All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
July 7, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And we are back here on the cutting edge of societal evolution, the award-winning Rush Limbaugh program and the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Thrilled to be with you today, folks.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
This is one of those times I will openly say, if you missed the first hour, I wish I could repeat it.
But I can't because we must move on.
But there are ways.
You can join RushLimbaugh.com, become a podcaster, and have all three hours of the program downloaded by your computer automatically before 4 o'clock Eastern Time every day, usually.
Speeding up this process each and every day.
Or you'll be able to access RushLimbaugh.com late this afternoon when you get it updated to reflect the contents of today's program.
Be able to read the transcript from the first hour.
But we do have to move on here.
We're going to continue to talk about the terror attack in London.
And of course, your phone calls on this, appreciated and welcomed.
But there are other items in the stacks here, and I want to move on with them.
Some of them do relate ironically to the attack today in London.
For example, I have this story from yesterday.
This is from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Boxer criticizes Iraq war in San Francisco speech.
Haven't heard from Barbara Boxer today, but the Chronicle reports that Senator Barbara Boxer offered a major foreign policy speech on the war in Iraq before hundreds of her constituents in San Francisco yesterday.
The situation in Iraq is spiraling out of control, she said.
And the pool of people willing to fight in the insurgency against America troop presence seems bottomless.
She described herself as distressed, angry, and frustrated over the continuing unrest in Iraq and the mounting death toll with no apparent end in sight.
She says Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.
We have no idea, none, how long the administration plans to be in Iraq.
When we see this next generation coming along, we owe them everything that we have in us to leave them a better world.
Senator, that's why we're in Iraq.
She cited the latest American soldier death count, 1,749, 13,336 wounded, and at least 8,000 dead Iraqis, as proof positive that a clear mission and foreign policy shift are in order.
Our troops deserve more than they are getting.
They deserve more than the status quo, she said.
Bush's administration took its eye off the ball when it shifted its focus from finding bin Laden to waging a preemptive war against Iraq.
See, we have to keep reliving this, and we have to keep explaining it to these people.
Bin Laden is going to find us, Senator Boxer, wherever we are.
He has found us in Iraq.
We found him in Afghanistan and kicked him out.
We are now doing the same thing in Iraq.
Bin Laden, likely bin Laden associates, found London today, and they're going to continue to go wherever they have to to find us.
Took his eye off the ball when it shifted its focus from finding bin Laden to waging a preemptive war against Iraq.
This is why I don't think today's left can be trusted with the national security of this country.
Can we review for just a moment, folks?
Take off your partisan blinders, whichever side of the aisle you're on.
9-11.
We just can't erase that.
The American left wants to seem to pretend that it didn't happen or that it was an isolated event, that it hadn't happened before and it's not going to happen again.
And they even want to pretend that we were somehow partially, if not totally, responsible for it because of the way we are and because of our superpower status or whatever type of blame they wish to affix to us.
But nevertheless, it happened.
3,000 dead Americans one day.
Four airplanes.
Along the same line, parallel line, we have this brewing situation in Iraq.
We went to war in Iraq in 1990, the Gulf War, because Iraq, Hussein, had invaded Kuwait and was probably on his way to Saudi Arabia were it not for us.
Couldn't take the chance.
After that Gulf War, which we won in a matter of months, the UN authored a number of resolutions requiring and demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm.
It was part of the terms of his surrender.
Schwartzkopf led the surrender team to some tent in the desert, and representatives of Hussein came and they signed the surrender agreement.
And among the agreements was a pledge to get rid of all weapons of mass destruction, which Hussein had used against his own people, poison gas against Kurds.
We had intelligence agencies all over the world reporting to the United Nations of an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program.
Now, keep in mind, 9-11 has happened.
We hear all of this from valid intelligence sources all over the world.
We have a number of, I think it was nine UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein had basically spat upon.
He had ignored.
He was continuing to run a legitimate gulag as a country.
He was not denying any of the allegations.
He was huffing and puffing and trying to blow the house down.
He wanted to be the king Arab willing to stand up to the evil West.
He wanted to be the apple of all Arab countries' eyes.
And so he refused to cower and refused to admit and refused to get rid of any of the weapons, refused to permit inspectors to actually inspect.
So we pulled the inspectors out.
For years and years and years, Ward continues that he's building up the program.
9-11 has happened.
Don't forget all these UN resolutions have been ignored.
World countries, nations all over the world.
Intelligence agencies confirming that he's got these programs to weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons.
In the aftermath of 9-11, Ms. Boxer, it would have simply been irresponsible of any president not to take the threat posed by Saddam Hussein seriously.
After 9-11, precisely because of 9-11, we engaged in preemptive action.
But Senator Boxer, the president, didn't do this alone.
The president got two resolutions from you and your colleagues in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, which authorized the very action that he took.
The second resolution was the resolution that you Democrats demanded.
It was in September of 2002, right in the middle of that midterm election.
And you were so concerned that everybody, John Kerry, all of the leaders of your party running around talking about these weapons of mass destruction, just as Bill Clinton had done in 1998 when Tom Daschell and the rest of you were willing to sign on right then to go to war with Iraq.
Clinton didn't do it, but you were ready to, all on the basis Clinton was saying things that were things were no different than what George Bush had said.
You believed them in 98.
You believed them in 2002.
You demanded a second resolution so that your party could be seen as strong and not weak on national security.
You demanded that second resolution, even though the first one, which was authored and passed and signed after 9-11, gave the president all authority he needed to go to Iraq or anywhere to get terrorists intent on attacking the country.
You demanded another one so that you could show the American people that you were in the game too, so that you could illustrate the American people that you had a role in this.
So the president said, okay, if you want a second resolution, go ahead.
And you Democrats debated it, and a number of you were opposed to it, but enough of you signed it, authorizing the president for the second time to use force.
We go into Iraq after failing for 15 months at the United Nations to get the Security Council to join us and agree with us and enforce their own resolutions.
Keep in mind now, Senator, 9-11 has happened.
This is not happening in a vacuum.
We've just been attacked.
3,000 Americans are dead.
And we've got another Arab country ginning up its weapons of mass destruction program on and on and on, defying U.N. resolutions.
It would have been irresponsible not to take that threat seriously and act preemptively.
What if we learn that a terrorist group, Senator Boxer, has plans to do to the United States tomorrow what they did in London today?
Are we going to wait for it to happen and then retaliate?
Or would you authorize preemptive action, Senator, to stop it if we knew where it was?
It's the only responsible course, Senator Boxer, preemptive action.
9-11 happened.
You cannot erase it.
You cannot pretend it didn't happen.
You cannot suggest that it was a vacuum.
Then we go into Iraq and we are immediately successful in overthrowing the Saddam regime.
The weapons of mass destruction don't turn up.
You Democrats see a political opportunity.
And from that moment on, Bush lied.
Bush said nothing different than Bill Clinton ever said.
He said nothing different than Tony Blair said or any of the UN Security Council nations.
Bush lied.
Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.
You saw the same intelligence the president saw, Senator Boxer.
You and John Kerry and all the rest of you, Patrick Leahy and what's his name, Jay Rockefeller, you all saw the same intelligence and you all wanted to go to war on this.
You may not have personally, but your party did.
But then all of a sudden when there are no weapons of mass destruction, you see a political opportunity and you see a chance to divide the country so that you may regain some of your power back.
So all of a sudden they got a new template.
Bush lied.
Bill Clinton only made mistakes.
Bill Clinton just made mistakes and of course those mistakes didn't even affect his leadership.
But George Bush lied even though you demanded a resolution to agree with him.
You demanded a resolution authorizing him yet again to do exactly what he did on the basis that he did it.
We went in there for weapons mass destruction.
We went there to liberate a country.
We went in there with a long-term vision of establishing a country in the Middle East that is pro-American, that is free, has its own elections.
All of this is a tremendous, overwhelming success story, Senator Boxer.
And yet you and the members of your party and the people on the left continue to want to wring your hands for political partisan gain while we have another attack today in London, likely handed out of the same kind of people who attacked us on 9-11 and who want to attack us again.
The same kind of people that were battling in Iraq.
They're not insurgents.
They're terrorists, Senator.
And you want to pretend 9-11 didn't happen and you probably pretty soon won't take more than a couple days pretend London never happened.
Iraq will still be a vacuum and it'll have no connection, no relation, because all Iraq is to you on the left is a political opportunity.
Bush lied.
There were no weapons of mass destruction.
You now can take the Iraq war and you can blame it and Bush for what happened in London or any other future terrorist attack.
And you rub your hands together in glee at the prospect.
And it makes some of us sick, makes some of us livid.
Because if we could just put forth a united front when we're at war, as we did all wars up to Vietnam, we might be having more success, despite all the tremendous success that we are having.
Later on in this story, Senator Boxer is quoted as saying the insurgents are winning the propaganda wars now.
With whose help, Senator, are they winning the propaganda war?
Senator Durbin?
The New York Times?
Abu Ghrab and Gitmo protests?
The ACLU, a couple federal judges?
Who's helping the terrorists?
Who's helping the insurgent terrorists win the propaganda war?
Who is it that when the terrorists speak and some Americans speak, who is it that sounds like the terrorists?
Who is it that has the same criticisms of this country that the terrorists do?
It's your party, Ms. Boxer.
It's the American left, the worldwide left.
When bin Laden talks about the evils of the United States and why it must be attacked, it sounds like John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign.
When whoever did this in London explains why they did it, sounds like any liberal criticizing a successful capitalist country to me.
So when you want to talk about Senator Boxer, the insurgents are winning the propaganda war.
My question is, who's helping them?
Who's assisting them?
Who's going ape and bananas over Abu Ghraib and Gitmo?
Who is aiding and abetting them?
Who is it when they speak in this country, the terrorists sit back and laugh themselves silly?
It's you, Senator Boxer, and members of your party.
And then she went on to say, terrorism is a result of this war.
Ms. Boxer, that's an insult, and it is an indication of your disingenuousness.
9-11 happened before the Iraq war, Senator.
You cannot erase it.
You cannot take it out of the realm of existence.
9-11 and February 26, 1993, the first attack in the World Trade Center, happened before this war in Iraq.
There were airplane hijackings for two decades prior to the war in Iraq.
Senator, you ought to retract this.
Otherwise, you're just going to let everybody recognize you as a fool.
Terrorism is a result of this war.
What happened in London today is a result of this war.
Yeah, the terrorists are going to say that, and you're going to agree with them, and you're going to help their propaganda.
The terrorists are going to say, get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, it's going to keep happening.
And you're going to say, see, we told you.
You're going to end up agreeing with them.
But they were doing this long before Iraq, long before Afghanistan.
And the sad thing is that you know it.
But your quest for partisan political advantage has so blinded you to a solemn reality of this nation at war and under attack and Western civilization in general, that it is frightening that people like you are really as close as you are to leading this country in national security issues.
Back after this, stay with us.
Greetings, folks.
Great to have you.
We are back.
Rush Limbaugh with half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
By the way, folks, here's something that you might want to do today, either with your video recorder or with your computer.
You might want to download the pictures from London today before they get suppressed, as they were suppressed here.
We're not allowed to see these videos of the World Trade Center being blown up.
This is too traumatic.
We don't need to relive the trauma and the horror of that.
And as you know, I disagree.
I think we need to be reminded often we're a picture-oriented society.
They're trying to erase 9-11 from the public memory, and it won't be long before they try to erase London from the public memory.
700 injured, 37 killed.
That's the current tally from Scotland Yard.
So if you want to remember to see these pictures from London, get them now so you have them for yourself.
Now, the New York Times has a story today.
And, of course, they wrote the story yesterday, and it was probably submitted to the editor early before deadline yesterday.
But it got, at least it's on their website today.
It's by Neil Lewis.
Ethics risk is seen in questioning of prisoners.
The American Psychological Association, responding to reports that some of its members may have advised officials on how to conduct harsh interrogation of prisoners, issued a report Tuesday telling its members of the ethical dangers of such activities.
The report by a special group convened to study the ethical boundaries for psychologists at places like Club Gitmo concluded that it was acceptable to act as behavioral consultants to interrogators of the prisoners from Afghanistan held there.
The report said the psychologists should not use a prisoner's medical information to the detriment and safety of an individual's well-being.
Okay, hard to look past a personal connection to this, but I will.
The report said the psychologists should not use a prisoner's medical information, quote, to the detriment and safety of an individual's well-being.
It also said that psychologists serving as consultants to interrogations involving national security should be mindful of factors unique to these roles and contexts that require special ethical consideration.
The new report thus appears to avoid explicit answers to questions as to whether psychologists may advise interrogators on how to increase stress on prisoners to make them more cooperative if the advice is not based on medical files, but only on the observation of the detainees.
So the medical files of prisoners at Gitmo are off records.
They're off limits.
You cannot use them.
In other words, to find a weakness and exploit it to get information.
You can't use the medical records.
You can't use the medical records of a prisoner at Club Gitmo.
I'm not kidding.
I'm reading this from the New York Times today.
I mean, in light of what happened in London today, this is what's on the minds of the editors of the New York Times and everywhere else in the big media, it seems.
We're fighting two fronts here.
We're fighting enemies in this country or idiots and enemies abroad.
And back to the phones we go.
This is David Des Moines.
Glad you waited, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
I'd like to mention, first of all, I'm one of those leftists.
However, I believe that the war on terror is sort of like a virus that invades a cell.
Once it's invaded and it makes the cell do bad things, then, of course, you have to destroy it, just like cancer cells.
Once it invades the body, of course, wherever cell it is at, I believe it should be destroyed as such.
But the problem is, is the future cells, how do we prevent the cancerous or viruses from infecting the good cells?
And I think that's where the question we should have.
The thing of London, I appall.
And of course, I'll be the first one to call or just do whatever I can to prevent for somebody who's going to do some bad act.
The question I have is the good self.
How do we prevent future terrorist attacks from 10 years from now from these kids being recruited by such evil movements?
Well, now that is a good question.
I'm really happy you asked that question.
I'm going to tell you what I think, and I hope you listen to it, Dave, because it's an excellent question.
You've hit a home run with this question, because you're essentially asking, how do you win the war on terror?
And before answering this, I know what he's saying.
He wants to know, okay, we've got these young kids that are being bred and raised to literally hate the West, anything not Islamic.
And they're being fed a distorted version of the Quran, and they're being taught that it's religious and godlike to engage in these kinds of acts.
So how do we stop this?
Even if we were to wipe out every terrorist today, how do we stop this?
Well, the first honest thing to say in answer to that is we never will totally wipe it out.
There are always going to be, even when we have the greatest success imaginable, there are going to be renegades.
There are always going to be insane people.
And it only takes one wacko to cause something like this to happen, or of a smaller or even larger scale.
Let a wacko get hold of a suitcase nuke someday.
It just takes one.
But the answer to your question in the long term is the context in which it needs to be answered.
And I'm going to say to you, at the risk of causing you to have a reaction that would make you disregard everything that follows, I'm still going to say it.
That's why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The answer is something that the American left cares deeply about in this country, and that's education.
If you're asking about future generations, how do we raise our kids?
How do we raise our future generations?
We do it with the age-old guidelines and guardrails that have been handed down to us culturally for our existence.
Morality, teaching right and wrong, civilized behavior, right and wrong.
Well, the same thing is happening in militant Islamic countries, but they've got a whole different definition of morality, a whole different definition of right and wrong.
What's right to them is killing us.
What's wrong is not killing us.
So the purpose of the war on terror and the mission in Iraq is to us and Afghanistan is to establish in that part of the world where that kind of hatred is being bred and raised societies of free people who are not living under imams and mullahs who are forcing their kids into schools such as they are now, but letting people who are human beings just like we are determine their own fate as free people.
The theory behind Iraq, Dave, and Afghanistan is that we Americans are no different in terms of being human beings than anybody else on the planet.
We're not special.
We're not better.
We're just, we've got same DNA.
We're all human beings.
The thing that sets us apart is freedom.
We have founding documents that encapsulate the reasons for our freedom, come from our creation.
That's natural essence of the human spirit is freedom, to not be confined, to not be shackled, but to be free to move about and seek excellence and happiness, pursuit of happiness and contentment to the best of our ability and ambition.
Well, most of the people of the world don't have that.
They live under dictatorial, thuggish regimes.
And when you get to the middle of Islamic countries, you're talking about not just dictatorial, but you're talking about 14th century militant religious dictatorial regimes.
And they are breeding this hatred, and they're raising kids to think that it is normal.
So you go to Iraq, you go to Afghanistan, and you show that people there are no different than people here.
Once they have freedom, they will seek.
We trust free people in this country.
We as human beings trust free people to do the right things.
We trust free people to make decisions in their own self-interest that are good for all.
For their families, for their neighbors, what have you.
Now, you're going to have the renegades.
You're going to have criminals everywhere you go.
Don't misunderstand.
I'm not trying to be pie in the sky about this.
But the United States experience is the model for the world, in my opinion.
It's right under our nose.
Too many people say we can't impose our way of life on people.
It's not fair.
They must choose their own.
Fine.
We're letting them choose their own in Iraq.
Although I don't think there's anything wrong with imposing our way of life on people because I don't think freedom is an imposition.
I think the cure for Africa is to become a United States.
Let them learn to trade.
Let them learn to manufacture.
Let them learn to create their own wealth.
Not have it handed to them.
You're just creating a giant welfare state out of the country with more unending aid.
Let them create it themselves.
They're capable of it.
They're human beings.
Let them be free.
Get rid of their Robert Mugabis and the Edi Amin Dadas and all the others and watch them take off.
Theory holds in Iraq and it's already taking root.
We've had elections.
The people there have determined a government.
They are establishing it for themselves.
They're establishing a police force.
They're getting their schools up and running.
And they don't, we trust that they're not going to want any part of militant Islam.
And we know it because the insurgents are doing everything they can to keep freedom from coming to those people.
That's why Iraq is so crucial.
The insurgents, the terrorists, the militant Islamists sent there by the mullahs and the imams around the world to make sure this doesn't happen because the greatest threat to militant Islamofascism is freedom.
Because people will not choose the kind of bondage that they are being forced to live under in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran or the former Iraq.
Iraq is not going to choose another Saddam Hussein to lead it, I guarantee you, if they are free to act on their own.
They're going to get together.
They're going to have democratic arguments and fights.
They're going to have elections.
Some are going to win, some are going to lose.
They're doing it over and over and over again.
But they're going to want the best for their kids, just like we want the best for ours.
And they know that the best for their kids is to not have the kid taught how to learn how to fly a Boeing 757 into a building in the United States.
Now, this is going to take generations.
This is going to take time.
This is why people like me continually stress that this is a long-term vision and any impatience here is only going to be a detriment.
We've tried it the other way.
We've had terrorism like this for, I don't know, in this form, at least 25 years and terrorism throughout human history.
And we've tried appeasing it.
We've tried negotiating.
We've tried ignoring it.
We've tried pretending it doesn't happen.
But we've never tried to reform it.
And it's the only way.
That's the answer to your question.
How do you keep more cancer cells from being produced?
You get rid of the elements that produce and cause the cancer.
You ban the tobacco from the society, speaking metaphorically.
And it's a long process.
That's why, Dave, people like me think Iraq is a profound success, because we look at that as the reason.
We don't look at weapons of mass destruction or any of that.
That was something dealt with.
But the long-term goal here is to create an outpost in that region where other people in surrounding Arab countries can see, wow, look at those Iraqis.
Look what they've got.
They're making up their own minds.
They're going to work where they want every day.
They're starting their own businesses.
They've got an economy that's functioning.
And that's what the Imams and the Mullahs in Iran are deathly afraid of and trying to prevent from happening.
But that's the solution to it.
There may be others that I haven't thought of, but in the context of your question, that's how I would answer it.
You can't defeat them militarily totally.
This generation, you can.
You can intimidate.
And you take the military action so as to intimidate them from continually thinking they can hit us.
And that's why it's not helpful when certain people in this country say things that seem to stroke and motivate our opponents to sounding just like them.
We don't need people in this country ripping this country to shreds in terms used by our enemies.
And yet it's happening way, way too often.
If we were united in this country, if we all understood what the purpose here was, that it's all about guarding against another terrorist attack for our kids and grandkids, all about making sure there's not another 9-11, or if there is, we're knowing, we'll know of it in enough time to stop it.
That's what we're trying to achieve.
But as long as we're not united here and the voices of opposition to this continually misrepresent what our objective is and continually misrepresent our purpose as just we want oil, Bush and Cheney want oil, or Halliburton needs more money or what have.
As long as it keeps being obfuscated like that, this is going to make the task all that much more difficult, as World War II would have been that much more difficult had we not been unified in beating Hitler and Japan and all the others, Mussolini, that we faced.
So it's not hard.
I mean, it's not easy.
It's very, very hard.
But the answer ultimately, the short version is we have to establish circumstances that we know exist because they work here.
Culturally doesn't matter.
All cultures come to this country and thrive because of freedom.
We need to establish the same circumstances where human beings around the world have the same grand, God-given freedom we do to determine their own fate.
The vast majority of free people want to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not learning how to fly airplanes into buildings.
Quick time out back after this.
Stay with us.
Okay, back to the phones.
This is Randy in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Hello, sir.
Welcome.
Nice to have you with us.
God, what an honor.
God bless you, Rush.
I got turned on to you by my uncle years ago when you came to White Chapel at Lake Forest.
And he said, you got to come down and see this Rush guy.
And I said, Rush.
I mean, come on.
But ever since then, you've just been a blessing to me and my family.
I appreciate you.
But I disagree with you on this.
It's probably one of the first things I've ever disagreed with you on.
We don't need to waste our time trying to educate these people.
We need to kill them before they kill us.
And that's pretty much the only thing that's not.
Maybe I thought I'd been clear.
That's what we're doing now.
We're trying to kill the adult terrorists now so that before they kill us.
That is what we're doing.
It's a two-pronged strategy.
I totally agree with that.
I'm only talking about the long-term future generations.
That was the question.
He asked me, if we wipe out these guys today, how do we stop the future terrorists?
They're going to be born.
That was my answer.
But I'm not talking about finding the equivalent of Muhammad Atta and saying, hey, Mohammed, can I give you freedom and maybe you'll change your life?
That's not, I'm not talking about that.
Those guys are beyond education.
They're adults.
They're poisoned.
You know, their lives have been molded.
So don't miss the strategy here is exactly what you suggest.
That's exactly what we're doing.
We are trying to kill as many of them as we can find.
And we're capturing, actually, we're not.
You know what?
We're capturing as many as we can find.
If they're not shooting at us, we're capturing them.
And then we're bringing them to various prisons where we're trying to find out what they know about future attacks are.
But we can't really get what we need from them because we've got too many people in this country who are saying you can't mistreat them or you can't torture them or you can't.
And the definition of torture today is anything that causes any stress to these people who, were they roaming free, would be joining bands of marauding terrorists trying to kill us.
So, you know, we're allowing certain people to tie our hands in a whole number of ways.
Perhaps the answer is don't capture any of them, just wipe them out.
You know, wipe them out and explain that away later.
But we're capturing them.
And of course, we've got people, now they got to have trials.
And we're going to have to give them lawyers.
And they have access to the U.S. Constitution.
Terrorist prisoners of war.
It is being said by the ACLU and certain legal groups why they ought to, and certain judges, why they need access to lawyers and the U.S. legal system.
All right.
How many of them are down at Club Gitmo?
530.
Somebody, can you imagine 530 trials with the average U.S. lawyer defending these guys?
They'll be out in two weeks.
Can you imagine the U.S. attorneys' offices around the country trying to gear up cases against these?
You don't fight wars this way.
We're tying our hands in a whole bunch of ways in terms of dealing with the immediate threat.
And this is why, just to show you, Randy, that you and I are on the same page, you know, all this talk during the last campaign, Carrie said, we, we need to beef up the ports.
We need to beef up the cargo areas.
Senator, we don't have the manpower.
You'd have to take every citizen away from the job he or she has and put them on permanent watch duty.
That's not the way you deal with it.
The way you do, you go over where they are and you wipe them out so they can't get to the ports, the airports or whatever.
And when you go try to do that, well, then you can't do that because Iraq is a mistake.
You get Nancy Pelosi out there muttering a bunch of absurdities.
Thank goodness we have a president who's not listening.
But Lord knows, let one of these people get in charge of this and a major, major setback will result.
Mary Jo in St. Mary's, Ohio, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
It's a pleasure.
Thank you.
You know, accountability is another factor I think we need to take into consideration.
What's frustrating for a lot of us is that noticeably silent after all these attacks, and you can go back 30 years, is the Muslim leadership.
You know, there's this fear in this country of naming the face of our enemy, and we've got to name it.
No amount of political correctness is going to change the fact that 100% of the perpetrators in these attacks, and you can go back 30 years, are Muslims.
And I don't know what it's going to take for the Muslim leadership to stand out and speak against it.
If you don't have enough discernment to hold accountable the members of your group who act incongruent with your purported MO, then you're part of the problem.
Well, in their defense, what they say is, that's not part of our group.
That's not Islam as we practice.
You can't associate them with us.
And the retort is, well, look at, they say they're reading the same book you are.
They say they're getting their guidance from the same book you are, the Holy Quran.
But regardless, I understand your point.
Like I mentioned earlier, it may have happened.
I haven't heard it.
I haven't heard Ken Livingston, the mayor of London, or Tony Blair refer to Islamist terrorists as being responsible for this act.
Now, it may well be because they don't know for sure yet.
There's just some blind group nobody's ever heard of that's claimed credit for it on a website.
But beyond that, I don't know that they've anybody else has stepped forward.
Anyway, point well made, and I totally agree with you.
I wonder when it is going to happen.
And I'm not holding my breath.
A quick timeout, folks.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
Okay, two hours down, a one to go.
Remember, we are ditto camming today at rushlimbog.com.
And as usual, the podcasts are being compiled and will go out shortly after the completion of the program.
That's for members at Rush 24-7.
Sit tight.
We'll be back.
▲
Export Selection