All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:34
June 29, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I told you.
It's all I need to say.
I told you.
I got a note today from somebody.
I'm going to miss the first hour and a half of your show.
I'll have to catch it on the podcast, but I know you're just going to analyze Bush's speech.
No, I'm not going to analyze Bush's speech.
There's nothing to analyze.
It is what I already analyzed it yesterday before I heard it because I knew what it was going to be.
We didn't know, but I knew.
No, we're going to analyze the reaction to it, folks, because that's what's hilarious.
So sit tight and strap yourselves in.
The Rush Limbaugh program is on the air and ready to go.
We are here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
And looking forward to speaking to you today, as always.
Telephone number, 800-282-2882.
Always, you can go the email route if you wish.
I do check that.
I am constantly working here, folks.
I mean, during commercial breaks, people who watch on the Ditto Cam see it.
I constantly turn to the computer, always working, always doing show prep, checking emails and so forth.
So feel free to go that route, that address, rush at eibnet.com.
Now, we'll get to the president's, well, the reaction to the president's speech in just a moment, but I have to take care of some business here first.
The matter of podcasting.
Yesterday, Apple released iTunes 4.9.
And the big deal about Apple releasing iTunes 4.9 is that it now features podcasting.
And the email that I have received is flooded from people with people who, hey, Rush, hey, Rush, you've got to get your podcast on iTunes.
Is there any way that that can happen?
Is there any way?
Because it would, I mean, and then they cite all the other radio shows that are there and they say, and look at the top 10 requested shows are X and Y.
And you've got to get yourself there so you're the number one requested show.
And that way we can get it more easily and put it into iTodes without having to go through your software.
Let me give you a little history of this and then some business facts.
We spoke to iTunes, we spoke to Apple, the iTunes division, numerous times about this within the past two to three months.
When they told us that their only require, well, their main requirement for the podcasts on iTunes would be free, we said we can't do that because we're charging our subscribers, or not charging subscribers to get the podcast free, but we still have a subscription fee for our members at rushlimbaugh.com.
And folks, there's just no way that we can tag podcasts and put them on iTunes so that only 24-7 subscribers can get them.
And they were very cooperative at Apple, but they're doing it the way they want to do it.
They're trying to get copies of iTunes out there.
And one of the ways to do that is to offer this new podcasting El Freebo.
That's not our challenge.
And let me explain it to you this way.
Apple will only support free podcasts, and we can't put the program podcast directly into iTunes.
It just won't work.
It just doesn't, there's no way technologically to make it work.
But here's what you have to realize, folks.
Most radio programs have such limited coverage in their over-the-air broadcasting that having Apple distribute their content free seems like a good deal to them.
Because in much of the country, podcasting is the only way you can hear their shows.
Should somebody want to listen to their shows?
Podcasts are the only way you can do it because they're not on any radio stations.
They're not at good radio stations.
They just don't have no coverage at all.
This program is available on just about 600 of the finest radio stations in America to essentially every American.
There's virtually nowhere you can go in this country that has radio reception where you cannot pick up this program.
We are not podcasting just to reach more people.
We are podcasting to service the people we already have.
We are podcasting to make the listening experience portable.
We are on the cutting edge of this technology.
We're not podcasting to reach people that can't already hear the program.
We're not podcasting to make it other than the people in the military and in foreign countries.
But in this country, we're not doing this podcasting to expand our audience.
It's not doing that at all.
It's simply servicing an existing audience.
We are available to everybody now as it is free over the air.
So when you see various leftist radio programs desperately podcasting via iTunes, it's not a mark of honor for them.
It's desperation.
It is a need.
They are giving it away as a means of expanding their reach because they have no other way of doing it.
Since they have very few radio stations and the radio stations they're on, you probably have to go straight up five miles to hear them.
What they're actually acknowledging is that they need every trick in the book they can find to distribute their show because they can't find radio stations to carry a show.
It's just that simple.
Now, I hate to be this blunt about it, but I want you all to understand what this is.
It'd be great if you could get the program on iTunes, if iTunes supported the way we provide it, but they don't.
They have a different business objective with iTunes than we have with our podcasts.
And that's why we developed the 24-7 software so that the downloading is automatic.
And if you have a Mac, the podcasts default play back in iTunes anyway.
They don't automatically go there.
You'll still have to sync them there.
But just keep in mind, we, as I say, are offering podcasts.
And we're not charging anything additional for it.
We're not charging anything for our software.
You don't have to buy anything.
All you have to do is be an existing subscriber and you get all the other goodies and benefits associated with that.
We're just offering portability services.
We're offering flexibility in listening to the program to people who already do.
We don't need iTunes to expand our reach.
The other guys that are on there free of charge are desperate for coverage, and that's why.
And this is not to put down iTunes.
Please don't misunderstand.
I just want you to understand why we can't go to iTunes.
Some of you seem very excited about that possibility.
We are at present, ladies and gentlemen, delivering about 400,000 broadcast hours per week in the form of podcasts.
About 400,000, and that expands every day as more and more of our subscribers sign up for the podcast service.
And of course, you know, you've got a lot of other podcasters out there who are giving their content away.
They're all yapping away about how happy they are that they're providing 100,000 hours of podcasting a week, but who's listening to it?
Nobody knows.
They're sending it out, but it's sort of funny to read the various podcasters out there going nuts over how many broadcast hours or how many podcast hours they're putting out there.
And they think 100,000 is setting the world on fire.
Well, we're doing 400,000 hours a week of podcasting, and it's only going to increase.
And we're only going to be adding content to it as the days and the weeks and the months transpire.
But you have to understand one thing.
If we had some deleterious motive here, we'd be charging for this, but we're not.
This is simply a service that was really brought about by the demand of so many people in the audience.
So many of you wanted to hear the program via podcast that we responded to it.
And so it's just a service to allow portability and flexibility in when you can listen to the program because it's out there and it's on 600 of the greatest radio stations in this country.
Distribution is not our objective here.
Servicing you, the audience is.
We'll be back and we will get started with the president's speech, the reaction to it right after this.
All right, let me take one phone call here because I get this question a lot and then we'll get on with the rest of the program.
It's in Northampton, Massachusetts.
It's George.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Hey, Rush, how are you?
Fine, sir.
Great.
Yeah.
Satellite radio.
What's your thoughts on entertaining that market?
Yeah, that comes up a lot too.
And I've answered this in the past, but I'll do it again since interest is focused on this.
Satellite radio at this point in time, you know, this is tough for me to answer these questions, folks, because I run the risk of sounding arrogant and conceited.
But look, we have 600 of the greatest radio stations in the country.
We reach an audience of at any 15-minute sweep almost 5 million people.
During the course of a week, 20 to 22 million people.
It is also calculated during a full three-hour show, 12 million people, unduplicated, listen to the, well, some duplicated, listen to the program.
Satellite radio has barely hit 2 million subscribers.
That's number one.
Number two, I've been with these radio stations since the beginning of time, since 1988.
I wouldn't be where I am without those radio stations.
And some of them early on endured a lot of garbage and stuck with this program because there are a lot of assaults.
And it's a mutually beneficial relationship.
Satellite radio, a lot of people love it.
I have it in one of my cars.
I went out and bought a new car.
And one of the features was Lifetime Satellite Radio.
And I got to be very careful here, but I'm going to tell you something, folks.
I drive under a tree and I lose it.
I drive next to a tall building and I lose it.
It frustrates me.
I go into, you know, drive into my driveway and there's a small little tree to the right side of the right gatepost of the driveway.
Screws up my reception every time I it just bums me out.
Now, I'm not traveling the fruited plain on the highways and byways of America where there are no trees and so forth.
But just where I live, this doesn't, it's, it's, you know, there were, there are sometimes I'll start the car and I won't get a signal for 30 minutes.
So, but, but that's, that's just, that's just one, that's just a consumer reaction to it.
Uh, on the uh, on the business side, there simply aren't the subscribers there.
There's simply, you know, we're not doing what we're doing here to broaden our base.
The way we broaden our base is increase the number of people who listen on our radio stations.
We increase our ratings.
We can't get any more radio stations than we have.
We, we've, we're on the maximum because you can't be on more than two or three in a market.
You can't be on.
What are you laughing at, Snurdy?
What's so funny here?
What is so the my car, but it's not the parking complex is too big.
I'm just drive through the, all I got to do is go under a canopy of trees.
Lost signal, it says on the readout.
You know, I just, so it's, but, but, but that, I don't, that probably is just an anomaly of where I live.
I'm, I'm not, I don't even want to get into that.
I just want the audience.
I want you people to understand that, you know, we are where all these people going to satellite want to be already with podcasting.
We are where and way beyond all the other podcasters want to be already.
We don't have to do any of this to, in fact, if we did some of it the way it's being done, we would lose audience.
That's not what we're here to do.
We are here to service our existing audience by offering them opportunities to listen to the program at times they may not be able to each day when it's broadcast live via the podcasts.
There's no way that we can combine broadcast and satellite because we cannibalize the radio stations.
If we go on satellite at the same time we're on radio stations, people with satellite radio in the car, who knows, they might listen to the satellite and not the local radio station.
And that doesn't help anybody.
It doesn't make any sense.
So those are the answers to the questions are the best I can give you because they're the business answers and they're the ones that make sense for us.
Now, some people have said, well, Rush, you know, if you went on satellite and you announced it, well, you realize maybe five or 10 million people would sign up.
Yeah, that may be.
That may be when they were maybe two-thirds or one, half of the way to the audience we already have.
In the meantime, the only way it could be done is if I quit this show and start it all over on satellite or did a whole different show when this one is over that was only available on satellite.
And that's neither of those appeal to me.
So I think the best way to understand this, folks, is to understand our size.
We don't need satellite to get bigger.
We don't need podcasting to get bigger.
It's everybody else that wishes they were what we are that's doing all these other things.
And because they haven't been able to match us in the arena where we are.
I mean, like Air America.
Let me just make everybody is sending me these emails.
Air America's over iTunes.
Yeah, because nobody can listen to them anywhere, folks.
They're on 55 radio stations and 35 of them you can't hear when you get 10 yards away from the broadcast tower.
Nobody listens to them.
They have no audience whatsoever.
Zero.
I mean, compared to this one, you can't even measure their size of their audience in a fraction of a percentage.
So yeah, they'll give away what they have.
They can't sell it anyway.
They'll give it away all over the place just to be heard.
That's not our problem.
We've already accomplished what they are failing at.
Our purpose here is to service the loyal people who have been with us, from radio stations to listeners to subscribers of my newsletter.
That's our game plan here.
And in the process of establishing this bond of loyalty, we are building long time spent listening and we are hoping to attract even more listeners on our radio stations already.
But for example, the podcast.
You know, when I say we get 400,000 hours of podcasting a week, we do.
But it's not people that don't already listen to the program.
They already do.
They're subscribers of my website.
We're offering it to them at no charge whatsoever.
It's purely a service.
We believe in value added here at this program.
We also believe in value.
And I also believe that if you're willing to give away what you have, you must not think it's worth much.
So all these people that are giving it away, nothing against iTunes and nothing against Apple, because Apple doesn't care.
Apple just wants as many people going to iTunes in their music store as possible, which is a great business plan too.
So if you can find some people that'll give away their product so you can go to iTunes and get it for free, yippee.
But folks, if you give it away, it must not be worth much.
Either that or it's a loss leader for what you hope to charge somewhere down the line later on.
And I doubt that's the case.
I would bet you that 99% of the podcasters today, wherever they come from, will never be able to charge for their content, will not even think of it, and are not even in it for that reason.
They're driven by ego or just the fun of being broadcast beyond their computer or whatever.
And that's great.
If it's their passion and that's what they want to do and it satisfies them, I am fine and dandy with it.
I make no comment or criticism about it.
But I, you know, we are a finely honed business with a business plan, and we are where we are.
We can't change that.
And anything we do in the arena as it's being done now to change it will only harm what we're trying to do and the assistance and service that we're trying to provide the audience.
I know some of you drive around and you have areas of the country where you lose reception of a radio station.
It's a while before another one comes in, and that's when the satellite would come in handy.
But it's just, it's not those circumstances, those situations are not frequent enough for us to make a significant change in the way we distribute the program as it is.
To those of you who are asking about satellite radio because of the circumstance I described, you lose reception of a station when you're out there driving the country or whatever, got an idea for you.
Join Rush 24-7 and become a podcaster and automatically get the program each and every day, put it on an MP3 player, take it in your car and listen to it that way.
That's the kind of thing we're trying to offer.
We've got all kinds of ways here for people who encounter that kind of problem to overcome it.
But as I say, it costs money to make all this stuff available.
Websites, not cheap.
Bandwidth, you have as many subscribers as we do.
We offer video and the DittoCam quite a bit.
When that much request is made on demand, we've got to have a lot of bandwidth.
It costs a lot of money, all of these things.
And so, you know, we try to price all these things fairly, but it does require some charge because there's some investment process.
But people that don't want to pay for it don't have to.
It's just the business model and plan that we've put together and we're constantly tweaking it and modifying it.
But remember what our objective is, is to grow the audience via our existing radio stations because we love those people.
Even the mealy-mouthed liberals on these stations that spend their whole shows ripping me still love these radio stations.
I wouldn't be where I am without them.
And this is a broadcast industry.
It's a commercial broadcast.
I'm not interested in going on satellite where there are no commercials.
I mean, that doesn't fit my business plan.
I'm not interested in giving away the content of the program.
And most of what you are able to access is totally free.
Just turn on your radio.
There are others called sponsors that are paying for your ability to do that.
But if you want the portability and the flexibility, we make that available to you too with the podcasts.
Subscription fee is 50 bucks.
I mean, it's nothing.
And then you have all this portability plus all the other wondrous content at our website.
Now, I got to get rest of the show going after this.
Well, let's stick to the issues.
Crowd is out in force now.
I checked the email during the break.
Boring, snoozing time.
Let me know when you get back to the issues.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you something.
I answer those questions because I've been getting them in droves.
I have empathy.
That's why I am the success I am, and I know.
But what I was saying was fascinating to the vast majority of people.
But it is time now to get started with the analysis of the president's speech last night because it's exactly what I said it was going to be.
It's uncanny.
It is uncanny.
Let's just, let's refresh your memory.
Yesterday, this is what I had to say.
You know, it's fun to see the media just so excited.
They think Bush is going to finally go out and do a mea culpa tonight.
Think Bush is finally going to respond to their criticisms tonight.
Think Bush is finally going to admit mistakes tonight.
They think Bush may even resign tonight, folks.
That's why they've been trying to pull off.
And are they going to be disappointed?
And not only are they disappointed, they're mad, and they're just silly.
It was a gangbuster speech.
Even, you know, CNN USA Today Gallup has a poll out today.
70% of the people now stay the course.
The speech accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.
And here you have the mainstream press and the Democratic Party, which, I mean, the Democrats do nothing but watch the polls.
And they have to know today that their reaction is in the vast minority of the country's reaction today.
We have a little montage of both the press and the Democrats and their reaction.
They think that the president's connection of Iraq to 9-11 is a strategy, a tactic.
Here we have, here's what we got.
We got Sheila Jackson Lee, Paul Bagala, Paul Azahn, George Stephanopoulos, Nancy Pelosi, Wesley Clark, also known affectionately here as Ashley Wilkes, Democratic strategist Victor Camber, David Gergen, Jay Carney, he's at Time magazine, Charlie Wrangell.
Even Bob Costas makes our list.
How did Bob Costas make our list?
Bob Costas, Aaron Brown, Kieran Chhetri, Dick Durbin, and John Kerry.
That's who's coming up in this montage.
The relating of the war in Iraq to the 9-11 tragedy, the horrific terrorist act, does not comport the message to the American people.
This is 9-11.
The president made six direct references to 9-11.
The case he was making most of all was that this war began on 9-11.
When he exploits the sacred ground of 9-11, there was no connection between 9-11 and the war.
Saddam wasn't part of 9-11.
Do you think the president overreached with references to 9-11?
His speech last night was once again trying to wrap himself around the 9-11 tragedy.
I was troubled and it defended by 9-11.
Making the war on terror one broad event that began on September 11th, 2001.
It was before 9-1-1.
Bush wanted to knock off Saddam Hussein.
No contact or connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda or 9-11 established.
Was it apt for the president to go to 9-11 six times in the speech?
He did refer to 9-11 five times.
Why is he once again making the link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11?
He did make six references to September 11th, drawing on the lessons of 9-11.
In light of Karl Rove's comments the other day, I think a lot of Americans are very uneasy about the current way in which the president keeps talking in the same language.
No, no, no, no.
They're upset at you.
They're upset at the media.
They're upset at you.
This is, it's amazing to me how all these people have the same reaction.
And it's exactly what I told you it was going to be.
They want to hear X.
They want to hear Y.
They want to hear Z.
And I told you they're not going to hear it.
They're not going to hear mistakes.
They're not going to hear we goofed this.
They're going to hear exactly what they've heard before.
And yet they've got this template in response.
The lib media upset that Bush reminded people of 9-11 and that we're fighting the same people in Iraq who killed 3,000 of our fellow Americans.
They're upset the president didn't say that we're losing the war and it's hopeless.
So because the anti-war Democrats have attacked Bush's speech, arguing he wasn't specific enough and they brought up 9-11, that's the media spend today.
And we're all supposed to react to the liberals rather than what the president said, right?
Yes, folks, that's the mainstream press reacts to what liberal Democrats say.
They don't react to what the president said.
All of this, this montage, is exactly that, nothing more than a reaction to what the critics are saying.
And notice how the Democrats and the media so frequently seem to say and emphasize the same thing.
How does that happen, I wonder?
If there were no weapons of mass destruction, and if Iraq was no threat, why did Congress, including most Democrats, authorize the president to go to war against Iraq in a joint resolution, a second joint resolution that they demanded in the campaign of 2002, about the summertime, late summertime 2002, they demanded it because they realized where the country was on this and they wanted to get their names on that resolution so they could be perceived as pro-war.
Now they want to pretend they didn't have anything to do with it.
They want to pretend they weren't involved.
They want to pretend the president lied to them.
They want to pretend that the president is making mistakes and not coming clean with the American people.
Here's the thing.
If Congress, if Congress thinks this is a quagmire, or if they think the war is being poorly run, or if they think we should get out now, or we should set a timetable to get out, why doesn't Congress simply cut off funding for the war and make funding conditional on any of these factors?
Why don't some Democrats like Nancy Pelosi or Charlie Wrangell stand up on the well of the House, the floor of the House, and demand to cut off funding?
Why don't they say this stuff on the floor of the House?
Why don't they say this stuff as they try to advance legislation that would cut the rug out from under the president by taking the money from the war?
And the answer to that is because everybody knows the liberals are full of crap on this.
And the liberals themselves know it.
They're just articulating a bunch of kookisms here because A, it's who they are and B, it's what they think their voters want to hear.
We keep hearing Ted Kennedy, he gets a voice here.
John Kerry, he keeps getting a voice.
I'm going to tell you what I think.
I think Bush's real problem here isn't the left or isn't the media because the left and the media is always going to be against Bush.
I think his real problem is his own party.
The McCains, the Hagels, the Lindsey Grahams and others who end up being the useful idiots of the left.
If the Republicans were united on this and outspoken and confrontational, we would be in a stronger position.
And speeches like this last night would not even be necessary.
If they spent more time speaking with one voice about the mission and characterizing the enemy properly rather than joining the left in concern for our treatment of the terrorists and so forth, we would be in a stronger position today.
You know, it is, it is, it's, it's, it's just amazing to watch all of this.
And especially it's interesting to me because I predicted it.
I was right on the money about how these people would react.
And they just, they make me look like a genius each and every day when it does not take genius to understand who these people are, to predict what they're going to do and to react the way they do.
You know something else I find funny?
The press, when the Supreme Court decisions came down this week, one of those decisions was that these two reporters' cases would not be heard, Judith Miller, the New York Times, and Matt Cooper of Time.
And yesterday, the federal judge that handed down these contempt citations affirmed them.
And so I think late today, it's said that Time magazine may divulge the source now to keep Matthew Cooper out of jail, but the New York Times probably won't.
And I find this funny too, folks, the libs are all upset that these reporters are not protected and have to spill their sources.
Well, and they're upset at the court.
They don't understand how the Supreme Court would rule this way.
First Amendment, they're authoritarian.
First Amendment, right to free press and so forth.
Well, the media have nobody to thank for themselves but this.
Because if free speech under the Constitution wasn't enough to void their favorite law, McCain Feingold, and it surely isn't enough to shield their employees, if you can tamper with the First Amendment and come up with the folly of McCain Feingold, it ought to tell everybody in the First Amendment business that, hey, we're under assault.
The same media that's out there celebrating the court rewriting the Constitution for other purposes, like commerce, public use, abortion, and all that, they can't then change course and demand that the court protect their own constitutional rights as they perceive them.
The courts are now free to do as they please under a living and breathing constitution that's become meaningless.
And if the courts decide that journalists can't protect their sources, then that's it.
But it's kind of funny to listen to stuck pigs when they're the ones getting stuck, while all these other cases out there and laugh and make fun of the people who are affected by other judicial rulings.
Now it's happened to them, and I say, at a boy.
Fact, you know the case of Wen Ho Lee?
Wen Ho Lee, out at our nuclear facility in the Southwest, he was falsely accused of being a spy for Red China.
And it was these anonymous sources.
Four different journalists condemned Wen Ho Lee on the basis of leaks from anonymous sources.
And they're now considering contempt lawsuits, civil lawsuits against these journalists for putting out false information.
I'm setting that one aside for potential use by me down the road, folks, because this is a fascinating case as well.
And I'll have the details for you of the Wen Ho Lee story as the program unfolds today.
We also have more reaction to the president's speech and some of the president's speech as well, plus your phone calls on it.
So sit tight.
We'll come back and get going with all the rest of this right after this timeout.
All right.
I love this.
Folks, on the Today Show today, Senator John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, Matt Lauer said, let me ask you about the president's connection, it seems, between the events of 9-11 and the war in Iraq.
You know what's interesting about it?
The president never said he never linked Iraq to 9-11.
He never linked Saddam to 9-11.
He linked Iraq to the war on terror.
And they understand, you know they know this.
They just can't stand for the American people to be told it because it upsets their whole apple cart of defeating Bush.
Do you people realize the Democrats are still rerunning the 2004 presidential campaign?
That is all they've got.
They're rerunning the 2004 presidential campaign.
Well, here's Kerry's answer to the question.
No, absolutely not.
Nor was anybody that I know of in the Senate.
And so when you hear the president say that now, your opinion?
He has completely morphed the rationale of weapons of mass destruction, first into a rationale of democratizing Iraq, and now into the hotbed of terror.
It has become a hotbed of terror because American troops are there and since our invasion.
And that's part of the problem.
The presence of American troops is a magnet for jihadists, which is one of the reasons why the training of the Iraqis should be put on a real wartime footing.
It's time for the president to get it right.
We don't need any American, I think, to be reminded of the passion we feel about 9-11.
Every American shares that.
No, they don't.
You don't.
And that's exactly why the president needs to remind it.
We don't see the pictures of it enough, Senator.
You're trying to make pretend it didn't happen.
You and your party are trying to act as though 9-11 didn't happen and that Bush is engaged in some renegade action for oil for Halliburton or Dick Cheney.
You people couldn't tell the truth if your lives defended on it.
Let's go back to this one line by line.
He said that the president has completely morphed the rationale of weapons of mass destruction, first into a rationale of democratizing Iraq and now into the hotbed of terror.
The weapons of mass destruction, the reason the Democrats keep bringing this up is because it is one of their few hopes.
I don't know if they think they're going to beat Bush again.
He's not running, but they seem hell-bent on convincing people that Bush lied.
If I were the Democrats, I would forget Bush.
He's not on the ballot again.
He doesn't have a vice president that seeks the ballot.
So there's no great continuity to this administration as there was with Gore taking over for Clinton or George Bush 41 taking over for Reagan.
This mystifies me politically.
But they are hell-bent on this whole weapons of mass destruction business.
Let me, can I give you a theory about weapons of mass destruction?
How big is Aruba?
Aruba's, I think it's 184 square miles.
I think Aruba is 100 and I think I read the 184 square miles.
All right, now, we've got a woman that's been missing down there, Natalie Holloway, 184 square miles.
They can't find her in one month.
One person within 184 square miles and they can't find her.
Maybe she was never there.
Maybe Natalie Holloway was never there.
Maybe this is all a stunt in the setup.
Or maybe the people who say they saw her got it wrong.
Maybe their sources are wrong.
Maybe the people who said she was there lied.
Maybe this is all some sort of scam.
My point is, isn't that what they're saying about weapons of mass destruction?
Well, they were never there.
They were never there.
What people saw them.
We know they were used.
So how do you feel when I say, well, maybe Natalie Holloway was never even there.
They can't find her in a month and it's only 184 square miles.
We haven't been able to find weapons of mass destruction in a huge country and they're not there.
The Democrats simply cannot get off of this because it is this, that is their number one way of trying to illustrate that Bush is lying to the American people.
What the Democrats don't get is the American people are way beyond weapons of mass destruction.
American people are not stupid.
The American people understand it wasn't just the United States that thought there were WMDs there.
They thought the world was there.
They know that the Security Council passed resolutions about them that Saddam ignored.
That's not the point.
This other comment about Kerry is, well, we've turned Iraq into a magnet for all these terrorists.
You know, before Iraq was the magnet senator, it was the World Trade Center that was the magnet for terrorists.
And it's innocent Americans at work there.
It was the Pentagon that was a magnet for terrorists.
And it was a field in Pennsylvania that was a magnet for terrorists.
In 1993, the World Trade Center was a magnet for terrorists.
Innocent Americans are the magnet for terrorists.
So now we are at the terrorists are not in Iraq specifically because we're there.
The terrorists in Iraq, because of what is happening in Iraq, a duly elected people or government by free people threatens the whole existence of terror networks in that region if it grows and expands.
You talk about misrepresentation the policy of the policy.
You talk about lying to the American people.
You talk about misleading the American people.
I'm telling you folks, that honor today goes to the American left and the Democratic Party.
They're the ones who won't level with the American people.
They are the ones who will not get straight and admit to the rest of this country that they understand the peril that we face.
They want to pretend it didn't happen.
The reason they get so angry when 9-11 is brought up is because they know that they haven't acted in a way to make people comfortable that if it happened again, the Democrats could deal with it, or if they were in power, that the Democrats could do everything to keep it from happening again.
They know people have no confidence.
in them when it comes to national security because they're a bunch of pacifists and so they don't want people to remember 9-11.
We'll be back after this.
We have only just begun, ladies and gentlemen.
Lots to do on the big program today and not all of it having to do with the president's speech and the liberal reaction.
I really don't know what more there is to say about it unless you want proof that there was involvement between al-Qaeda and Saddam.
Andy McCarthy, National Review Online, recounts it today.
That's another myth the Democrats are spreading.
▲
Export Selection