need of its guest.
Anything better than diet, Qurans, prayer rugs?
I mean, where else can Muslims go in the world to find everything they need?
There's no better place than Gitmo, Club Gitmo, the Muslim resort.
The infidels have Club Med.
Why don't the believers get their own Club Gitmo?
It sounds like we've put one together for them.
It's a one-of-a-kind resort on the west coast of Cuba, overlooking the bay.
Every visitor, every check-in at no charge, gets a new Koran, a new prayer rug, Muslim chefs, Muslim dietary laws, five prayer sessions a day.
Club Gitmo has been endorsed by Amnesty International.
It's a tropical paradise down there where Muslim extremists and terrorist wannabes can get together for rest and relaxation.
I mean, that's the way to portray this for crying out loud.
Do I have time for this bite?
Yeah, Michael Duffy, C-SPAN Today, Washington Journal, caller says, what are you, what you're, I don't have time.
Well, I don't have to.
The question here is going to take me 30 seconds to read.
So I'm going to save these three Duffy bites.
Duffy from Time magazine, he admits that most journalists are not on either side in the war.
He then says that this 20th hijacker is weirdly innocent, that these hijackers are just misguided kids.
And he doesn't understand why people think he feels sorry for the terrorists.
That's a summary of what's coming in these next three bites.
Let me take a quick time out here.
I need to get together with a pamphleteer.
We need to put together on our website a great brochure for Club Gitmo.
You know, to just open this place up as a militant Islamist resort.
Let's be honest about what the place is.
Back.
And then your personal valet and chef, Harry Reid.
And then Patrick Leahy will come down and deliver your Quran to you personally.
We'll be back after this.
These lefties and their groups, they try to create the impression closing Gitmo is bipartisan when two Republican senators, Hegel and Martinez, are the only two to suggest that it be closed.
Truth is, folks, conditions at Gitmo are better than conditions in most of the areas of the Middle East these people are from.
In fact, these people probably have it better off than Martha Stewart had it in a federal pen.
▲
Export Selection