All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
June 29, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Democrats of the media are frosted.
They're fried.
They are beside themselves.
That Bush would not admit mistakes, that Bush would not do a mayor culpit, exactly as I told you.
And now they are unhinged.
They're practically insane over the fact that President Bush, LinkedIn Rock, and 9-11.
Greetings and welcome back, ladies and gentlemen.
The most listened to radio program in America is on the air.
It's great to be with you from the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
I am Rush Limbaugh.
I am America's anchor man, America's truth detector, and the Doctor of Democracy offering the play-by-play of the news.
Each and every day.
Our telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and the email address rush at EIB net.com.
You know, it's important to understand the president did not say Iraq caused 9-11.
He didn't say that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.
He made the connection between Iraq and the war on terror, and I think it might be useful.
You know, we refuse to show pictures of 9-11 anymore, but you look at the polling data, uh, the flash polls that were taken last night after the speech, and you'll find that the approval ratings of the president's policy in Iraq skyrocketed after the speech last night, because it was a gang bang gang barner, uh uh uh barn burner.
And it was a home run, and it was uplifting.
It had a soaring conclusion.
It was it was just well done, and it was long overdue.
There's another reason the Democrats are fed up and upset, because it just reminds them they're making no progress.
They're making no progress whatsoever in their demented policy over this.
But I think it might serve as a useful reminder.
Uh, and Andrew McCarthy at National Review Online today has performed a great service in recounting all of the various connections between Al-Qaeda and uh and Saddam Hussein, not Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Let's just go through them.
Let's start with Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi intelligence operative who facilitated a 9-11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with two of the hijackers and other conspirators at what is uh now acknowledged to be the initial 9-11 planning session in January of 2000?
Who was arrested after the 9-11 attacks in possession of contact information for several well-known terrorists, who managed to make his way out of Jordan daily in custody over our objections after the 9-11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam's regime?
That would be Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi intelligence operative who facilitated a 9-11 hijacker.
Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 90s.
What would the no connection crowd have to say about Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000 and his alleged visit there in April 2001, which the Czechs have not yet retracted?
How about the Clinton Justice Department's allegation and a 1998 indictment, two months before the embassy bombings against bin Laden to wit?
In addition, Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq, that Al Qaeda would not work against the government and that on particular projects specifically including weapons development, Al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.
That comes from a Clinton Justice Department allegation and a 1998 indictment.
What would they say about seized Iraq intelligence service records, indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?
What would they say about Saddam's hosting of Al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman Zawahiri, beginning in the early 90s and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri by Iraq in 1998?
What would they say of Saddam's ten years of harboring 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rachman Yassin?
What would they say about Iraqi intelligence service operatives being dispatched to meet with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998?
this is the year of bin Laden's fatwad demanding the killing of all Americans as well as the embassy bombings.
What would they say about Saddam's official press lionizing bin Laden as an Arab and Islamic hero following the 98 embassy bombing attacks?
What would they say about the continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9-11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes after the embassy bombings against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?
You find references to bin Laden and Al Qaeda and Iraq throughout the Clinton administration in its legal documents.
What would they say about top Clinton administration counter-terrorism official Richard Clark's assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999 that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clark's memo to then National Security Advisor Sandy Bergler advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani intelligence and armed with that knowledge, old Wiley Osama will likely boogie to Baghdad.
That's from Richard Clark.
And that's from the 9-11 Commission final report, pages 134-135.
How about terror master Abu Mousab Zukawi and his uh his choice to boogie to Baghdad of all places when he needed surgery after fighting American forces in Afghanistan in 2001?
And what about Saddam's intelligence service running a training camp at Salman Pak, where terrorists were instructed in tactics for hijacking, assassination, and kidnapping.
And what about this?
Former CIA Director George Tennet, in a letter October 2nd, 2002 to Congress, which asserted, our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving.
It's based on sources of varying reliability.
Some of the information we've received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back a decade.
We have credible information indicating that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presidents in Iraq of Al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities.
The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
And there's even more.
Stephen Hayes' book, The Connection remains required reading, but these are just the questions.
The answers if somebody will just investigate the questions rather than pretending there's nothing whatsoever there will provide more still.
So David Gurgan, Harry Reid, the New York Times, the rest are offended at the president's reminding us of 9-11.
Well, the rest of us should be offended too, offended at the nothing whatsoever crowds inexplicable lack of curiosity about these ties and about the answers to these questions.
Just tell us one thing.
You have any good answer to what Ahmed Hikmat Shakur was doing with the 9-11 hijackers in Kuala Lumpur?
Can you explain it?
If not, why aren't you moving heaven and earth to find out the answer?
And I can give the answers because it doesn't fit the political template that Bush lied.
The policy template that Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, that there was never any connection in 9-11 and uh and Iraq.
And Bush has never said there was.
In fact, Bush has gone on the record and said there wasn't.
He has said there is a connection between Iraq and the war on terror.
That is not even arguable.
And just to remind you, folks, here we have the president making this speech.
The public reacted and responds overwhelmingly positively.
Today on the networks, last night on the networks, all you got was the Democrat reaction and the press parroting the Democrat reaction.
And then saying we need to react to what the Democrats are saying rather than what the President is saying.
What has been established once again, is that when it comes to national security, this country just cannot trust the Democratic Party, and certainly cannot trust America's liberals to do what's necessary.
If George Bush has made a mistake, if George Bush, President Bush wants to admit a mistake, I have one for him.
Mr. President, they're demanding you admit your error.
They're demanding a Maya culpa.
So the next time you talk about this, I have this suggestion.
Admit a mistake.
And admit that your mistake was trusting that you would have the support of the Democratic Party in a war for our national security, the war on terror.
You made the mistake of trusting that they would rise to the occasion and put that concern over party politics.
Admit that is your mistake and hit another home run, and then watch some more stuck pigs squeal for another couple days, like we all are doing today and getting our jollies.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
People have been patiently waiting on the phones here.
They want to get their two cents in.
You're tuned to the Rush Limbaugh program.
And by the way, we are ditto camming.
I turned it on to top of the hour today.
It'll be on for the remainder of the program.
We go to Detroit.
This is Nick.
You're up, sir.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush, Megadiddles.
Thank you, sir.
I was watching uh reaction like you, and was interested in the reaction to President Bush's speech last night.
And uh General Leslie Clark was who's now a contributor to Fox was on.
Yeah, that big time conservative right wing network hired Ashley Wilkes as one of their news analyzers.
Right.
And he uh he said that uh the reason we are having an increased problem with terrorism, and he blamed it on the fact that we went into Iraq, and that just incensed them to the point where they just are really going at it as if they needed that for uh uh them to do that.
And I I wanted to go through the TV when he said that.
I mean, it was just in sensed me, actually.
Uh well let me make sure I understood what you said.
He said, he said that the reason there is increased terrorism is because we went into Iraq.
Yes, that's exactly what he said.
And he was blaming the where is this increased terrorism?
Well, I all you do is look in Iraq, and that's where they that's where they zero in on it.
They're saying because of the fact that we went into Iraq.
I'm gonna get I I I I just I have to get blue in the face.
I got an email today.
Why do you call Wesley Clark Ashley Wilkes?
You're gonna have to start explaining some of these nicknames for people.
I guess how many of you people have seen Gone with the Wind.
There's a character in this movie that's an absolute candy ass, and his name is Ashley Wilkes.
And so I I just you know, as of the more I heard Wesley Clark speak, the more he reminded me of Ashley Wilkes.
Ergo, we call him Ashley Wilkes.
Uh it's a long four-hour movie.
I don't have time to tell you the whole story here, but uh go buy it.
That way you don't have to take it back or rent it if you uh have the time to take it back.
With gas prices as high as they are, you might want to think about buying these movies and getting them over the um, you know, from FedEx or whatever.
But that's that's up to you.
Uh as to the assertion that um uh the Iraq war is responsible for increased terrorism, you know, my first reaction is there isn't any terrorism happening in America right now.
There hasn't been a repeat of 9-11 right now, and I know full well why there is terrorist activity in Iraq and why there's terrorist activity in Afghanistan, and it's precisely because we're trying to wipe them out, and they are fighting for their survival.
Now in Iraq, specifically what they were doing was trying to prevent what's happened.
The president was right last night, folks.
They have failed everything they tried to do.
Their biggest fringe uh appear to be liberals in this country.
The terrorists failed to stop the elections, they failed to stop sovereignty, they failed to keep Saddam in power, they failed to put him back in power, they failed to keep to uh to prevent the process from starting to write the Constitution, they failed everywhere they've gone over there.
It's just the nature of the reporting that makes people think.
I was I was uh, you know, I do uh uh a live back and forth of commentary with friends on uh on instant message as I watched these speeches last night.
And and uh after I made the observation that uh the president's, you know, real problem is not the left and the media, because they're always gonna hit him.
They're always going to attack him.
Uh his problem is is these people like McCain and Hegel and and Lindsey Graham, who uh, you know, my gosh, did you realize Chuck Hagel's upset that he's been quoted on Al Jazeera.
What does he expect?
What do they expect when they go out and talk about Iraq as a total failure and the president's lying the American people, a White House needs to come clean?
What do they expect is going to happen with their words?
So Al Jazeera picks this up and uses it as propaganda in the Middle East.
The one thing I would have done differently than the president, and I'm not the president, the one thing I would have done differently.
There was one reason why this speech last night was necessary.
Do you know what it is?
One reason.
Well, there's more than one.
I give you two big reasons.
We have stopped showing pictures of what happened on 9-11.
Those pictures ought not be buried.
Everything about it.
People jumping out of the buildings, the planes hitting the buildings, whatever we got, we need to constantly remind people of it, like we do Pearl Harbor.
Like we do the Holocaust.
People don't need to forget this.
People don't need to think, oh, you know, that was long ago.
That's what the Democrats want.
And the media, those pictures are too shocking.
Oh, those pictures are too traumatic.
Boy, we can't replay those pictures.
Well, uh not any more traumatic than your nightly news on your local TV station with all the blood and guts and murders, shark attacks and what have you.
But the fact is, if you combine the fact that there's a lack of reminder, and we're picture-oriented society.
This is a lack of reminder what happened on 9-11, coupled with what we get as news out of Iraq each and every day.
What do we get?
We get another helicopter shot down.
Today it's in Afghanistan.
We get a car bomb going off.
We get three to ten Iraqis dead, four to ten Americans dead.
And it's nothing but that.
There is never any reporting on whatever progress is being made.
There's never any reporting on, and I'm not complaining about the media.
That's who they are.
But had I been giving the speech last night, I would have said, and I would have tried to make this bond of reality here of relationship between myself and the audience.
And I would have said, one of the reasons that you are of the opinion you are tonight is because the nature of the reporting coming out of Iraq, and I want to tell you what some of the successes are.
But the president didn't sugarcoat anything.
He was so honest, he said, we're running behind on training Iraqis to protect themselves.
We're running behind.
We're hard work.
We're running behind on this, but we're making progress here.
They have failed to stop us.
Every one of our timetables, every timetable has been met.
If you listen to the Democrats in their echo chamber in the media, every timetable that we set wasn't going to happen, then when it was met, they ignored it and went on to some other problem that they manufactured to keep crisis mode alive.
But the the the reason this speech was even necessary is because of the public perception that we're losing, or the word, if not losing, we're not doing anything.
We're just, we're just, as far as the press reporting is concerned, we're just sitting around getting shot at.
We're standing around getting blown up.
We're unable to stop Iraqis from getting blown up.
We don't hear about the rebuilding of the infrastructure.
We don't hear about the schools that are open.
We don't hear about the progress being made, aligning all these different factions, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shia.
We don't hear about all that going, because it's not in anybody's interest on the left to report that kind of thing.
So you get a daily casualty report with nothing else to put it in context, particularly casually reports from previous wars.
And if you do this without showing the pictures of 9-11, it's quite natural that people who get their news from those sources are going to think that this is nothing.
We're losing, we're we're just standing around getting shot at and blown up.
We're not we're not advancing.
We don't see any pictures of success.
We don't see any pictures of big battles, we don't see any pictures of the U.S. mounting offensive.
We don't see pictures of the U.S. firing guns and setting off bombs.
We don't see pictures of the U.S. capturing bad guys.
We don't see pictures of the U.S. blowing away 150 of them at a time, but it's all happening.
What we see are pictures of a blown-up Jeep or Humvee or, you know, little foreign import drip drive around in Iraq that used to hold three or four people were told.
And uh the impression is left that the bad guys can kill and attack at will Whenever they want with impunity.
Well, we know that's not the case.
We know the bad guys are losing.
We know the bad guys are losing just like we know the Democrats are losing.
It's just as obvious in both cases.
The bad guys are flooding Iraq with every recruit they can find from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran.
They know what's at stake.
The Iraqis are being trained to deal with it as they're going to have to at some point, because we're not going to be there forever.
By the same token, the Democrats are flooding the zone here with the same kind of news that is is presented on TV every night.
It's a quagmire.
It isn't going anywhere.
It's Vietnam all over again.
I mean, just in human terms, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
But as to Wesley Clark's notion that the Iraq war gave us more terrorism.
That's that's a kind of comment that makes me wonder how in the world a guy ever got four stars or three or whatever he has.
I I just it's just absurd.
Absurd.
Always ready.
Uh ladies and gentlemen.
One of the many things we do here is we make the complex understandable.
Glad to have you with us.
800-282-2882.
Say uh Coco, Coco is the uh is the webmaster at Rush Limbaugh.com, and there's a reason why we call him Coco.
And that is back on the uh TV show when I had the TV show.
Uh remember when all these news stories about Coco learning sign language, Coco the Gorilla, and Coco playing cards and Coco predicting football games and all this.
We dressed George up as Coco, and we had George in a little box uh on the screen, sign languaging what I was saying uh for people who were deaf in the audience is we got our own gorilla, and of course we called him Coco.
Uh and it was I couldn't keep straight face.
Watch if I had watched the monitor, I'd lose my composure.
So that's why his name's Coco.
George, I got a project for you here because Andy McCarthy did a good job uh recounting uh all the ties between uh uh Iraq and Al Qaeda members.
But we've we did it better ourselves in the uh Limbaugh letter about a year ago, the July 2004 Limbaugh letter, uh pages 12 and 13, just chalked full of examples, illustrations, facts from various media such as The Guardian,
uh the Glasgow Herald in Scotland, the The Telegraph, uh even uh even the New York Times, Colin Powell at the UN, the Wall Street Journal, all documenting things about ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Now, what I want to do, I I want I want these two pages available on the website today.
I want to get these two pages from the Limbaugh letter of July 2004 available on the website.
You can either do screenshots and PDF them up there so people can see the actual print, probably the easiest way to do it.
You know, just take some screenshots of the PDFs and uh and and post them as PDF links to just these two pages, 12 and 13, July 2004, Limbaugh letter.
Uh, and you'll see.
I mean, and look at I don't mind doing we have to keep reminding people of this.
Life does go on.
People have other concerns, and their concerns normally are their future.
And there's so much information out there, so much data that even when you hear it the first time, if you don't see it, don't hear it a lot, you may be for forget it.
So we'll do that on the website today.
Since the Democrats are making this big deal, we can blow them out of the water with this.
And uh we will do it.
Don in Clarkston, Michigan.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Good afternoon, Rosh Bow Dead O'Shea.
The uh the point I want to make is I want to reiterate what you were saying the other day about uh about uh people calling and uh the poll data stating that they don't uh approve of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq.
About a year ago I received a telephone call on a poll, and they asked me that question.
I said I did not approve of the way he was handling the war.
A big supporter of the war.
I just don't think you've gone far enough, just like you were pointing out the other day on your radio show.
I think the whole area should have been a glass factory.
I mean, I think the military should have been contributing to global warming in that region.
Well, a lot of people do.
And I he's he's talking about a point that I made yesterday that there were the CNN poll yesterday touting that only 40% uh approved of Bush's handling of the war.
And the assumption is uh 60% disapprove.
Well, okay, why?
And I my point was that uh among that 60% a lot of people that are upset we're not going far enough that we're not just shock and awe every day over there.
And he's just calling to say he got a call like that, and that's what he told them, but it probably didn't show up in the uh in the in the polling data.
Uh but regardless, the polling that uh was done, the flash polling last night uh shows that the president persuaded the American people.
He reminded them what's at stake, his approval for the s it went from, I forget, f 49 or 48% to 70% on CNN.
Stay the course, stay there.
It went down to 23 or 24 percent that uh were in a blind alley and had no business being there.
Uh and the the reaction of the public, at least in the media's own polls, is in direct opposition to the media's analysis of the speech itself.
So they're way out there all alone, folks.
Uh they're out there on the island of Elba, as it were.
They're out there on an island, they are surrounded by a majority of thought representing the uh the American people.
This is Doug in Port Lambton in Canada.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Great to have you with us.
Rosh, what a pleasure.
Thank you.
I would like I would like to uh illustrate the point that you made earlier about the disconnect between the media and the and the facts in Iraq.
On the local Detroit news station, Channel 7, this morning was their local anchor talking to an Iraqi who remember the big air population in Detroit, who goes back to Iraq several times uh in the past month, and he's actually asking this Iraqi about the state of things there.
H have things improved uh with each visit.
What are things like?
And the Iraqi is giving glowing reports about improvement, about progress, about all the things that we know are happening over there to the good.
What is Channel 7 showing on the video feed?
A loop of car bombing, of terrorists with RPGs, of people running in the streets, a total disconnect between what this Iraqi is talking about, the state of affairs on the ground, and trying to, you know, put propagandize us.
Well, well, well now, Doug, you gotta have some understanding here for these uh people at Channel 7.
That's all the video they have.
They they I mean, they don't have any other video.
That's my point.
But let you have to understand something.
The media is what it is, they're who they are.
I mean, I I'm not sitting here saying they should change, because I they're not going to, folks.
The the the way to deal with this is the way it is being dealt with.
People know now to watch with the with a with uh with a perspective here that contains a lot of uh suspicion.
Uh that can't be all that's happening there.
Uh but they're not you have to understand most of these reporters, folks, are not leaving the hotel or they're not leaving the green zone.
Some of the embeds do, but very few embeds exist now.
Reporters are not going out in this into this into this mess over there.
Um they simply get feeds and uh they all report basically the same thing.
That's one of the most amazing things uh about this.
But news by its definition is what's going wrong.
They never tell us, hey, five million airplanes landed safely last month in the world.
It's just not the nature of the news.
Uh but I'm just telling you that no matter how vigilant anyone is, no matter how steeled and informed and ready you are, we are all susceptible to pictures.
And the constant repetition of pictures, if the pictures are negative or the loop as you describe Doug, you can't help but be affected by it.
You can't help but think, Quagma, I told you all the story.
I had some friends down from Atlanta for the weekend some time ago, and they're re they're very intelligent people, but they don't watch a lot of news because they're very busy.
And we got to talking about Iraq, and I may as well have been listening to somebody who just watched uh CNN or MSNBC or ABC CBS for ten minutes a week.
Uh every day, Rush.
I mean, the three Iraqis, ten Iraqis are being killed.
I don't get the point.
Uh did my best to walk her through it, but my words had a tough time competing with the men the the the images in her mind created by the pictures.
And I'm just telling you, though those things are very powerful.
Um, which is why you need pictures of 9-11 to put all this in perspective.
And you need some pictures of successes, you need Some pictures, uh, at least some reporting of successes, and you get that in some places, but not uh not nearly enough.
Um did we have I think early on we had a sense of success in Vietnam, but well, I uh I don't rem I don't remember if if if uh who censored who?
The U.S. censored the press.
I don't remember the military censored the media back then uh or not.
But whatever, they don't do that now.
They do their best to ask them.
Don't do this yet, don't do that yet.
Hold on to those Abu grab pictures for just a couple days more because we're got an investigation going, that kind of thing, but I don't think there's much press uh uh censorship.
Uh press would disagree, but um but uh I don't know.
The the uh uh AP out of Australia.
Now get this.
Staunch U.S. LI Australia praised President Bush's pledge to keep forces in Iraq until the fight is won, but opponents of the mission said it reinforced fears that the conflict would drag on indefinitely.
See, we're missing here a total lack of historical perspective.
World War II.
You know, we never look at wars that we win, and how long did they take?
Uh Iraq has been a conflict with uh without timeliness, without an exit strategy, and indeed without a mission statement from day one, said Tom Cameron, a spokesman for Australia's opposition labor party.
Australia needs to refocus on the region and the war on terror instead of getting bogged down in a bloody quagmire of Iraq's insurgency.
Oh, and I did hear last night repeated references to the uh courageous insurgency by some people.
They're just a bunch of terrorists.
It's not even an insurgency.
An insurgency would be if they are Iraqis fighting, in that case, they'd be rebels.
This is terrorists that are crossing borders to get in there to fight Iraq, a duly elected government, and us.
But that's not the point of this story.
The point of this story is that the AP quotes an employee, a porter, at a Jakarta, Indonesia hotel, who didn't even see the speech.
They quote him on what he thinks needs to happen.
Harry Prassetio, a reporter at a Jakarta hotel, said he had not seen the Bush speech, but he said it was time the U.S. left and allowed the Iraqis to build their future by themselves.
So it's getting to the point where you even have to go out and quote people who didn't see a porter in a ho just to get a critic.
Just to get a critic, you go find a porter at a hotel in Indonesia.
Who didn't even watch the speech?
And that's a credible source for the Associated Press in Australia.
Quick time out.
Back with more after this.
I had couple sound bites here from the speech last night.
One from the speech and one uh uh media reaction to it.
This is when the president was interrupted by applause when he uh says he'll stay in a fight until the fight's won.
Uh the uh the media afterward all tried to say, many of them tried to say that that uh officers and uh and uh uh uh uh GIs in that hall why uh they weren't inspired to applaud at all.
They never applauded once.
Uh it never happened until the White House uh uh support team uh led them in applause when then they started applauding.
Here's how it all sounded sorry sounded.
We fight today because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world, and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror.
And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they're making their stand.
So we'll fight them there.
We'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
Thank you.
Yes, sir, thank you.
Thank you, thank you.
Thank you.
I hear applause, I eventually will think it's for me.
So let's go to the media Afterwards, we have uh Nora O'Donnell from uh NBC News and Terry Moron uh from uh Moran from ABC News, and uh this is it's a montage.
This is how it sounded.
I checked with some of those in uniform and they were told to follow military protocol and to be polite.
It was my observation that that one applause break was actually triggered by members of the president's advanced team.
At one point he was interrupted for applause when he said we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.
I must tell you that applause was initiated by a member of the White House advanced team.
These people are so predictable, so predictable, getting boring out there.
The uh military does not applaud uh during official speeches later.
The only reason they did is because they were led.
Uh but there is a protocol.
They don't applaud.
It is a sign of respect.
This was not a rally.
This was a presidential address.
Uh so any little nitpicking thing that they do that they can do, they will uh they'll they'll mention it in order to be critical of the uh of the president.
Our next bite, Mike will be number twelve.
It involves Dick Turbin, uh, the senator from Illinois.
But before that, James Zogby, who is uh Arab American leader in the United States, the brother of um John Zogby, the pollster, has a piece on Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera.com.
Senator Durbin defends America's values.
Senator Durbin is their most recent target.
Last week on the Senate floor, Durbin, who in the past has successfully led the effort to pass anti-torture legislation, read aloud a statement, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, a badminton.
Durbin went to the Senate floor and apologize for the inept historical references, but on the critical issues of torture and detention, he firmly stood his ground.
So I I just I need to ask Democrats as as well as Chuck Hagel.
Here's Chuck Hagel doesn't like being used in a move-on.org ad.
Uh they've got a they've got an ad out, uh, a TV ad that will I guess uh it debuted last night.
Um calling for President Bush to uh to bring troops home from Iraq, uh timing their broadcast with the president's speech.
The TV ad centers on comments made by Senator Chuck Hagel, who is one of the Republicans in Congress who has criticized the administration.
In the ad, Hagel is quoted as saying the White House is completely disconnected from reality.
It's like they're just making it up as they go along.
But Hagel is angry about the use of his comments and the move on.org ad.
He said the ad's dishonest.
I've never pre never supported immediate removal of American troops in Iraq.
I I've said that withdrawal from Iraq now would be have catastrophic consequences.
It would ripple across a generation of Americans.
Um, to both Dick Durbin and Chuck Hagel and and anybody else.
And by the way, Senator Kerry, uh, we have the web link and it's no longer up, but we saved it, and it's gonna be published in the next issue of Limbaugh Letter Al Jazeera made a big splash out of Senator Kerry saying he was going to initiate impeachment hearings over the Downing Street memos.
So you go out there and you rip the president on a war that the United States is involved in for national security, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, and you have the opponents of the president, be it moveon.org in the fringe left or Al Jazeera, the terrorist left, and they're gonna pick up your statements, and you're gonna act upset about it.
What do you expect?
Senator Durbin, how do you feel?
How do you feel being hailed and held up as a hero in Al Jazeera?
We know Senator Hagel is angry about being included in a move on.org ad, but you have to ask yourself, are you surprised?
You really surprised?
Go out and you rip the president who's a member of your party, and you don't expect the opposition to use it.
That's why I say I don't think the pro president's big problem is the left and the media, because they're always going to be critical.
It's these McCain Hagel, Lindsey Graham Republicans who, if they would just stay unified about the enemy and about the cause and about the purpose.
These speeches, such as last night's wouldn't be necessary as often as they are.
Show prep for the rest of the media.
Fox News just did an hour on Club Gitmo, asking, is it a basically a torture chamber or is it Club Gitmo?
An hour to go, folks.
Stay glued.
▲
Export Selection