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 not the 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 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.
Who, 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 Own and Broadcasting Network.
I am America's anchor man, 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 often say, What is this Rio Linda reference?
I've been referring to Rio Linda 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 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 out of this place.
And I you you you walk the drive down the main drag, and you've got cars up on concrete blocks in the front yards.
You've got it just it.
I said, What is this place?
And they said, Rio Linda.
So I drove back and I and I looked at the population sign, you know, the the the sign demarking the town.
And it did say Rio Linda, but it had a number on it, so I guess nobody admitted living there.
But uh Rio Linda got 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 limbaugh jokes, is celebrating something positive tonight.
Oxford's Lani Wong reports on a new supermarket that opened today, bringing some new jobs with it.
Shoppers at Rio Linda couldn't wait for the doors to open at the food source store on Elkhorn Boulevard.
It's the first supermarket to open in an old and once-blighted 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 real Linda, Lonnie Wong, Fox 40 News.
Fox 40 News is KTXL and uh it's in Sacramento.
So they got a new supermarket there.
It 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.
Uh.
So I yeah, they maybe they'll get a movie theater next.
Um, you know.
Anyway, I just I had to share that with you folks because I I just I find it.
I just love these people, Rio Linda.
I offered, I offered to move there if they would rename the community after me, and they they uh rejected that.
Yeah, I said if they name it Limbaugh, California, I'll go there.
Then I tried that in West Sacramento when they were gonna 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 a 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, 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 World News tonight.
It was uh 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 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 the pre 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 if you're worried about Hillary, I want I she's the one person doing this right.
She is not running against Bush.
When you he you don't hear her in any of these sound bites, do you?
You don't hear her acting like Bush is her opponent in 2008 or anybody else's for that matter.
Uh and the Democrats can't get that through their head, nor can Howard Dean or anything else.
But the the bigger point is uh and I don't look, I'm I'm I don't mind being included in the ABC World News Tonight package.
I understand everybody's desire for high ratings.
Uh but 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.
Uh, but you've got Republicans, uh, and you know who the night you know who they are.
They're Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham and and and uh McCain.
You know, and they're off the reservation doing their own things.
Uh, and it's that lack of unity on the Republican side that uh is is causing there not to be a forceful defense of our policy on the Republican side and a proper definition uh of our enemy.
So uh I just I wanted to make mention of this because it's you know it's just becoming uh patently obvious to me, and I'm sure it will be soon to others since we are show prep for the uh rest of the media.
And for all I know, we may be we may be um uh 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.
Um we've had a drive-by caller.
This is a caller who can't stay on the air for time reasons or whatever, but suggested that I should donate a library for Rio Linda like Clinton did in Arkansas, minus the uh minus the massage parlor.
Um, you know, maybe put a wing of the limbaugh museum of broadcasting in Rio Linda.
That would generate that would generate trauma.
Uh that's not a bad idea.
It's 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 uh prove to a judge why they shouldn't go to jail or else turn over their notes.
Uh that a prosecutor wants.
Uh, 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 Grunwall, by the way, and he's a very funny guy.
Wins all these, you know, these reporters get together and have their own amateur comedy nights now and then, and he's always uh either winning these things or at the uh at the top of the list.
But this is the case over the uh the probe of the leak of Valerie Playham's name, CIA agent, the New York Times said it was deeply disappointed in Time magazine's move, uh, 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 uh Judith Miller, co respondent of the uh New York Times, I've always wanted to pronounce that word that way, uh, for contempt for refusing to disclose their sources.
Now, in a statement, uh, 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 it 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 is a constitution, the judge is a judge, court's a court, the 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, uh Arthur Schultzberger Jr., his dad was punch.
Uh he's called a little pinch.
Uh 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 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's, I didn't edit, 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 uh 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 uh I I just you know, I I'm gonna tell you something, folks.
The press does have constitutional protection.
Now I know the Supreme Court has ruled that they can't, they can't protect sources in criminal cases.
And that's that's what's governing this.
Uh this is a criminal case.
This is the release of a name of a uh of a CIA super secret agent.
But uh I just there's something about about this jailing journalists uh and this sort of thing on I I I think that there's there's also there's a there's another case out there, uh, and I I just barely mentioned this earlier this week, and this one's far more troubling to me than this one is.
When Ho Lee, who worked uh what is the name of the nuclear facility?
Yeah, Los Alamos.
He worked at a Los Alamos nuclear facility out in uh, where is it, New Mexico, Arizona, Mexico, somewhere else.
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 GICOMs.
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.
Uh uh, you know, for these anonymous sources and destroying his career and reputation in life.
That, you know, I'm far more sensitive to that.
Uh this the special prosecutor in the Matt and Judy affair hasn't even brought any charges against anybody.
I mean, it's just been going on for two years.
Everybody knows who the woman's name is now.
And 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.
Uh and so I, you know, I I'm, you know, I think this is a little over the top, sending these people to jail for something like this.
Uh when you compare some of the other things out there uh that that are going on, but it is not unprecedented.
There have been reporters go to jail for failure to re reveal sources, and I'm not, I don't mean to act uh naive uh about that.
But things like this Winho Lee case that I'm holding that story as I say in reserve, uh, folks, because when you've got reporters using anonymous sources, close to the investigation or close to the so whatever, that end up being totally incorrect.
Uh there is a course of action against that.
And Mr. Lee, uh uh, I think Wenho Lee is pondering it.
Uh and maybe a court is.
I'll have to dig the story back out, but it's uh, you know, that's that's something I think that's that's uh pretty serious.
There need to be uh some sort of control on that.
Now, I have I have it next up here in the stack.
I've got three of the most ridiculous global warming stories.
These these global warming stories hit, you know, with a predictability.
Uh 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 I'm not gonna go into detail now.
I'm just gonna set you up for what's coming later.
Global warming makes sea less salty.
Uh global warming might create lopsided planet.
Soot blamed for global warming underestimate.
Wait a little and 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 suit's been fooling us.
It's just, it's 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 Mahmood Amanijad playing a central role in the takeover, interrogating captives and demanding harsher treatment for the hostage.
Uh hostages, retired Army Colonel Charles Scott, now 73, who uh lives in Jonesboro, Georgia, said, soon as I saw his picture in a paper, I knew that was the bastard.
He was one of the top two or three leaders there.
Uh 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 Sharer, 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 uh of the investigation or the question, uh whatever.
It's been uh 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 they're arguing over whether the pictures today equal the pictures of the guy, you know, back in 1979.
But it looks to be the same terrorist, once terrorist always terrorists.
Uh back after this.
I just got a I just got an email.
Here, Rush.
I know what Rio Linda means, but tell me, what is that word you use constitution mean?
Is that what judges make up before ruling?
*laughter*
I love that.
All right.
Uh I want a little side note here about uh about this Iranian election and the and this new terrorist uh president that they've uh that they've got shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.
Iran has been the focal point of uh of terrorism for 20 or 30 years, uh and it's it's it's uh it it is what it is.
I've often said, folks, I think we're actually fighting Iran in Iraq.
Now the all these insurgents and not uh a bunch of unhappy Iraqis, some of them are the old Saddam Bathists, 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 they're petrified what's going on next door, uh, and petrified as well that we are there, which reminds me our old our old buddy Joel Rosenberg, who uh used to take out the trash and uh and occasionally do some writing for the Limbaugh Letter, has uh, 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, uh 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 um he wanted to get serious about some things.
He wrote the book, uh, the uh last jihad.
We had him on to talk about it's an amazing, amazing book, a first-time novelist, spy thriller, uh followed it up with the last days.
He's got a new book about uh uh this whole Iranian situation.
It's ironic or it's uncanny how Joel's books seem to um uh pressage, presage for those of you in real end of the uh the uh the future.
Uh it's called the Ezekiel option, and I just wanted to alert you because it just came out this week.
Uh there's a here's the basic principle of the book.
Saddam's gone and Arafat's dead.
An American president and his uh senior advisors are pushing hard for a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians, and at that point all hell breaks loose.
A dictator uh 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.
Uh 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.
Uh, and then the the thing revolves around will the White House stand by Israel against Russia armed with uh 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.
Uh and the the Ezekiel option.
I'll tell you what I wrote.
I read the book and I wrote a little uh uh 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.
Um with a with a supernatural twist to it.
Uh regardless what your political views are, you you've you'll you love it.
The uh I'll just give you a hint.
The Ezekiel option involves a prophecy 2500 years ago of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel, uh, who wrote about a coming war between a Russian-Iranian alliance and Israel's.
That's that's what the uh 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, uh former custodian and janitor at the Limbaugh, 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.
Um I have a request, if you would kindly consider it.
Uh I I'd like you to consider um having Camp Getmo bath towels.
Uh maybe some nice, really thick white bath towels like they have at the finest hotels, uh, maybe made out of Egyptian cotton, and then with a Camp Gitmo logo on them.
Because I'd like to buy something like that and hang them in my uh guest bathroom at home.
I'm serious.
Well, we're I've looked at a lot of these different options.
Uh Club Gitmo soap, uh, you know, Club Gitmo's spa products, uh, and this sort of thing.
Bath towels, I I tell you what, we've we've established the color motif, though it has to be prison suit orange.
Well, that would be fine.
That would be even more uh yeah.
That would be good.
Orange bath towels with maybe a nice gold logo on there, but Egyptian cotton.
Uh Egyptian well, uh y that would be good maybe for you, but one of the things we have to take into account at the uh at the Club Gitmo gift store is price.
Uh we want to be able for as many people to get these as uh as possible.
And you know, when you start getting in at bath towels, those big supersized bath towels, uh uh it it's uh t-shirt's one, you know, 1995 cap, 1695 uh golf shirt, 3995.
What are you looking at me this way, Mr. Snerdley for?
Hmm.
No, no, no.
I'm just I'm I'm talking just about uh, you know, experiences we've had with pricing at the uh at the rush at the EIB store.
Um, you know, we we've offered like some $70 golf shirts, and uh there's some takers, but uh that's not you know, that's not w with a price range that most people uh uh are gonna 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 uh where they come from and uh and so forth.
But we'll look Linda, we'll put it in the hopper out there and and uh never know.
But I do know this, the Club Gitmo gift shop's not going anywhere.
Ed in Dayton, Ohio, your next.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hi there, Rush.
Glad to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
I've got a point about uh you a moment ago you were talking about Win Ho 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 Lorell 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, there the somebody leaked information to uh to these reporters that that focused on Winho Lee.
It was about some missing tapes.
It was about some some missing secret tapes from the Los Alamos facility.
I I don't want to even speculate on who it might have been.
These are unnamed sources, these are anonymous sources, and you just 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.
Uh as to your point that it might have been Clinton going after Winho Lee because of Lorel and the and the uh the campaign finance uh problem they had with Chinese money.
I'm not sure that's the case because the the the mainstream press didn't find anything wrong with that to begin with.
The the majority of mainstream press coverage about uh campaign donations from China and the Lorale space uh people helping out uh Chinese rocket industry, missile industry.
didn't make big news.
Clinton was not really routinely uh 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, uh, other than in the new media.
And of course, the press and the Clinton administration Democrats back then, uh, as they do now, considered a new media a bunch of crackpots and not worth uh anybody's uh anybody's time.
Uh so I I just uh it would be tough to nail down who these unnamed sources are.
Uh, one thing you can be sure of, uh if it is somebody in the Clinton camp, there's a lot of insulation between whoever it really was and the uh and the and the president uh president himself.
Um 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?
Uh I I think jail time is for people that need to be distance from mainstream society.
You know, jail times for people that commit crimes of uh against other people and and they need to be sequestered for the protection of society at large uh and this sort of thing.
I I don't I don't really regard journalists and their anonymous sources uh in a 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 uh with jail here over uh 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.
It said Martha Stewart to jail.
Um things like there are other ways of uh of meeting out punishment, these kind of people, but this is just over the top.
Look, I I don't think I'm being inconsistent at all.
I I think that 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 you you defeat them in the arena of ideas.
You defeat them uh in uh, you know, other ways.
But I I 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.
Uh, you know, I if 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 uh yellow cake uranium uh and and and so forth.
But I just I don't know what purpose would be served.
It's it's not it that maybe with a chilling effect, other journalists uh rush you'll understand.
No, not in this case.
The Winhole Lee case, yeah.
Wholly different situation.
Totally different situation.
Uh beside 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 re divulged their source.
Now, look, I know the law's the law, and the Supreme Court back, I think it's 72 or 79, said that you can't withhold uh 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 I just this is it's it's a bit over the top for me.
Quick timeout will 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, uh Martha McCallum was talking to Barbara Boxer.
This and this whole interchange was fascinating.
Barbara Boxer uh refusing to say here whether the war has been worth it.
And it's still 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 uh on Tuesday night.
Nobody's asserted it.
But 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 Kane 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 is 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 sales 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.
Yeah.
But where's the plan for success?
We didn't hear it.
It was more of the same.
And I was very disappointed.
So uh McAlum is said to Boxer, well, look, why should we why do we have separate Iraq from the war on terror when bin Laden doesn't?
Bin Laden is not making that separation.
And you'll in and Boxer then starts trying to bully uh Martha McCallum.
This is how this sounded.
If you and the president want to follow the advice in the words of Osama bin Laden, be my guest.
I don't think that's the end 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 Saden is 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 re reference to?
Torabora.
We had him.
We had him in the Mount Tatora Bor, but we blew it.
Let me tell you when we had him, Miss Boxers, 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 raise the holy guy.
I think we gotta 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.
Torabora, let's blame Bush for this.
So uh Boxer tries to avoid the final question here and then and gives us a lecture.
The question is one more quick question.
You've been critified, criticized by Senator McCain and others for talking about a timetable to pull out, suggest that uh indicates a naivety about war that to even talk about a timetable to get out is undercutting everything our troops have worked for.
You're 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 it's too bad.
All right, I'm sure he would say he tried to lay that out last night.
That is an excellent response.
How many reporters are gonna sit there and disagree with the guy?
I'm sure he would say he laid it up 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 wouldn't wouldn't take it.
I mean, the president has never misled anybody about this.
The Democrats are out there calling for a pull out.
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 uh I don't know if we got the soundbite.
Do we have a soundbite a carrier or have we got in a news story somewhere?
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, uh, whatever you want to call that.
Anyway, is all talking about the Democrats blew it, reacting to uh Carl Rove.
And we'll share with you what Mr. Lakoff has to say.
We got lots to do, lots more ahead right here on the one and only Rush Limbaugh program of the EIB Network.
It won't be long.
Be patient.
▲
Export Selection