All Episodes
Previous Next
July 8, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:22
July 8, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I am happy to report, ladies and gentlemen, I'm ecstatic to report to you today that Club Gitmo was spared as Hurricane Dennis grazed the, I guess it'd be the southeastern coast of Cuba last night.
Club Gitmo spared.
And that's good because Club Gitmo is only built to withstand 90 mile an hour winds.
Greetings and welcome, my friends.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program award winning and all that.
Broadcast excellence, all yours.
Three hours straight ahead.
It's Friday.
So you know what that means.
Let's go.
Yahoo.
One of my favorite days of the week, folks.
This is that day every week that I take one of the greatest career risks known to exist in big media.
I turn over the content of this program or a lot of it to you, rank amateurs.
I am a highly trained broadcast specialist, but I have faith and confidence in all of you as attending scholars at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
You know the rules.
Monday through Thursday, we talk about things that interest me.
On Friday, we expand it to things that may not interest me.
But if they are interesting to you, feel free to give us a buzz.
The telephone number, 800-282-2882, the email address Rush.
Hang on here a minute.
Email address rush at EIBnet.com.
I have to share this with you.
I just had this sent to me.
You know, Ariana Huffington has this blog out there called the Huffington Post, and she's attempting to duplicate the drudge report with it.
And it'll never fly.
But there's this little thing written by somebody named Diane Stillman, or Deanne Stillman, I guess, who I don't know, but it says, Rush Limbaugh's Strange Purpose-Driven Life.
Rush Limbaugh has turned Guantanamo Bay into a fraternity prank, which is no surprise because that's how he characterized the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
In case you've missed the latest hijinks, he's selling a line of Club Gitmo items such as t-shirts, mugs, and caps with guffaw-producing slogans like, your tropical retreat from the stress of jihad.
I got my free Koran and prayer rug at Gitmo, and what happens in Gitmo stays in Gitmo.
Well, he's right about that, but he thinks that's funny.
Not a problem.
I cruised on his online library book aisle for an announcement about what he's doing with the profits from a line of clothing based on the incarcerated.
But the closest I could come to a clue was an ad for the purpose-driven life by Rick Warren, the bestseller, but the guy with a Costco-sized church on Orange County.
Warren is not a bad guy, maybe selling low-carb scripture, but basically the message is service to mankind, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And that's, Deanne, it's what we do here.
This whole program is a service to humanity.
Would you grab me one of those?
There was one in here, and everybody, you know, Brian, you clean things out and you take things out of here that I actually want to use and turn the DittoCam on.
Go ahead and turn the ditto camera.
Oh, that's right.
It is up and running now.
Folks, we're going to try.
Hand me that.
Please, hand me that.
For those of you, let me explain something.
We're having all kinds of internet problems today.
It's not a line problem.
We've got a router that's on a Fritz, and it comes and goes, and it's going to affect whether or not we can use the DittoCam.
But let me put on my Club Gitmo hat here.
I even wore a shirt today with matching sleeves.
All right, so I got my Club Gitmo hat on, and so does everybody else on the other side of the glass.
I got four people down here today, and they've all got their Club Gitmo caps on.
Deanne, let me explain.
This whole program is service to humanity.
This whole program takes Rick Warren's concept and builds on it.
And let me get back to what she's written here.
Warren's not a bad guy.
He may be selling low-carb scripture, but basically the message is service to humankind, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Then she quotes from our website, due to the extraordinary demand for Gitmo merchandise, shipment of overnight and second day orders will be delayed two to four days.
And that's, we are, we are still being overrun with requests for Club Gitmo gear.
So she ends this piece by asking this question.
What are you doing with the money, Rush?
What's your purpose in life?
Diane, here's what we're doing with the money.
We are paying for the merchandise that we're buying.
We are paying for the shipping of the merchandise that other people buy.
We have some other expenses, but after all the expenses are finished, what's left over is profit, and we're keeping it.
It may be a strange concept to others, but we're keeping it.
It's called profit.
We took a risk here.
We went into the business of manufacturing some Club Gitmo gear.
We offered it for sale.
We didn't know if it'd work or not.
It's working out.
So we're reaping the rewards of taking the risk.
Now, you might want to know, okay, what am I doing with the money that I keep?
Diane, if you have to ask, if you have to, if you have to dig deep to find out whether or not this is a charitable program, go talk to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of America or any of them.
Go talk to the Marine Corps law enforcement scholarship people.
You know, you people with the tight lips and the tight rear ends and the tight butts just amuse the hell out of me.
It's called capitalism.
It's called having fun.
But more than anything, Diane, do you know what we're doing?
Or Deanne, we know what we're doing, Deanne.
We are tweaking people like you.
We are getting the biggest enjoyment.
We have the most fun out of here knowing without fail what is going to irritate people like you and we do it for 40 or 50 years.
We as conservatives sat around and we had to be laughed at and impugned and made fun of, and it still happens today.
And we took it and we built on it and we've become what we are.
You can't take it.
We simply tweak you.
And half the fun of doing this is knowing that a bunch of stuffed shirts like you are going to get all upset about all of this.
Don't forget, Deanne, if you're not a regular listener to the program, there's one thing that you could benefit from knowing.
I know some of the rest of you libs as well.
That is that everything that happens on this program, be it humor, be it serious, all has a connection to the core beliefs that we espouse on this program.
Club Gitmo is a direct offshoot to your pal, Dick Durbin.
Club Gitmo is a way for people to express beyond this radio program what they think of people like Dick Durbin who say what they say about the U.S. military, the U.S. interrogators, and the whole U.S. war effort.
There are people in this country, Deanne, who are fit to be tied and very flummoxed over the notion that people like you might think that what goes on in Abu Ghraib or Gitmo bears any resemblance to what happens in Soviet gulags or in Paul Pots, Cambodia, or in Nazi Germany.
But there are those of you out there who believe it.
You have tried to make a case out of torture and prison abuse for who knows whatever nefarious reasons other than getting rid of George W. Bush, and you failed.
And we're just throwing it right back in your face.
Nobody in this program supports torture, but when we look at what the prisoners at Club Gitmo get and we look at the care and feeding that they are afforded, we don't see the kind of brutality that you think exists as in so many of your other liberals.
Let me give you an example here, folks, from the Washington Times today.
This is Bill Goertz and Rowan Scarborough.
And it's their inside the ring piece.
Retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Robert McGinnis was among a group of talking heads that traveled to the al-Qaeda prison at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba recently to Club Gitmo.
The military provided Mr. McGinnis a lunch just like the inmates get.
On this day, it was pita bread, potatoes, corn, beans, juice, and water.
Mr. McGinnis said that each meal cost about one-third more than a typical service member's chow because it has to be blessed and certified by a Muslim clergyman and flown in from the United States.
The bottom line here, Deanna, is that we are spending more on food for prisoners at Club Gitmo while we torture them than we are spending on our own soldiers.
We are probably giving them more opportunity to practice their religion at Club Gitmo than Americans are given in school, at work, or anywhere else.
And so this idea that there is unbridled, unfettered, horrible torture going on down there is something we just don't accept.
We are in a war.
You see what happened in London yesterday.
And so we're simply giving people an opportunity to express what they think of people like you and other tight wads who are wound up so tight over all this that you don't see the truth.
And as a bonus, we're earning money and we are keeping it.
We'll be back after this.
Okay, back we are having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have already here on Open Line Friday.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
And so far, we think we fixed our router problem.
Turns out it wasn't a router problem.
It was a relay problem up in Atlanta.
So we feel pretty confident that the DittoCam will hold, as will our online connections here for the balance of the afternoon.
Audio soundbite number 11 today.
We have a montage of Senator Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, and then Kennedy again, Kantrita Van den Hoovel, Brian Bennett, Senator Pat Leakey Leahy, Robin Wright, who's a writer for some newspaper, and Senator McCain and Michael Duffy, Time magazine, and then Ted Kennedy.
Again, this is a montage on sympathy for the terrorists.
From the time of Babu Grave, this country has been embarrassed and humiliated.
These techniques included the threat of live burial and waterboarding, whereby the detainee is strapped to a board, forcibly pushed underwater, wrapped in a wet towel, and made to believe he might drown.
On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far that the temperature was so cold in the room that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold.
The hijackers, 19 of whom have died and will never really get to know, were children.
Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.
Stop the tape right there.
Stop the tape there, Oldemont.
See, this is the kind of thing, even these bites so far up to now from the time of Abu Ghrab, this country has been embarrassed and humiliated.
No, it's not.
It may be the left is embarrassed and humiliated, but the country isn't.
You guys are not speaking for the country anymore.
Michael Duffy, the hijackers, 19 of whom have died, and we'll never really get to know.
We're children.
Oh, yeah, just innocent little children.
They just were miseducated and turned the wrong way in life.
Oh, and we'll never get to know them.
All this sympathy for our enemies, sympathy for the terrorists.
We have Chuck Schumer declaring war on the next Supreme Court nominee, but he won't join us in declaring war on the enemy that we face.
And then Ted Kennedy, Saddam Torture Chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.
This is his libelist.
What has he said about Robert Bork?
To compare the way Abu Ghrab is run in Iraq is running now to the way it was run under Saddam Hussein.
He should be ashamed of himself.
But the point is, nobody believes this.
They just can't believe it.
There are Americans who are saying it.
And they get fed up with it.
And so they want an outlet to express how angry they are.
And so if somebody could put on some Club Gitmo gear and parade it in front of Senator Kennedy in a Senate hearing, they would do it.
Here's the rest of the bite.
Have trials.
Try them.
Release them.
There's one technique which was simulating suffocation by dripping water on the head.
Montana Mobe, in addition to Abu Gharib, is a national disgrace.
The female interrogator enters his personal space.
There's an explicit policy.
The Quran must never be placed anywhere near a sink, a toilet.
Look, even Adolf Eichmann got a trial.
Yeah, after he was captured running around the world for 17 years.
So that's just a sample of sympathy for the terrorists.
Let's go to audio soundbite number 10, another montage here.
And this montage features a lot of people, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bagala Forehead, Paula Zahn, Stephanopoulos, Nancy Pelosi, Wesley Clark, who we affectionately call Ashley Wilkes here.
Vic Camber, Democrat strategist, David Gergen, Jay Carney of Time, Charlie Wrangell, Bob Costas, Aaron Brown, Kieran Chetri, Senator Durbin, and Senator Kerry.
Let's just review who the Democrats are here.
First in Iraq and then 9-11.
They fundamentally misunderstand that it is one big war on terror and that Iraq is a key front, not a cause of it.
The relating of the war in Iraq to the 9-11 tragedy, the Horrific Terrorist Act, does not comport.
The message to the American people, this is 9-11.
The president made six direct references to 9-11.
The case he was making most of all was that this war began on 9-11.
When he exploits the sacred ground of 9-11, there was no connection between 9-11 and the war.
Saddam wasn't part of 9-11.
Do you think the president overreached with references to 9-11?
His speech last night was once again trying to wrap himself around the 9-11 tragedy.
I was troubled and defended by 9-11.
Making the war on terror one broad event that began on September 11th, 2001.
Long before 9-1-1, Bush wanted to knock off Saddam Hussein.
No contact or connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda or 9-11 established.
Was it apt for the president to go to 9-11 six times in the speech?
He did refer to 9-11 five times.
Why is he once again making the link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11?
He did make six references to September 11th, drawing on the lessons of 9-11.
In light of Karl Rove's comments the other day, I think a lot of Americans are very uneasy about the current way in which the president keeps talking in the same language.
Senator Kerry, take a look at who's winning elections and tell me what the American people think.
You lost.
And it wasn't even close.
Now, the reason we're replaying this montage, folks, is because what was on everybody's lips yesterday after the attack in London, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, the war on terror.
And what were they talking about?
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, 9-11, war on terror.
And yet when Bush brings it up, he's not allowed to.
These are people simply out of touch.
These are people that really don't get it.
And it's just, I knew we saved these bites.
We archive these bites because I know that they're going to come in handy the next time there's an attack.
I was telling the staff this a couple weeks ago, save these bites because we're going to be able to ram this right down their throats.
What's happening here?
You know, the big debate of what are the Brits going to do?
Are they going to turn into Madrid?
Are they going to develop some steel spines?
I'll tell you what I think they're going to do.
I think they're going to develop some steel spines.
I don't think they're going to turn into Madrid.
I think it's going to be just the opposite, folks.
They've been through this too much and they understand what is at stake.
Now, yesterday on the program, talking about the way some liberals were going to react to the events in London, and I told you that I found some stuff on websites yesterday where liberals were not wanting to call what happened in London yesterday a war.
They wanted to call it murder.
And lo and behold, I found another one.
This is from The Nation, big lib publication, a guy named John Nichols.
And his headline, President Bush unwittingly provided an appropriate response to the gruesome terrorist attacks in London.
And to jump to the relevant paragraph here, Mr. Nichols writes this, Bush went on to promise that we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.
He writes, imagine the cries of outrage and incomprehension that would have arisen from right-wing talk radio and TV pundits if a President Gore or Kerry had called in the immediate aftermath of an attack linked to bin Laden for spreading an ideology of hope and compassion as part of the response to terrorism.
This is another classic example of how this guy and the left doesn't get it.
What we are doing in Iraq is spreading an ideology of hope and compassion that will overwhelm their ideology of hate.
That's what they don't get.
It was the answer I gave yesterday to the nice liberal that called and wanted to know how we defeat terrorism long term by getting those young kids that are not yet born or soon or have been born, but they're very young and they're going to be inculcated with hate.
And I said, that's what we're doing in Iraq.
So they're thinking that when the president said yesterday, we will spread an ideology of hope and compassion that the president say we're not going to use war.
I marvel, folks.
I really still marvel at the ignorance.
They're all flowery and lovey-dovey at the notion of spreading an ideology of hope and compassion.
And yet when it's right under their nose, when it's right under their eyes, when it's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they don't recognize it for what it is.
That's precisely what Bush's policy is, and it's exactly what he has articulated.
They just don't get it.
And I don't know that they really ever will when it comes to things that he does.
They have such a personal hatred for the guy.
They can't see facts and truth to save themselves.
America's anchorman, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, all combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
Other see, I told you so here, folks.
Look at here.
Look at this.
Higher than expected tax receipts and the steadily growing economy, which, by the way, unemployment rates down to 5%.
That's the lowest in nearly four years.
So higher than expected tax receipts, steadily growing economy have combined to produce an improved picture for the federal budget deficit.
Congressional analysts say, always, don't worry about the deficit.
We always grow our way out of it.
I've been hearing about deficit monsters for 30 years, and we've never been eaten by one.
We always end up slaying these things with economic growth.
It always happens.
By the way, to Diane Stillman, you want to know what I'm doing with the money we earn in a club get most of?
I'm paying probably a large portion of these higher tax receipts in addition to everything else that go to fund all these precious little government programs that you and your crowd are so obsessed with.
So I don't know what your complaint is.
Now, here's, let's see, I've got two stories.
Put this one aside.
I've got two stories back to back here.
I got to share.
It's about London.
The first one's Washington Post.
It's by Steve Call and Susan B. Glasser.
Attacks bear earmarks of evolving al-Qaeda.
And here's the relevant paragraph.
No more a brand or now more a brand than a tight-knit group, Al-Qaeda has responded to four years of intense pressure from the United States and its allies by dispersing its surviving operatives, distributing its ideology and techniques for mass casualty attacks to a wide audience on the internet, and encouraging new adherents to act spontaneously in its name.
Well, if I'm reading this right, they're sort of marveling at the ability of al-Qaeda to evolve.
Wouldn't you interpret it that way, Dawn, as you hear it?
Good, because a woman wrote this, and I want a woman to interpret it along with me just to make sure I'm not being sexist.
But it sounds to me like they have some, almost some admiration here for the way al-Qaeda's evolved, right?
Well, the bottom line is al-Qaeda demonstrated itself yesterday to be practically defunct.
Al-Qaeda demonstrated itself yesterday to be not nearly what it was.
And there's no better piece to illustrate it than Ralph Peters' column today in the New York Post entitled Pyrrhic Terror.
Yesterday during the morning rush, Islamist terrorists triggered bombs on three of London's underground trains in a signature double-decker bus, killed 37 people, severely wounded approximately 100, injuring as many as 1,000.
They brought the city to a halt, interrupted the start of the G8 summit, and dominated the headlines once again, and they damaged their own cause far more than the magnificent city they bombed.
At present, the footage of bloodied victims obscures valuable lessons about how little the terrorists have learned, how limited their resources have become, and how much progress Western governments have made in coping with attacks, and about our enemies' hunger for publicity.
Once again, the terrorists demonstrated tactical skill, the ability to coordinate attacks against a carefully chosen series of targets, reasoning correctly that Britain's security apparatus would focus on the G8 summit in Scotland.
They saw a window of opportunity.
They also grasped that London's restrictions on private vehicles in the city center made the public transportation system an especially lucrative target.
And while the attacks were planned to interrupt the G8 meeting, Wednesday's announcement that London would host the 2012 Olympics may have moved up the date of the strikes.
Terrorists upstaged two big events at once.
So far, so good, right, for al-Qaeda.
But now consider how counterproductive their attack really was.
Instead of intimidating the heads of state at Glen Eagles, the terrorists reminded them all of the need for unity.
If you catch a rerun of Tony Blair's reading their joint statement, study the worried face of Jacques Chirac.
He knows it could have been Paris.
The terrorists expect a repeat of Madrid with British support for Free Iraq collapsing, but Londoners are not madrilenos.
During the Blitz, they withstood massive Nazi terror attacks night after night.
They've endured decades of IRA bombings.
The English intelligentsia, of course, will find a way to blame America, but the British people will not yield to terror.
They've spoiled the party for all those sympathizers in the West, who had turned their attention away from Abu Ghraib for five minutes to demand more aid for Africa.
As President Bush pointed out, the terrorists disrupted a summit focused on poverty.
Africans watching events unfold will realize that their continent stands to lose far more than London did.
Even a rock star or two might figure this out.
And despite the drama of the attacks, it's revealing the terrorists couldn't do more.
7-7 wasn't 9-11.
It wasn't even Madrid.
Not every attack can be prevented, but Britain's tough anti-terror efforts clearly limited what the terrorists could achieve.
They did all they could to maximize damage, detonating their bombs in confined spaces where blast effects are enhanced.
Yet the terror cells in Spain assembled much greater quantities of explosives than the terrorists in Britain were able to do.
And they couldn't construct dirty bombs employing radioactive material or biological weapons.
The terrorists weren't nearly as potent as they would have liked to be.
And the world also witnessed a superb British performance.
The planning and drills worked, the initial press conference held by London's emergency response authorities was orderly, sober, and inspiring.
It was a classic illustration of the British lion's coolness under fire.
You get the drift here.
And even there's one more point.
Even before the London bombings, terrorist leaders had begun to reveal a great potential weakness.
They've become addicted to celebrity.
From bin Laden to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they've manipulated the global media with finesse and even brilliance in the past, but now they appear to be trapped in celebrity culture.
Hey, they still got the Washington Post.
The Washington Post still has this story marveling at their ability to evolve.
Al-Qaeda can't stand or lose the spotlight for 15 minutes with the headlines shifting to Africa's needs and global warming.
The London attacks were as much a tantrum as Tom Cruise jumping around on Oprah's sofa.
And the piece goes on from the New York Post today, Ralph Peters.
But that's, you know, two different perspectives on this.
Washington Post attacks bear earmarks of evolving al-Qaeda, where they practically marvel at al-Qaeda's effectiveness.
And Ralph Peters pointing out that this isn't anything.
Exactly.
I don't mean to be a C.
I told you so, but it's what I said yesterday.
You think this is a big deal?
This is nothing.
You think this is going to bring London to a screeching halt?
You think it's going to get the Brits out of Iraq?
Think again.
And that's the way to interpret it.
But there's so many people in mourning and so many people wringing their hands.
And oh, how come it happened again?
And I'm sure the appeasers give them a day or two if they're not already out there.
If we would just, you know, if we just get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, maybe the terrorists will go away.
Forgetting, of course, that terrorist attacks occurred long before we went into Iraq and long before even 9-11.
Meredith, let's go to the phones.
Meredith in Poughkeepsie, New York, you're up first today on Open Line Friday.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
It's a pleasure to speak with you.
Thank you.
I've been listening to you since I was a little girl driving to telelessons with my dad.
So this is an honor.
Well, I appreciate you saying that.
I'm calling because I work at a school, a rather prestigious college on the East Coast that has a reputation for being progressive.
I am getting functions.
Wait, wait, a minute.
When you say progressive, you mean they're liberals?
They like to call themselves progressives.
Well, okay, they're just, you know, okay.
They just don't have the guts to call themselves liberals.
Progressive sounds like a forward-moving, advancing term, and everybody knows liberal means dinosaur.
You're right, yes.
Well, I work in the library.
Specifically, I see what people check in, what they check out.
I see what professors put on reserve, what they take off of reserve.
I see titles of things that, you know, really have nothing to do with the actual course that they're teaching, but you can tell that it promotes a certain agenda that they have.
I leave during the day mainly to listen to you for my lunch hours because it's a breath of fresh air to get out of that environment.
I end up not being able to say what I would like to say with my coworkers because they are constantly bashing the administration, particularly yesterday.
And I would like to know what you would say to what at what point should I say something back?
Do you understand?
Well, are they talking amongst themselves?
Are they taunting you with these?
They're not taunting me.
They are assuming that I am one of them.
They're assuming because I am young and because I am a grown and because I have chosen to work at their institution that I must be one of them.
And my question is, at what point should I not allow them to let them assume that they are the only ones?
Whenever you feel most comfortable in asserting yourself, you have to make some assessments here.
Is it going to change the way they think?
Are you going to persuade them to change their point of view?
In other words, is it going to cause acrimony and rancor between you and your coworkers and make the daily existence with them even more frustrating or uncomfortable than it is?
And if the answer to those questions is yes, you might want to stay mom and just smile at it.
Just laugh at.
You will not believe what laughing at people who are earnestly serious about what they think will do to them.
And they will, why are you laughing at us?
What's so funny?
And you say, I can't believe what you guys are saying.
I really can't believe what you think.
And then they'll start, what do you mean?
And then they've led you into it.
You haven't confronted them.
You've just laughed at them.
And they've led you into it.
And then you'll have a free reign to answer their questions as they ask them.
Just remember that when you start this, just what's in your heart, don't paralyze yourself by trying to remember what you know.
Don't try to paralyze yourself by, or don't paralyze yourself by trying to remember the arguments that you've learned in your head.
Just speak from your heart about what you think.
And one of the ways to do it that would reduce the acrimony is instead of saying, you are wrong, you don't know what you're talking about, you could say things like, I'm listening to you and I can't keep a straight face.
I mean, the fact of the matter is X, Y, Z, what you believe.
You don't sit there and say, you idiot, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Because that's just going to build up resistance and tolerance.
If you can maintain confidence, humor, and just an aloofness almost, as though you can't believe what you're hearing, you'll have them on the defensive the whole time.
Thank you.
I needed to hear that.
I needed some motivation.
Well, you're outnumbered.
How many of them are there?
Well, it's pretty much the whole office.
Yeah, but I mean, at any one time, at any one time when you're with them, how many are there and just you by yourself?
I would say anywhere from 10 to 20 during the day.
I get taxes that I have, that really have nothing to do with work, but are from different local organizations that different staff and employees are involved with, and I'll have to give them to people.
So it's frustrating for me.
And it's not.
I understand that.
But, you know, I think the trick here, the key here, is going into these kind of things with total confidence in yourself.
They say X that you don't believe, and you laugh at them, and you say, you know, you guys must watch a lot of news.
Because the people that watch the news, that's what I hear a lot of other people thinking, but you couldn't be more wrong or draw them out and make them ask you.
If you really want to, I could send you a club gitmo cap.
I would love a club gitmap.
Send you a Club Gitmo cap.
Now, if you've got to promise me you're going to take Club Gitmo cap, if I send it to you, you've got to promise me you're going to wear it to work one day.
That really will be all it'll take.
You know, I think I will.
I think I will.
I was actually looking at it online today when I was at work on the fly.
I was checking out the, what they call Gitmo Wear.
So, so I do like the hat.
I think that's my thing.
All right.
Well, yeah, it'd be easier for you to wear a cap in there than a t-shirt as a work attire.
So, I'll tell you what we'll do here, Meredith.
I'm going to put you on hold.
Okay.
And we'll get the information necessary to get you a Club Gitmo cap on me.
But the deal is you've got to wear it to work one day, and you've got to call back and tell us what happened.
I will.
In fact, we'll get your number so we can call you.
Not necessarily put you on the air if you don't want to go on the air again, but I mean, to find out what happened.
Okay.
Sure.
And I appreciate your calling.
I appreciate anybody asking for advice or nobody better than me to answer such questions.
But the key is confidence and laughter and incredulity.
You just can't believe what you're hearing.
And it's so much that it amuses you.
It doesn't upset you.
It does.
It doesn't anger you.
It doesn't frighten you.
It amuses you.
The only thing that frightens you, you can tell them is that they're in a library teaching young skulls full of mush.
Exactly.
Well, I'm going to start keeping a tally sheet of how many times the titles Bush's Brain and Fahrenheit 9-11 circulate among the faculty members.
So maybe I can update you on that as well.
You just have to laugh at it.
I'm also going to send you a cop.
We've got a free report going out with new subscribers to the newsletter called How to Defeat a Liberal.
I'm going to send you one of those along with the cap, okay?
Fantastic.
Thank you.
Yeah, well, you're more than welcome.
But remember the deal.
I will.
If you really set them off, go in and read how to defeat a liberal while wearing a club gitmo cap.
Yes.
All right.
I got to run here, Meredith.
I'm way over time, but we'll get the information from you.
Note to Deanne Stillman at the Huffington Post.
This is what we do with the money.
We give some of the product away, too.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
Once again, Club Gitmo spared for the most part by the advancing category four Hurricane Dennis last night.
Go to Santa Barbara, California next at Open Line Friday.
Hi, Ann.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you.
I'm just so tickled to be able to talk to you.
Yay, Gitmo Club.
Thank you.
I'm very concerned, and I appreciate being able to ask you why Judith Miller is being held so accountable and being incarcerated when Robert Novak refused to reveal his information and he published it.
And it's an obscene.
I'm glad, you know, I went long in the last segment of my answer.
I may not be able to squeeze this all in in this segment, Anne.
So you've got to promise me that you'll keep the radio on for it because it's a great question.
I'm just guessing here, but let me try to put things in order.
For me, the great irony of this is that the media requested this special counsel.
When Novak wrote his piece, the media demanded he reveal his source, and he wouldn't.
No journalist does.
But since he's a conservative, and let me tell you something, Ann, the Washington Press Corps despises Robert Novak.
He's been there 40 years or 35 or 75, whatever it is.
He's better than any of them, but he's conservative and they hate him.
So he runs the story.
And the media demands an independent counsel.
And they got their independent counsel.
And look where this independent counsel has taken the case.
It is apparent that there are no crimes that have been charged or even alleged here.
Well, maybe alleged.
But it appears that the leak of Valerie Plame's name was not in itself a crime.
It's a very high standard, a high test you have to meet.
I think what's going on now, the reason Judith Miller's in jail is not because she committed a crime.
She's in contempt of court.
She's refusing to testify before the grand jury.
A lot of other people have testified.
I think what this counsel, this independent counsel is looking at is perjury.
I think it's a Martha Stewart type case.
I think he wants all these people to come in and testify who their source was, who it wasn't, where they got their data, to compare notes to see who's lying to him in the grand jury, who's committing perjury.
And Judith Miller won't talk, so she's going to jail.
She's not in jail for not giving up her source so much.
And we don't know what Novak has told the grand jury.
We don't know what he's told or the independent counsel.
So it's premature to assume he should be in jail too.
Back in a moment.
Okay, we got some great audio soundbites coming up the next hour.
Democrat, it didn't take him long to start bashing Bush yesterday.
And a columnist in Seattle says that it is our dependence on oil which caused the attacks in London yesterday.
▲
Export Selection