All Episodes
Previous Next
June 30, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:32
June 30, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Well, Mr. Sturdley came in today and said, let's start now.
It's a slow news day.
I said, no, it's not.
It's not.
We've got big news today.
We've got big news out of Rio Linda.
We've got big news out of Iran.
We've got, hey, have you seen this?
Have you seen this?
A bunch of former 1979 American hostages in the Iranian embassy said a new president was one of their captors.
The new president of Iran's a terrorist.
But who's surprised?
They're all terrorists in the government there.
Greetings.
And welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Great to have you with us here on the one and only Excellence and Broadcasting Network.
I am America's Anchorman, America's Play-By Playman of the news.
And we are here at 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIBNet.com.
Now, many of you call or write off and say, what is this Rio Linda reference?
I've been referring to Riolinda even since before this program began when I used to work in Sacramento.
It's a, I guess you call it a suburb of Sacramento.
It's a neighboring community out there.
And when I, you know, I got to town in 1984 and I'm driving around learning the town and I got this place and I you walked the drive down the main drag and you've got cars up on concrete blocks in the front yards.
You've got it just I said, what is this place?
And they said Rio Linda.
So I drove back and I looked at the population sign, the sign demarking the town.
And it did say Rio Linda, but it didn't have a number on it.
So I guess nobody admitted living there.
But Riolinda got a new supermarket, folks, and it made the Sacramento local television news yesterday.
A local community once known for its front yard auto salvage businesses and the butt of rush limba jokes is celebrating something positive tonight.
Fox 40's Lani Wong reports on a new supermarket that opened today, bringing some new jobs with it.
Shoppers in Rio Linda couldn't wait for the doors to open at the Fruit Source store on El Corn Boulevard.
It's the first supermarket to open in an old and once-bladed community.
It's nice to be able to drive two minutes from my house and get everything in one stop.
They had the sign up probably for almost two years and we kept thinking that it ain't coming in, it ain't coming in, and it's finally here.
Both the store and shoppers will benefit, along with about 60 new employees hired from the community.
In Riolinda, Lani Wong, Fox 40 News.
Fox 40 News has KTXL in Sacramento.
They got a new supermarket there.
They did.
I mean, I'm happy for the residents of Rio Linda.
They've got a supermarket now.
They don't have to drive all over town to get food.
And it only took two years to build and 60 brand new employees.
So, yeah, maybe they'll get a movie theater next.
Anyway, I just, I had to share that with you folks because I just, I find it, I just love these people, Riolinda.
I offered, I offered to move there if they would rename the community after me, and they rejected that.
I said, if they name it Limbaugh, California, I'll go there.
Then I tried that in West Sacramento when they were going to change their name, and they didn't go for it.
And I'll bet now, I'll bet now they wish they had.
Can you imagine what property values would have done in Rio Linda if I had a place there?
And I would have stuck it out.
I wouldn't have sold even when I left town.
I'd have kept it there.
Museum or something.
Anyway, let's go back to this program yesterday, ladies and gentlemen.
This is what I said as part of my analysis of President Bush's speech and the analysis of the speech by Democrats.
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, that we would be in a stronger position today.
Okay, so I said that.
And last night, we have a little clip here from ABC's Wordled News tonight.
It was a package put together by Terry Moran, the White House correspondent, and he filed a report on the controversy over Bush's remarks using 9-11 in the speech.
He went out, he found two Democrat lawmakers to attack Bush.
He didn't find any elected Republicans defending Bush, just me.
Here's how the report went.
The response to the president's speech divided along sharply partisan lines today, especially when it came to the president's references to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Democrats responded furiously, accusing the president of exploiting the attacks and of trying to suggest that Iraq was directly linked to them.
The president, shamelessly, in my opinion, invoked the terrible tragedy of September 11th to justify our continued occupation.
It had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.
It had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
It had nothing to do with September 11th.
The president did not say Iraq caused 9-11.
He didn't say that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.
White House officials say they were taken aback by the intensity of the Democratic criticism of the president's references to 9-11.
But they insist, Charlie, that the president will not back down from arguing that the war in Iraq is now an extension of the war that began then.
Well, they shouldn't back down.
These Democrats are all wrong.
As I said, the president never once said that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.
And in fact, the president has publicly said that himself, that Saddam never had anything to do with 9-11.
But you can't deny that Iraq is a terrorist front now in the war on terror.
And you can't deny years and years and years of al-Qaeda and bin Laden links to Saddam and Iraq.
Nobody's ever said there's a direct link between the two when it comes to 9-11.
This is just the Democrats panicking.
And I'm going to tell you what, folks, if they don't figure out fast that they're not running against George W. Bush, they are going to have hell to pay the next election.
If you're worried about Hillary, she's the one person doing this right.
She is not running against Bush.
You don't hear her in any of these soundbites, do you?
You don't hear her acting like Bush is her opponent in 2008 or anybody else's, for that matter.
And the Democrats can't get that through their head, nor can Howard Dean or anything else.
But the bigger point is, and I don't, look, I don't mind being included in the ABC World News Tonight package.
I understand everybody's desire for high ratings.
But to use me instead of an elected Republican, here they went and talked to a bunch of elected Democrats, but you didn't have one elected Republican that they used in the package.
Now, I don't know if they didn't try to find any.
I don't know if no elected Republican had the guts to go on record.
I don't know.
But it buttresses my point that the president's big problem here is not what these Democrats are saying and not what the media is saying, because they're always going to be against him and they're always going to attack him.
But you've got Republicans, and you know who they are.
They're Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham and McCain, and they're off the reservation doing their own things.
And it's that lack of unity on the Republican side that is causing there not to be a forceful defense of our policy on the Republican side and a proper definition of our enemy.
I just wanted to make mention of this because it's, you know, it's becoming patently obvious to me, and I'm sure it will be soon to others since we are show prep for the rest of the media.
And for all I know, we may be policymakers for the RNC, for all I know.
We don't have any official ties, but just amazing.
It's amazing to watch the news fall out every day after this program takes place or to listen to various things that are said out there.
We've had a drive-by caller.
This is a caller who can't stay on the air for time reasons or whatever, but has suggested that I should donate a library for Rio Linda like Clinton did in Arkansas minus the massage parlor.
Maybe put a wing of the Limbaugh Museum of broadcasting in Riolinda.
That would generate traffic.
That's not a bad idea.
It's worth putting in the hopper and thinking about.
All the rest of today's program right around the corner.
We'll get to it here in just a second.
It's the Matt and Judy Show.
Matt Cooper, Time Magazine, and Judith Miller of the New York Times.
They have until next week to prove to a judge why they shouldn't go to jail or else turn over their notes that a prosecutor wants.
Time Incorporated said today, Norman Perlstein, their executive editor, said that they will comply with a court order to deliver the notes of a reporter threatened with jail in the probe of the leak of a CIA officer's name.
His name is Matt Cooper.
He's married to Mandy Grunwald, by the way, and he's a very funny guy.
He wins all these, you know, these reporters get together and have their own amateur comedy nights now and then, and he's always either winning these things or at the top of the list.
But this is the case over the probe of the leak of Valerie Plame's name, the CIA agent.
The New York Times said it was deeply disappointed in Time Magazine's move, which came just a few days after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the journalist's appeal.
The U.S. District Judge here, Thomas Hogan, is threatening to jail Matt Cooper, Times White House correspondent, and Judith Miller, correspondent of the New York Times.
I've always wanted to pronounce that word that way.
For contempt, for refusing to disclose their sources.
Now, in a statement, Norman Perlstein, who, again, the executive editor of Time, said it believes the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society.
It also said that despite those concerns, it'll turn over the records with a special counsel investigating the leak.
Said Perlstein, the same constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments.
The Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts, provides no immunity.
It is, as I said yesterday, the First Amendment hasn't meant a whole lot lately.
Campaign Finance Reform came along and limited the free speech of citizens, and the media was all for that.
Now it's being turned on them.
And, you know, these are the kind of things you would hope would wake them up as to what's happening with the judicial branch in this country.
So Mr. Perlstein acknowledges that, hey, Constitution's a Constitution.
The judge is a judge.
A court's a court.
A ruling's a ruling.
Just because we disagree with it doesn't mean anything.
There's also something he didn't say.
And that is that the prosecution of the court can really lay out a huge fine as well if they don't comply.
And that would, of course, have ramifications of stockholders, stock price, depending on the size of the fine.
Now, that little pinch, Arthur Schulzberger Jr., his dad was punch.
He's called a little pinch.
Pinch, publisher of the New York Times, said, we are deeply disappointed by Times' decision to deliver the subpoenaed records.
He noted that one of their reporters served 40 days in jail in 1978 in a similar dispute.
Our focus is now on our own reporter, Judith Miller, and in supporting her during this difficult time.
The judge yesterday agreed to hold a hearing next week to consider arguments against jailing these two, but he expressed skepticism that any new arguments would change his mind.
It's curiouser and curiouser.
I don't understand why the reporters are asking for more time, the judge said.
Seems to me the time's come, much more delay, and we will be at the end of the grand jury.
So, you know, I think Novak has been drawn into this too, because some are saying that, hey, Bob, what kind of conversations did you have with this special prosecutor that led to all this?
And Novak said, I didn't edit it, I'm not talking about it, but to think they're going to jail because of me is absurd.
And it's not the case, and he feels very disappointed that they are going to jail.
I frankly think it's absurd too.
I frankly, I know it's the law and the judge can rule as he rules, but I just, you know, I'm going to tell you something, folks.
The press does have constitutional protection.
I know the Supreme Court has ruled that they can't protect sources in criminal cases.
And that's what's governing this.
This is a criminal case.
This is the release of a name of a CIA super secret agent.
But I just, there's something about this jailing journalists and this sort of thing.
I mean, I think there's also, there's another case out there.
And I just barely mentioned this earlier this week.
And this one's far more troubling to me than this one is.
Wen Ho Lee, who worked at, what is the name of the nuclear facility?
Yeah, Los Alamos.
He worked at a Los Alamos nuclear facility out in, where is it, New Mexico, Arizona, Mexico, somewhere.
And if you remember the case, this guy, based on news reporting alone, was assumed to have been a traitor.
This guy, we all thought this guy was a traitor sending nuclear secrets back to Red China, the Chikoms.
And the reason for this, four reporters, Washington Post, New York Times among them, and their confidential anonymous sources.
And they ran with this.
And they went to trial.
And it turns out that Wen Ho Lee was no more guilty of treason than your pet dog.
The judge, in something that's unprecedented, apologized from the bench to Win Ho Lee and said that the nation owed him an apology for what he had been put through.
And now there is a civil suit against these four journalists for these anonymous sources and destroying his career and reputation in life.
That, you know, I'm far more sensitive to that.
The special prosecutor in the Matt and Judy affair hasn't even brought any charges against anybody.
I mean, this has been going on for two years.
Everybody knows who the woman's name is now.
And Joe Wilson, the husband here, helped publicize her by posing for a picture in Vanity Fair inside their sports car while she's wearing a scarf and sunglasses driving around saying, look at me, look at me, notice me, notice me.
You know, to say that these people seek privacy is idiotic.
And so, you know, I think this is a little over the top, sending these people to jail for something like this.
When you compare some of the other things out there that are going on, but it is not unprecedented.
There have been reporters go to jail for failing to reveal sources, and I don't mean to act naive about that.
But things like this Winhole Lee case, and I'm holding that story, as I say, in reserve, folks, because when you've got reporters using anonymous sources close to the investigation or close to the source, whatever, that end up being totally incorrect, there is a course of action against that.
And Mr. Lee, I think Winhole Lee is pondering it.
And maybe a court is.
I'll have to dig the story back out.
But that's something I think that's pretty serious.
There need to be some sort of control on that.
Now, I have it next up here in the stack.
I've got three of the most ridiculous global warming stories.
These global warming stories hit, you know, with a predictability, much like stories on Bush and lying about weapons of mass destruction hit.
And they get more crazy, crazier.
They get wackier and funnier and more difficult to believe each and every time.
I'm not going to go into detail now.
I'm just going to set you up for what's coming later.
Global warming makes sea less salty.
Global warming might create lopsided planet.
Soot blamed for global warming underestimate.
Wait till you hear this.
Wait till you hear the details of this story.
Soot blamed for global warming underestimate.
In other words, this is a story, but we don't even know how bad it's going to be.
We have underestimated the calamity.
We have underestimated the disaster because the soot's been fooling us.
It's just, it's hilarious.
Also, Americans held in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran said yesterday that they clearly recall Iranian President-elect Mahmoud Ahmanijad playing a central role in the takeover, interrogating captives and demanding harsher treatment for the hostages.
Retired Army Colonel Charles Scott, now 73, who lives in Jonesboro, Georgia, said, soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard.
He was one of the top two or three leaders there.
The new president of Iran is a terrorist.
Donald Scherer, retired Navy captain, for a time a cellmate of Colonel Scott at the prison in northern Tehran, remembered Mr. Amanijad as a hardliner, a cruel individual.
I know he was an interrogator.
Said Captain Scherer, who's now 64, lives in Bedford, Iowa, said he was personally questioned by the new Iranian leader on one occasion, but does not recall the subject of the investigation or the question, whatever.
It's been long known that the new prime minister, new president, who was then a 23-year-old engineering student at a university in Tehran, played a critical role in planning the embassy.
Iran's denying it, but it's all over this guy's personal website that he was there.
He admits it.
Now, they're arguing over whether the pictures today equal the pictures of the guy, you know, back in 1979.
It looks to be the same terrorist, once terrorist, always terrorist.
Back after this, I just got an email.
Here, Rush.
I know what Rio Linda means, but tell me, what does that word you use, constitution, mean?
Is that what judges make up before ruling?
I love that.
All right.
I want a little side note here about this Iranian election and this new terrorist president that they've got.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.
Iran has been the focal point of terrorism for 20 or 30 years.
And it is what it is.
I've often said, folks, I think we're actually fighting Iran in Iraq.
Now, all these insurgents, they're not a bunch of unhappy Iraqis.
Some of them are, the old Saddam Baathists, but this is a lot of Iranians pouring in, and it's a lot of Syrians pouring in, a lot of Iranians going in from the Syrian-Iraqi border.
And you've got some of these wackos from Saudi Arabia going in as well.
But, you know, this is an Iranian operation.
There's no question about it.
They're petrified what's going on next door and petrified as well that we are there.
Which reminds me, our old buddy Joel Rosenberg, who used to take out the trash and occasionally do some writing for the Limbaugh Letter, has, like many who've worked for this program, gone on to many and better things.
And it's hard to go on to bigger and better things in this program.
Once you get here, you are at the top, which is why most of the people that have been here for 15, 16 years are still here.
But Joel got tired of taking out the trash and occasionally editing some copy.
So he wanted to get serious about some things.
He wrote the book, The Last Jihad.
We had him on to talk about an amazing, amazing book, a first-time novelist, spy thriller.
Follow that up with The Last Days.
He's got a new book about this whole Iranian situation.
It's ironic or it's uncanny how Joel's books seem to presage, presage, for those of you in real Linda, the future.
It's called the Ezekiel option.
And I just want to alert you to, because it just came out this week.
Here's the basic principle of the book.
Saddam's gone and Arafat's dead.
An American president and his senior advisors are pushing hard for a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
And at that point, all hell breaks loose.
A dictator rises in Russia.
Iran feverishly pursuing nuclear weapons.
Russia and Iran form a military alliance.
That, by the way, has never happened before, but it is happening now.
A Russian dictator goes to the UN, demands that Israel be treated the same as Iraq.
In other words, destroy all of their weapons of mass destruction in 30 days or face an international coalition and regime change.
And then the thing revolves around will the White House stand by Israel against Russia armed with 10,000 nuclear warheads?
Will Israel resort to the Samson option, which is nuclear annihilation of her enemies, or will they turn to the Ezekiel option?
And of course, that's the hook.
And the Ezekiel option.
I'll tell you what I wrote.
I read the book and I wrote a little liner for the jacket.
And I said, if you read only one novel this year, this is it.
The Ezekiel option, brilliantly conceived, flawlessly executed.
One of the most exciting political thrillers I've ever read.
And I couldn't put it down.
It's like an episode of 24 with a supernatural twist to it.
Regardless what your political views are, you love it.
I'll just give you a hint.
The Ezekiel option involves a prophecy 2,500 years ago of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel, who wrote about a coming war between a Russian-Iranian alliance and Israel.
That's what the mystery is about.
But it is.
It's like an episode of 24.
You'll have a tough time putting it down.
Joel Rosenberg, former custodian and janitor at the Limbaugh Letter, now big-time author with the book, The Ezekiel Option.
Here's Linda in Orange County, California.
Welcome to the program, Linda.
Great to have you with us.
Rush, we love you and we pray for you.
Thank you so much.
I have a request if you would kindly consider it.
I'd like you to consider having Camp Getmo bath towels, maybe some nice, really thick white bath towels like they have at the finest hotels, maybe made out of Egyptian cotton and then with a Camp Getmo logo on them, because I'd like to buy something like that and hang them in my guest bathroom at home.
I'm serious.
Well, I've looked at a lot of these different options.
Club Getmo soap, you know, Club Guitmo spa products and this sort of thing.
Bath towels, I tell you what, we've established the color motif, though.
It has to be prison suit orange.
Well, that would be fine.
That would be even more, yeah, that would be good.
Orange bath towels with maybe a nice gold logo on there, but Egyptian cotton.
Egyptian, well, that would be good maybe for you, but one of the things we have to take into account at the Club Getmo gift store is price.
We want to be able for as many people to get these as possible.
And, you know, when you start getting in at bath towels, those big supersized bath towels, it's a t-shirt, 1995 cap, 1695 golf shirt, 39.95.
What are you looking at me this way, Mr. Snerdley, for?
No, no, no.
I'm talking just about experiences we've had with pricing at the Rush, at the EIB store.
You know, we've offered like some $70 golf shirts, and there's some takers, but that's not, you know, that's not the price range that most people are going to spend for a golf shirt.
Towels, no, these are very personal items.
These touch very delicate and sensitive private areas.
And people are very, very concerned about towels and where they come from and so forth.
But Linda, we'll put it in the hopper out there and never know.
But I do know this, the Club Guitmo gift shop's not going anywhere.
Ed in Dayton, Ohio, you're next.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi there, Rush.
Glad to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I've got a point about a moment ago you were talking about Winhole Lee.
I was, yes.
I think he was basically the cover after the Clinton administration had basically allowed China to get access to the W-80 warhead data.
And then they allowed Laurel to sell the warhead bus technology.
I think they had to do something to look like they cared about national security.
So basically, they threw the book at him through reporters.
Could be.
I mean, somebody leaked information to these reporters that focused on Winhole Lee.
It was about some missing tapes.
It was about some missing secret tapes from the Los Alamos facility.
I don't want to even speculate on who it might have been.
These are unnamed sources.
These are anonymous sources.
You just don't know.
That is the whole point.
Point is they were dead wrong.
And they destroyed this guy's life for a while and ruined his reputation.
And it was all baloney.
It was all total BS.
As to your point that it might have been Clinton going after Winhole Lee because of Laurel and the campaign finance problem they had with Chinese money, I'm not sure that's the case because the mainstream press didn't find anything wrong with that to begin with.
The majority of mainstream press coverage about campaign donations from China and the Laurel space people helping out the Chinese rocket industry, missile industry, didn't make big news.
Clinton was not really routinely questioned about it.
So if there were those concerns in the Clinton administration, it would have to have been for historical legacy purposes because it wasn't a big deal other than in the new media.
And of course, the press and the Clinton administration, Democrats back then, as they do now, consider the new media a bunch of crackpots and not worth anybody's time.
So I just, it would be tough to nail down who these unnamed sources are.
One thing you can be sure of, if it is somebody in the Clinton camp, there's a lot of insulation between whoever it really was and the president himself.
Mr. Sturdley has sent me a note here that says, with your experiences with the mainstream press, how can you remain so objective and not want to see some of them tossed in jail?
I think jail time is for people that need to be distanced from mainstream society.
Jail time is for people who commit crimes against other people and they need to be sequestered for the protection of society at large and this sort of thing.
I don't really regard journalists and their anonymous sources in a circumstance like this, especially with all that's known about this Valerie Plame case.
We know who she is.
We already know who she is.
Judith Miller never even wrote a story about this, Mr. Sturdley, and she's threatened with jail here over not revealing a source.
She didn't even write a story about it.
She was preparing one, but she never wrote it.
And so she's caught up going to jail here.
I think it was ridiculous to send Martha Stewart to jail.
Things like there are other ways of meting out punishment, these kind of people, but this is just over the top.
Look, I don't think I'm being inconsistent at all.
I think, you know, whether it be eminent domain or whether it be the Ten Commandments, government is just simply too big and it's too powerful.
You just, it's just getting out of hand and it's getting more and more so every day.
And I think it's a dangerous thing when in politics we end up wanting our enemies to go to jail.
You know, that's not the way to deal with them and it's not a way to, it's not a way to get rid of them.
You defeat them in the arena of ideas or you defeat them in other ways.
But there's something about this.
She didn't even write a story.
We know this woman is.
We know this woman's a publicity seeker herself.
We know that her husband's a publicity seeker.
We know that her husband and herself arranged for this dual spread at Vanity Fair with themselves pictured, even though she's wearing sunglasses and a scarf.
You know, if anybody needs to be the focus of legal action, it's those two, if you ask me.
Joe Wilson and his Niger report on yellow cake uranium and so forth.
But I just, I don't know what purpose would be served.
It's not, maybe with a chilling effect, other journalists rush, you'll understand.
No, not in this case.
The Winhole Lee case, yeah, wholly different situation.
Totally different situation.
Judith Miller is not even the one that released her name.
Novak did.
Matt Cooper didn't release her name.
They're just two that haven't divulged their source.
Now, look, I know the law is the law.
And the Supreme Court back, I think it's 72 or 79, said that you can't withhold the identity of sources in criminal cases.
If you do, you face contempt and a fine and you go to jail.
I know the law is the law, but this is a bit over the top for me.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, let's go back to the audio soundbites, ladies and gentlemen.
Yesterday afternoon on the Fox News channel, Martha McCallum was talking to Barbara Boxer.
And this whole interchange was fascinating.
Barbara Boxer refusing to say here whether the war has been worth it and it's still harping on this whole notion that Iraq had nothing to do with bin Laden and that there wasn't one terrorist cell in Iraq and that's totally incorrect.
If you've been to rushlimbaugh.com, you can see two PDF files of the Limbaugh letter from July 2004 with document the 10-year linkage between al-Qaeda and Saddam.
Nobody's ever asserted that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11.
President hasn't asserted it.
He didn't assert it on Tuesday night.
Nobody's asserted it.
You cannot ignore.
You cannot ignore the link.
The 9-11 Commission in its report, I don't know how the press misses this.
Yes, I do know how they miss it.
They don't want to see it.
They don't want it.
Thomas Cain himself said there's no denying a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, a long one.
They don't want to hear it.
They don't want to see it.
They don't want to report it.
And neither do the Democrats.
So here's the question.
McCallum says, I think this is the central question here, whether or not all of this in Iraq has been worth it.
Do you believe it has not been worth it?
We went into a country that, according to the State Department, the Bush State Department at the time did not have one cell of al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.
There were more terror cells in America than there were in Iraq.
Now it's a haven for the terrorists.
We have made a mess of it.
We've never had a plan.
And last night, the president was eloquent, and I appreciate his compassion.
And good Lord, we all feel it deeply in our hearts and souls.
But where's the plan for success?
We didn't hear it.
It was more of the same.
And I was very disappointed.
So McCallum has said to Boxer, well, look, why do we have to separate Iraq from the war on terror when Bin Laden doesn't?
Bin Laden is not making that separation.
And Boxer then starts trying to bully Martha McCallum.
This is how this sounded.
If you and the president want to follow the advice and the words of Osama bin Laden, be my guest.
I don't think that's the issue here.
I think that's it.
Let me make my point.
I want to get him.
And because we turned away...
But you're suggesting that...
Because we turned away...
... that Osama bin Laden is saying...
If I might finish, because we turned away when we almost had him, by the way, and we went into Iraq where there wasn't one terrorist cell, we blew it.
And now we're quoting Osama bin Laden.
Please.
Yes, we're quoting Osama bin Laden because you're not correct.
We can rely on bin Laden's words.
He says he had a relationship with Saddam and a relationship with Al-Qaeda.
We know all kinds of things.
The Democrats don't want to face it, don't want to admit it when it's right in front of their face.
Now they have to say, we're quoting bin Laden.
It's better than quoting you.
Bin Laden's a better source in what he's doing than you are, Senator Boxer.
And this business, we almost had him.
You know what?
That's a relation or a reference to.
Tora Bora.
We had him.
We had him in the Mountains of Tora Bora, but we blew it.
Let me tell you when we had him, Ms. Boxer, is when your hero, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton of the Clinton Library and Massage Parlor in Little Rock, was offered bin Laden three different times by the government of Sudan and said, I think we don't have a legal reason.
The holy guy, I think we got to let him go.
I can't take it.
And Clinton's admitted this in front of an audience.
Yeah, we almost had bin Laden once.
Tora Bora, let's blame Bush for this.
So Boxer tries to avoid the final question here and then gives us a lecture.
The question is, one more quick question.
You've been criticized by Senator McCain and others for talking about a timetable to pull out.
Suggest it indicates a naivete about war that to even talk about a timetable to get out is undercutting everything our troops have worked for.
Putting words in my mouth, and I think in Senator McCain's mouth, because I don't ascribe to a timetable for our getting our troops out.
What I have suggested is what General Newbold has suggested, which is a goal for when we can achieve success.
We never heard that from this president.
You know, it's too bad.
I'm sure he would say he tried to lay that out last night.
That is an excellent response.
How many reporters are going to sit there and disagree with a guy?
I'm sure he would say he laid it out because he did lay it out.
You know, she's trying to bully her way through the interview, and this reporter at Fox wouldn't take it.
I mean, the president has never misled anybody about this.
The Democrats are out there calling for a pullout.
They are wanting a timetable.
Everybody's commenting on how asinine and stupid it is.
By the way, some of the Democrats are now flip-flopping.
John Kerry is flip-flopping all over the place.
And we have, I don't know if we got the soundbite.
Do we have a soundbite carrier or have we got it in a news story?
It's in the stack here.
We'll get to all of that as the program unfolds before your very eyes today.
Sit tight.
Back with much more here on the EIB network.
Our buddy George Lakoff rhymes with, is back this time at a post at the Huffington Post, whatever you want to call that.
Anyways, all talking about the Democrats blew it, reacting to Karl Rove.
And we'll share with you what Mr. Lakoff has to say.
We've got lots to do, lots more ahead, right here on the one and only Russia Limbaugh program in the EIB network.
It won't be long.
Be patient.
▲
Export Selection