All Episodes
Previous Next
June 22, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:40
June 22, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
No, I will not resign.
No, I will not resign.
Kofi Annan speaks for Dick Durbin and the Democrat Party.
Greetings.
Hey, welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, America's Anchorman, America's Truth Detector, America's Play-By Playman of the News from the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I promise we will get to your phone calls in this hour.
Our podcasting continues.
Club Gitmo open at the rushlimbaugh.com.
Actually, we've got a brochure there for Club Getmo if you want to check in.
If you're a jihadist looking for some R ⁇ R, he'll enjoy the amenities and the whole layout of the place.
As well as the Club Gitmo gift shop, in addition to four t-shirts, we've added a Club Gitmo cap and Club Gitmo coffee mug, Java Jihad, or Jihad, Java.
It's all there at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
I just want to explain the media angle in all of this, this Durbin business, as well.
If you missed the first hour, it's too bad.
Can't repeat the whole thing, but you got to find a way to get it.
If you're a podcaster, it'll be easy.
If not, you'll be able to access it, certain aspects of it, at rushlimbaugh.com when we update the site later this afternoon to reflect the contents of today's show.
It's kind of like what's happening here with this Ed Klein book.
It's exactly what I predicted is happening.
The media is creating a backlash about this book before the book even comes out.
The book came out yesterday.
This Klein guy is having a tough time getting on TV for any interviews.
The press is not curious about what he's saying.
They're circling the wagons trying to defend Hillary.
But in addition to that, and this is where the similarity of the Durban business comes in, in addition to that, a whole bunch of conservative pundits are out there in a race to see who can be first to impress the mainstream media that they are not right-wing weckles.
Hello, I don't abide this book.
They don't lump me in with Limbaugh and those other guys.
And I haven't said a word about the book.
One little reference two weeks ago.
The contents of the book are irrelevant to me at this point because I'm going to tell you what's going to happen, folks.
It doesn't matter what the book says.
The book is going to make Hillary even bigger.
The book is going to turn her in the way this culture works.
She's going to become an even bigger celebrity.
She's going to become a bigger star out of all of this.
Whatever's in the book is irrelevant because the press is not going to care to look into it as if it were a book about me or Tom DeLay or Bill Frist or George W. Bush or anybody, any other conservative.
If it were a book about one of us, man, oh man, it wouldn't be circling any wagons.
And probably a bunch of conservative pundits would be joining the media and saying, oh, this is serious allegations.
We need to look into this.
Because there's a certain element of the conservative punditry that lives and works in Washington, and they don't want to be thought of as any other than Uber intellectuals.
They don't want to be thought of as reactionary right-wingers.
And so they're in a race here to see which one of them can be first to the finish line to show people in the mainstream press that they have grown and that they don't like what's happening in this Hillary book at all.
Certain pundits, media outlets on our side, trying to establish their own objectivity and credentials with the left, not with the American people, by pouncing on this book.
But it never works, folks.
It never works unless you keep it up, like John McCain does.
McCain, if he didn't make a career out of going on TV and savaging Republicans, they wouldn't love him.
But he can't just do it once because you do it once.
You're not going to impress the left because in the liberal mind, conservatives are always going to be, like Dick Durbin believes, Nazis, Stalinists, and communists.
That's what the lib thinks of us.
And nothing we can do.
I ought to run a test for one week.
I don't think you all have put up with it, even if you knew in advance.
I ought to become one of these conservatives that I'm talking about.
Just for a week, just for a week.
And just see if it created any love and adoration.
Hey, what's going on with Limbaugh?
Any praise from leftist quarters?
You don't know how often I've been tempted to try this.
The only reason I don't is because I don't think you all would put up with it, even if you were in on the joke.
Because, oh, yeah, we'd have to alert the affiliates because it all hell would, I mean, when I endorsed Clinton back in 92, we nearly lost some radio stations, and I nearly had to cancel a couple appearances on the Rush to Excellence tour because people wanted to tearing up their tickets and wanting their money back, you know, before I'd even shown up.
So it would be a risk.
But for example, do you think John McCain's the only prisoner of war from Vietnam?
You think he's the only member of the United States Senate has any experience as a prisoner of war?
Yet McCain is the only POW the lib media gives any attention to.
They haven't gone to talk to Sam Johnson or Jeremiah Denton or scores of other POWs about Gitmo or any of it.
Only McCain, because McCain serves their purposes.
The lib media didn't ask George Allen or Jeff Sessions or John Kyle or anybody else what they thought of Durbin's so-called apology because these are mainstream conservative Republicans whose answers the mainstream press would not like.
And they wouldn't be able to write their story if they went out and got comments.
But if it, like in Trent Watt's apology, bamo, every liberal group and even an ex-governor, Ma Richards, was contacted.
Then quaisium Fume and in the Congressional Black Caucus and in Maxine Waters and then the Reverend Docs and everybody else under the sun, including McCain.
What did you think of Watt's apology?
They go out and ask everybody on the right when some guy on the right steps in it, man, they want everybody on the left to react to it.
I haven't seen one story where they've gone around and asked any Republican, what do you think of Durbin's apology?
Likewise, I haven't seen anybody, the mainstream press, go ask anybody but McCain, what do you think of Durbin's Gitmo analogy?
They didn't even take Mayor Daly's comments and seek input from any of the 44 Democrats and the two Independents in the Senate and ask them if they share his view.
You had Daly say what he said yesterday.
Did you see the press go, Senator?
Senator Reed, what do you think of what Mayor Daly said today about Senator Durbin?
Senator Kennedy, did you hear what Mayor Daly said?
You didn't see this, did you?
And you won't see it.
And you know why you didn't see it?
Because it wouldn't lend itself to the story that they want to write.
Because the media is trying to influence policy and debate, not only by what they report, but how they report and what they don't report.
Now, you take a look at this book.
Go back to this Klein book.
Here you've got a book by a guy that used to be the editor of the New York Times, Sunday magazine, and an editor at Newsweek.
He's got great liberal credentials.
The media circling the wagons, trying to destroy this book before anybody's ever read it, not doing one bit of investigative journalism on their own into it, not curious about anything that might be in it.
And yet Michael Moore can put together the most outrageously incorrect demagogic film called a documentary.
And the media, ooh, what's this?
We've got to dig deep.
What is more found here?
And we've got to, and then we've got to get more in here.
We've got to talk to him about this.
We've got to ask him what this is all about.
We've got to amplify this.
Or some half-baked liberal comedian will write a book that's factually incorrect and will get six months of mileage out of it.
And then they'll run around and they'll ask Republicans, what do you think of the Michael Moore movie?
What do you have to say, Congressman X, about that charge?
And what do you have to say about the allegation in that part of the movie, Senator X?
It just, but the Swiftboat vets come out, circle the wagons, destroy the Swiftboat vets, attack the messenger.
At any rate, we are different than the Democrats, our friends will say, so we should never embrace somebody like a Michael Moore or whatever.
But Joe Klein is just an author.
Why trash him?
Or not Joe Klein, but Ed Klein.
He's just an author.
Why trash him with such intensity unless motivated by self-promotion with the libs?
He's just an author, but boy, this guy's got to be destroyed.
Michael Moore hoisted, elevated, sitting at the right hand of Jimmy the Earl Carter at the Democrat convention.
Here comes Ed Klein.
He's never going to get another cocktail invitation to Tina Brown's house.
He's going to be persona non grata.
Liz Smith syndicated columns will single-handedly destroy this guy with columns and questions.
How could he do this?
What happened to Ed Klein, who used to do such good work?
And there'll be questions raised about, are there emotional problems?
Are there other problems we don't know about?
Did maybe he get funding from Richard Mellon Scape?
All this rot gut that you can predict.
Just an author, but he's being trashed with such intensity.
He's written books about the Kennedys.
Why didn't our folks trash him for that?
He's written a lot of books about the Kennedys, folks.
And I don't remember the conservative punditry being the first in line to say, I just disavow.
I can't believe.
I don't want anybody to think that I had anything to do with this book.
And I don't support this book.
Why now?
He's really savage, the Kennedys, this guy has.
But now it's Hillary, the next queen, the next president of the United States.
And I'm not defending him, folks.
I'm just talking to you about, I don't even know him.
I'm just talking by, this is how I observe things.
It's just, it's so stark you can't help but notice it.
I am poking at those who are taking cheap shots.
I don't view Mrs. Clinton as a victim.
My God, she's at the top of the big leagues in all this.
She knows what this is all about.
She should be able to defend herself, but she's not even half, she didn't even have to defend herself.
She's got the whole mainstream press apparatus out there circling the wagons around her and making sure that she didn't even get touched, not even asking her for a comment about it.
And from our side, just my perspective, the attacks on this Klein guy from the conservative side seem way out of proportion to me.
Imagine if Gary Aldrich's book came out now.
Imagine, I wonder if conservatives would start trashing him.
But there's, and here's an FBI agent.
Hello, Mark Felt, Gary Aldrich, working in the White House.
Here's what I saw going on in there with Bill Clinton.
The clause came out.
And Gary Aldrich had to be destroyed and discredited as an FBI agent.
At any rate, I got to run a little long here.
We'll come back and get started with your phone calls right after this.
Don't go anywhere.
Okay, let's go to the phones.
We'll start in Columbus, Ohio, the home of Little League Baseball Cheats.
Mike, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
How you doing, Rush?
Just fine, sir.
Thank you.
Good, good.
I listen to you constantly, even though I consider myself more of an independent and less right or left than anything.
I was just calling.
I called Durbin's office, and I told him that he shouldn't apologize.
Well, I told somebody on his staff.
I agree with you.
I agree with you.
I really don't believe he was insulting the troops.
I believe he was insulting the situation of a memo, an FBI memo.
And his words.
No, you're wrong about that.
No, he read the FBI memo, which was a description he said of what was going on down there.
Then he did compare that.
You can't deny that, but I don't think he should have apologized either because he meant it.
I don't think people who mean what they say should apologize for saying it.
Well, my opinion.
He didn't apologize, Mike.
He apologized if anybody's feelings were hurt, but he didn't apologize for saying it.
So you're okay on this.
Well, I'm just thinking my idea is that, you know, if you're going to condemn him, you should condemn Santorum for using the same rhetoric and Melman for using the same rhetoric.
Santorum, you mean his Adolf Hitler reference talking about Democrats and their Nazi-like filibusters?
Yeah, pretty much.
Yeah.
Well, Santorum basically did what Durbin did.
Santorum said he meant no offense by referring to Hitler while defending the GOP's right to ban judicial filibusters as Senate leaders prepare to start a countdown Friday to a vote on the so-called nuclear option.
Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument not to characterize my Democrat colleague, Santorum said.
So he clarified and apologized.
Gulags and Pol Pot and Hitler was meant to, you know, make an analogy to the fact that he was right.
That's exactly right.
He was comparing what goes on at our prisons to what went on in those gulags, death camps, and killing fields.
That's why I don't think you should apologize.
That's what, see, Mike, you and I really agreed.
That's what Durbin thinks.
That's what he really thinks.
And given his apology, are we now to also think that he did not mean it when he insulted Republicans all last week?
We were mischaracterizing him on this and saying it was Republicans' fault that the problem was even as big as it was because they were amplifying what he said.
Is he now admitting that he didn't mean any of that either?
I don't think so.
No, I think their feet should all be held to the fire when they make outlandish statements.
But I just think we ought to be a little more fair.
Well, that's true.
But, you know, in this case, you remember Trent Lott.
I mean, he was not only held to the fire, he was thrown in it.
And Durbin here wasn't even allowed to skip over the hot coals wearing some Birkenstocks.
Me being an African-American, I didn't mind Trent Lott being thrown in the fire.
I thought that was a terrible thing to say.
You didn't mind Trent Lott?
Everybody's got their own biases.
Everybody's got their own axis to grind.
You probably think as an African-American, that was worse than what Durbin said here about the country.
Well, no, I disagree.
I don't think it was worse.
I just think, you know, as a leader in the Senate, I don't think Durbin.
Wait a minute now, Mike, you just said you thought Durbin Lott should have been thrown in the fire, but you don't think...
Yes, I agree with that.
And the reason I don't agree with Durbin saying it, or what Durbin did, is because he didn't attack anyone.
You know, he...
I don't think he attacked the country.
Wait a minute.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Are you saying Lott should not have been thrown in the fire or should have been?
No, I disagree totally with what Lott said when he said that what he said at a birthday.
Okay, so you agree with Lott being thrown in the fire for it?
No, I think Trent Lott used a horrible choice of words that offended a lot of African Americans.
I think the only reason this offended Americans, what Durbin said, is because it's been drummed up so tough that he was attacking the troops.
Yeah.
Well, I guess it depends on the vantage point you come into this with.
You as an African American, I can understand why you think Lott would be far worse than what Durbin said here.
I don't myself think there's any comparison because Lott, I don't think, actually meant it.
Everybody knows what Lott was doing.
He's just trying to praise some old coot who may not even understand what he's hearing anymore.
He was near 100 years old, Strom Thurmond, he was leaving.
It was just, you go to a birthday party and you praise the just a way of complimenting Strom and trying to make him feel good here in his remaining days.
It was, you know, Lott didn't go to floor the Senate like Durbin did and make the case for segregation, and the country's gone on the wrong tracks because the Klan was defeated.
No, he didn't do that.
Durbin went to the floor of the Senate to do all this stuff.
He was just an innocent little remark at a birthday party.
And man, I'm just telling you the differences.
He apologized five times, Mike, and the Democrats never accepted it.
They didn't accept the apology.
They didn't stop until the president of the United States got involved and saw to it that Trent Lott had to be dethroned as the Republican leader in the Senate.
There's just a difference in the way the two parties operate.
I'm glad you called, oh, Mike.
Thanks.
Thanks so much.
Here's a story from the Raleigh News and Record.
I think it's Raleigh.
This is just mind-boggling.
It's Greensboro, North Carolina.
The decision by local court officials to deny the use of the Koran for oaths has garnered national media attention and the scrutiny of a Washington-based Islamic civil rights group.
Officials with the Council on American Islamic Relations said yesterday that statements by Guilford County's top judge seem to endorse a particular religion and could be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Guilford senior resident Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright told the newspaper last week that an oath taken on the Koran is not a lawful off or a lawful oath, a lawful oath under North Carolina law.
The law refers to laying one's hand on the holy scriptures.
Everybody understands what the holy scriptures are, the judge said.
And if they don't, we're in a mess.
So the Council on American Islamic Relations is all upset, claiming this is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Let me ask you people a question.
Before September 11th, how often did you hear about the Koran, the radio or the news?
Before September 11th.
But now, since people who follow that religion have killed 3,000 Americans in the most horrid manner, we as a society seems to me have done nothing but jump through hoops, bend over backwards, grab our ankles to appease, cajole, and allow these people to change the fundamentals of our country to the point that we have an American publication,
Newsweek, writing stories that are not true about the desecration of the Koran.
They couldn't care less what anybody did to a Bible anywhere.
If they never saw a Bible at Newsweek, they'd be happy.
But you let the Koran be destroyed.
Before 9-11, nothing.
After 9-11, after, after, after 3,000 of us are killed by members of this religion, we're bending over backwards and forwards and grabbing the ankles and making sure we don't offend them.
And now they're trying to say in the American court system, they're not going to swear on the Bible.
You got to swear on the Koran.
And here we are.
We're back halfway through here, folks.
The fastest three hours in the media.
We are up and running on the ditto cam at rushlimbaugh.com.
Here is Steve in Lanexa, Kansas, outside Kansas City.
Hello.
How are you doing, Rush?
This is a real honor to talk to you.
I'm a teacher, so I can't listen to you during the school year, but over the summer break, I get to listen to you more.
So thanks so much for taking my call.
You bet, sir.
I understand your reasoning for showing the differences in the media and their bias and how they accept some people's apologies and don't accept others' apologies.
But to be honest, the best course of action here, take the high road, accept Durbin's apology, and move on.
You know, when I'm a teacher, a lot of times, you know, and I don't mean to be insulting Rush, but, you know, what you're doing right now is, well, they don't accept Trent Lott's apology.
That's a lot like, you know, when I'm teaching kids and they don't, another kid says, well, well, they don't do it or they're doing something wrong, so I guess we can too.
Take the high road, accept his apology, even if you don't like the way he worded it, and move on.
And as a side note, that's why George Bush is such an effective leader.
I would bet you, a Coke, he's not going to get into this.
He takes the high road, and that's why he's so effective.
I know he's not going to get into it because he won't have to get into it because other people will carry the water for him.
He won't have to say a word about this because whatever he might think or say is going to be stated by others in a prominent position.
So it won't matter.
I'm not, I'm not, this is not a, hey, look at what they did.
I'm simply pointing out this is a program of education and information people.
And, you know, this is not just about he stole my book or he stole my snow cone.
I'm going to steal his.
It's not about conflict resolution as it would be taught in the schools.
This is about the nation, its future.
We have two competing ideologies for how best to shape this country for the future.
And it is a war.
It is a battle.
And all I'm trying to do is inform and educate as many people how the two sides in this battle play the game in Washington, D.C. There's a little context here, Steve.
Republicans are already a little impatient because for the last 40 or 50 years, we've been doing exactly what we were told to do.
We have been educating people.
We have been getting them to the votes, to the polls.
They have been voting on specific issues.
And after all this time of working hard and informing and educating people, we finally elected majorities.
And now the majorities in the White House and in the Senate and the House, mostly in the Senate, don't want to act like they run the place.
They don't want to act like they're in charge.
They don't implement the agenda that the people that voted for them thought they were going to vote, thought they were going to do, implement.
So, you know, people little fit to be tied.
There's a lot of things that are making people mad.
Immigration is a big one that nobody's paying much attention to in Washington.
But the way Republicans continually get beat up, this Durbin thing is not inconsequential.
Durbin just didn't insult Republicans.
He insulted the military.
He insulted the whole country.
And I don't think he should apologize.
And I'm not in a contest here to see, you know, who does it better, who does it right, who plays hardball the best.
I'm just showing people.
It's all I'm trying to do here.
I'm not suggesting that people don't accept his apology.
Couldn't care less if people do or don't.
I don't, but I don't, because I don't think he means the apology.
I think he means what he said.
So his apology to me is irrelevant.
But if it make you feel better, fine, he apologize.
We're moving on here.
We're continuing to move on by keeping this in perspective.
But the idea here that this is not taking the high road, I'm trying to demonstrate who's on the high road.
And I'm trying to demonstrate who's on a low road and how and why.
It's up to people who listen to agree or disagree with me.
But in terms of accepting his apology, A, I don't think he should have apologized because I don't think he means the apology.
Secondly, I don't think he has apologized.
I think he's apologized for offending people, but he didn't apologize for the words that he used.
Knut in Columbia, South Carolina, welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
How are you doing, Mr. Lumbaugh?
You're dead on.
You're absolutely correct.
This guy didn't apologize to me or any of my brothers or sisters in arms.
He doesn't care about us.
He cares about his little political agenda and moving forward with that.
And yet all these people out there like Mike and this teacher, they don't get it because it's not them that he's talking about.
Now, had he said something about them, whether it was African-American or something about teachers, then they'd be all up in arms and how could he have said that?
And they would not accept a non-apology.
I don't accept his apology.
Why should I?
I mean, he didn't apologize.
You're right.
He said exactly what he meant.
He did.
I've been saying that all along.
I mean, he needs to stand by it.
We know that that's what he meant.
He meant to say, folks, that was a statement.
He wrote that out.
That wasn't something ad-lib.
There was thought that went into what Durbin said.
And the apology here is simply asking you to forgive him for offending you, but he didn't take the words back.
Look, I'm glad to talk to you all about this.
Don't misunderstand here, but I'm not trying to dwell on it for any reason other than to illustrate what people think about this.
And it's become a big bugaboo with me lately over how people who win majorities somehow surrender them and give them away and don't have the fortitude to act.
When you're in a fight, when you're in a war, you know, battle or whatever, it's safe to say that the aggressor sets the rules.
And, you know, you can say, well, the rule book says you can't do that, but if somebody violates the rule book, there's no referee here other than the voters.
And, you know, taking the high road, yeah, Bush can take the high road.
He probably should, but he doesn't, you know, he has the benefit of other people articulating positions.
Presidents never do get involved in this except the way he got involved in the Trent Lott situation.
At any rate, who's next?
Delaine in Memphis.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Thanks for taking my call.
I do appreciate very much your analysis of the Durbin pseudo-apology.
What I wanted to say is that, and hopefully I can add something to it, is that there's two sides to an analogy.
And by what Durbin said, if in fact Gitmo and what's happening there is like what happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot in the former Soviet Union or in Nazi Germany, then those crimes that were committed there must have not been very heinous after all.
And I think that's what most offends the sensibilities of at least some on the left, particularly the latter one.
Anything that diminishes the seriousness of the Holocaust makes them squirm, properly so.
But Durbin is only correcting by apology, such as it was, only one side of the analogy.
What's most offensive to me, and I'm sure you and others on the right, is that what's left standing is that a U.S. senator has suggested, no more, he's asserted, that Americans in general and American soldiers in particular would participate in crimes on the scale of Pol Pot in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
And for that, he has not made an apology or corrected the record.
Exactly right.
Exactly.
And it does stand because Nancy Pelosi over in the House is demanding an investigation of it.
And I might add, a whole bunch of Republicans who want to get favorable press treatment in Washington are joining in that suggestion.
Arnold Inspector and others are suggesting that maybe Congress needs to look into what's going on down there based on these allegations.
Allegations of whose?
So, yeah, it does stand.
The whole concept that Dick Durbin announced, what goes on down there, still stands.
He didn't say, I was wrong.
He didn't say, I take back my words.
He simply said, look, I'm going to keep speaking my mind.
I'm sorry if it offends you.
Meanwhile, People have gone down there and they report that it's nothing like at all what the media and others are trying to state that it is.
The inmates at Camp X-Ray, which is where the terrorists and the prisoners are being held, are gaining weight.
They're being fed so well, they're gaining weight.
Have a story here by George Whitman in the American Spectator.
He enlisted in the Army in December 1950, is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, and was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
He says, what could be worse than Gitmo?
Well, for those of us, and there are millions who have gone through U.S. Army basic training or Marine Corps boot camp, the complaints of Senator Durbin regarding the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo are laughable.
One wonders what Durbin and the folks at Amnesty International would say if their little darlings had been forced to stand at attention in 100-degree heat for two or more hours at Fort Jackson or Camp Lejeune in full combat gear with 60 pounds of ammo and equipment waiting for a general inspection.
What time did you get up, soldier, the inspecting officer invariably asks?
The answer is always the same revely, sir.
As long as you said that, you didn't have to admit that you and your buddies have been up for 36 hours straight, GIing the barracks, the company street, your weapons, and everything that moved or stood in the area.
Drop down and give me 20, 30, 50, the training cadre would demand, and the shaved-head recruit falls to the ground and completes his push-ups, sometimes to the point of exhaustion, for those not in top condition.
The heel of the corporal on your back tends to make the task a bit more difficult.
Gosh, we should have had some of those ACLU lawyers when we were at boot camp.
Another fine element of training occurs when a drill sergeant's mouth is so close to yours that his shout spits saliva till it runs down your face.
One flinch brings an order for 30 perfect push-ups or an evening of jogging around the company area with a rifle held with both hands above one's head while the miscreant shouts the general orders.
Definitely too tough for those unfortunate terrorists to do.
Senator Durbin, whose biography shows he spent the Vietnam War in law school, knows nothing of an American soldier's training life.
And we're talking about only those first eight weeks of basic training, not the far tougher regimen for Ranger, SEAL, recon, or special forces.
He says he's appalled that Gitmo terrorists had to sit or stand in stress positions while under interrogation.
Well, what about crawling into and cleaning out an eight-foot-deep grease pit attached to each mess hall?
That's a nice little punishment for arriving late to formation.
Or what about a 25-mile march with a full field pack, your weapon and ammo, and only one canteen of water?
Senator Durbin is deeply worried about the impression that is caused internationally when a terrorist prisoner complains that his space has been invaded by a female interrogator.
Oh, dear me.
Did that female make the poor prisoner feel badly?
An American soldier yearns for such intimidation.
A recruit has no space.
He or she is government property.
From what type of mental illness does Senator Durbin suffer?
What country has Durbin been inhabiting?
From what planet does this civilian feather merchant come?
Senator, don't insult the hundreds of thousands of on-duty servicemen and women and the millions of veterans by your politically inspired pedophogging complaints.
Perhaps Senator Durbin doesn't understand what it takes to be an American soldier or a Marine.
Perhaps he thinks the families of the terrorists should be thought of before the families of the victims of 911 or those of our fallen warriors.
He speaks of Guantanamo as an embarrassment, but it is he who embarrasses those who have served.
You don't have to look far in this country.
You only have to go to basic training to find circumstances where Americans have a tougher day than these prisoners down at Gitmo.
But folks, there's something else about this, and it goes back to the story I just shared with you out of North Carolina about how Muslims now demanding the Quran instead of the Bible to swear the oath on, take the oath on in court.
And I just, I'm telling you, I just want to reiterate once again.
Before 9-11, the only, I thought about it here since the last time I said this, before 9-11, the only time I can remember hearing the Quran invoked was by Calypso Louie calling it the Holy Quran.
Maybe we didn't hear about it.
We didn't hear about it in the radio or the news.
We didn't have Newsweek and Time and the New York Times writing about the Koran.
But take 9-11, 3,000 Americans are killed by followers of that book.
And all we've done is jump through hoops and bend over backwards and grab our ankles to make sure we don't offend them.
And that's what Gitmo is.
That's what Gitmo is.
We cannot offend these people.
It's just sometimes when I throw away all the jocularity associated with this and when I really think about it, it's maddening.
It really is maddening.
We'll be back in just a second.
I'm a little long here in this segment.
Don't go away.
I have to admit, I love this song.
The lyrics are dumb, but it's still a good song.
Everyday people, Sly in the Family Stone.
The White House yesterday rebuffed Democratic calls for creation of an independent commission to investigate the detainee abuses at Gitmo.
Democrats said an independent commission was needed because of questions about the integrity of the Pentagon's investigations and to prove to the Muslim world the U.S. had nothing to hide.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan countered that the Department of Defense has taken these issues head-on and addressed them.
They continue to look into allegations of abuse.
People are being held to account.
We think that's the way to go about this.
The Democrats said that they had 170 sponsors for their legislation, the Gitmo investigation, all in the House.
Nancy Pelosi said she believed enough House Republicans would cross the aisle to pass the measure if the Republican leadership allowed a vote.
So here's Durbin supposedly apologizing.
And now the Democrats demand an investigation of what's going on down there.
And here come the Republicans, folks.
The New York Times today, despite opposition from the White House, some Republicans have begun to join Congressional Democrats in calling for an independent commission to review accusations of abuse by prisoners by American forces in Guantanamo Bay.
The idea's appeal has grown in recent weeks with Republican endorsements from, among others, Bob Barr, a former congressman from Georgia, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Let's see.
Graham said that he'd until now resisted the idea of congressional action to review issues related to prisoner abuse, but he said the uproar related to the latest accusations of abuse at Gitmo had convinced him that we've crossed the point where that isn't worth working anymore.
He said the U.S. needed to prove to the world we are a rule of law nation.
Why?
If Durbin apologized, if everybody's accepting his apology and everybody's assuming he apologized because he was wrong, why are we doing this?
So the Pelosi suggests something, and you can count on it.
Here come some Republicans to help out.
The minute the White House says we're not going to do this, couldn't do what in the current house?
Uh well no, he's not in the house.
Lindsey Graham's not in the house, but but he's.
This is going to serve to apply pressure to people in the house.
Uh, Lindsey Graham's getting great press coverage over this.
This was the NEW YORK Times.
Everybody wants great press coverage in um in Washington.
Well, some don't, I mean some don't care about it, but nevertheless, here folks, I mean you see what?
We've got this massive apology out there.
Everybody accepts it.
Now we can move on to going down there and find out what's really going on.
We've had enough allegations.
We got what allegations have?
We had allegations from Newsweek that were wrong and we've got allegations from Dick Durbin.
There we are.
You know what folks.
We're gonna take the high road and be right back and go earn some money at the EIB Profit Center timeout.
An independent commission on Gidmo huh, why?
Why did we have an independent commission on uh, White House abuse of the interns?
Or White House abuse Of women who came forward to allege that they had been abused by a sitting president?
Why do we get any commissions investigating that, huh?
We did rush it.
It's called impeachment.
No, that was not about that, folks.
You think it was, but it wasn't.
▲
Export Selection