All Episodes
Previous Next
July 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:42
July 20, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
On the cutting edge of societal evolution amidst billowing clouds of fragrant aromatic first and second hand cigar smoke, premium cigar smoke, I might add.
I am Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, America's anchor man, and news commentator.
Right here at the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Looking forward to talking to you this hour on the phone.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
One of the uh cases, you know, there's a big case that was decided last week, and I sung this case's praises last week, and that was the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that uh he overturned a lower court judge saying that the military could not conduct tribunals, could not conduct their own trials of terror suspects.
John Roberts voted with the majority unanimous three-member appeals court panel last Friday that put Bush's military tribunals in the war on terror back on track.
This clears the way for the Pentagon to resume trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
I fully expect this to be something on which he is questioned.
Primarily because Dick Durbin is a member of the Judiciary Committee.
I think they're going to go after him on this.
I think they're going to tar him.
They're going to say, Do you agree with torture?
Are you suggesting we just turn these detainees who've not been charged over to the military where they can be tortured and burnt and water roped and whatever, whatever else?
Waterboarded and so forth.
Just mark my words, Mr. Sturdley.
Mark my words.
They're going to go after him on this case.
They're also going to go after him on the fact he's a member of the Federalist Society.
When you are a uh uh a judge and a lawyer, and you're a member of the Federalist Society, uh, and you wear your Federalist Society necktie, uh, and you run into a liberal, that's like showing Dracula the Cross.
They have a built-in opposition to the Federalist Society.
Uh, and uh and we'll try to make hay out of that.
As a private lawyer, uh Judge Roberts represented Toyota at the Supreme Court, winning limits on disabled workers claims.
And so Senator Kennedy was on whose side are you?
On whose side are you?
You voted against these workers.
Uh and so forth.
So that that'll be something that they will um uh bring up.
So uh, but I'll tell you this this decision on Gitmo and the and whether you know the federal judge uh usurped the uh uh president's commander-in-chief powers.
This is a great, great decision.
I remember mentioning to you last week when the uh decision came down, I read to you the three judges mentioned Robert's name and told you he was on one of the lists uh to be uh uh Supreme Court nominee.
Uh Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor uh had gone fishing out of cell phone range yesterday.
She learned the name of the man nominated to replace her from a radio report.
Let's face it, that's where most people get most of their accurate information these days is radio.
Uh her fishing companion is the source of this.
She went fishing Thursday in the Idaho Panhandle with Robert Whaley, the U.S. District Judge in Spokane.
Her reaction to the nomination of Roberts uh was he's confirmable.
Bush tried to give her advanced notice on Roberts, but the two were along the St. Joe River and out of cell telephone range.
Uh as a result, he said O'Connor learned of the nomination over the car radio as they returned to Spokane shortly before six.
She was in Spokane to give a speech Thursday at the annual conference of the Ninth U.S. Circus Court of Appeals, a gathering of lawyers and federal judges in nine Western states.
Uh of course, Senator Leahy's out there all excited because uh she gave us such a gift.
She said she will serve until she is replaced.
So Senator Leahy, no doubt will uh plan a delay strategy here.
Let's listen to uh to Dick Durbin.
He was on the early show today on CBS, the anchorette and the infobe, Julie Chen interviewed Senator Durbin, and she said, when John Roberts came before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the confirmation process for the appeals court, you voted against him.
Why?
We couldn't get answers from him.
We asked him the most basic questions.
Why did you want to overturn Roe vs.
Wade?
He said, Well, I was just a lawyer speaking for a client.
Well, what are your views on Roe versus Wade?
Well, I'm going to stand by the Supreme Court.
Well, what do you believe?
Well, I'll just stand by the Supreme Court.
We couldn't get straight answers.
Now that answer will no longer apply.
If he wants to be on the Supreme Court, he has to be forthcoming.
Not to satisfy my curiosity, but to convince the American people that a man who could serve on the court for 20 to 30 years really is in the mainstream of American thinking.
Yeah, and who are you to decide that after what you said about American interrogators and military people and their behavior at Guantanamo Bay?
Reading a raw FBI email that has not been confirmed.
Who are you to decide what's in the mainstream?
Who are any of you liberals to decide what's the mainstream?
Don't you liberals get it?
You're not the mainstream, and you haven't been for years.
You're losing elections.
You're nowhere near the mainstream.
You don't get to define it.
The mainstream is determined by who wins presidential elections, not polls, and not what your aides tell you to say, and not what you think.
As to the specifics of this, all he's got to do is invoke the Ginsburg rule.
Judith Ruth Bader Ginsburg, during her confirmation hearings back in uh what, 93 or 94, she said, I'm not going to answer these questions.
These are cases that might come before the court.
I don't know what I'm gonna rule.
And the Senate Judiciary Committee did not press her.
Durbin says, Well, this answer is not good enough.
What do you personally believe about abortion?
Irrelevant, Senator.
A pr a judge's personal policy preferences are not supposed to matter when it comes to doing their job from the bench.
That's the whole point, Senator.
You're not entitled to know them as a matter of whether or not you think he's fit to serve.
It's irrelevant.
I hope they keep giving us.
I I hope the Democrats put Durban out there every day.
I hope they put Schumer out there every day.
I hope they do.
They're just gonna end up destroying and further damaging the case that the Democrats are trying to make, because these are not the guys on which uh around whom the American people are uh are are going to rally.
Quick time out, we'll be back and continue in just a minute.
And back to the phones we go.
Great to have you on a uh show today here, folks.
Uh oh, by the way, the vice president will be joining us at about 2 33, right out of our bottom of the hour break.
Uh we'll be talking with Vice President Cheney about uh Judge Roberts.
Here's Chris in Pittsburgh.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you, sir.
Thank you very much, Rush.
Nice to be on.
You bet I'm uh not quite sure what to think about Judge Roberts.
And uh part of that is because he's not as well known as some of the other nominees might have been to uh the lay person.
And not only that, but um, you know, I I read about Ann Coulter today, and she is uh rather skeptical and hesitant in endorsing uh Judge Roberts.
In fact, she pretty much flat out says, heck no, wrong choice.
And I wondered what your thoughts were on Miss Coulter's perspective, as well as simply because if you Democrats and few liberals out there uh trying to uh rebuke Mr. Roberts, does that really mean that uh they're not in favor of him?
He's got a political part.
In the first place, don't be fooled by this this business that the there are few liberals out there trying to rebuke him.
That's just now they're they're digging.
They don't they're they're they're they're keeping the powder dry for the hearings.
Uh it this is July.
The you just marked my words.
They're gonna be who they always are, because that's all they can be.
They can be nothing else.
And I I will guarantee you that Durban, Leahy, Schumer, and Kennedy are gonna seek to destroy this guy.
Make no mistake about it.
They're gonna focus on this case I just read you about uh uh read read to you uh about the uh military tribunal case.
They're gonna focus on a number of things.
You just mark my words.
As for Anne's piece today, I saw it.
Um and her basic point, as I recall, I read it this morning before the program started.
Her basic point is that uh she finds it unnatural that uh somebody who's fifty years old has never said one thing offensive to anybody in his life.
Uh, that he's managed to avoid controversy, and she's suspicious of that kind of personality.
Uh that kind of personality seeks to avoid controversy in order to remain a hidden person.
Uh keep your privately held views private, don't make yourself a target.
Uh you have a deeply held and long-held ambition, and it's this one.
Uh, her point is that after seeing what happened to Bork and so forth, the way you go about this is to just keep yourself as stealth as you can be, which leads to her number one complaint, that is, we keep getting screwed by stealth candidates.
Uh her point is there are plenty of people out there that we know we'd have no doubt about.
Uh Michael Luttig is a name that comes up, and there are several others.
And because she's troubled that we don't know enough about this guy.
He could turn into, she says, another another David suitor.
And my my problem, I understand her thinking on this.
My problem with uh with this is that, you know, William Rehnquist never served on a bench anywhere.
I mean, he didn't have any kind of a record.
Rehnquist came right from the Department of Justice.
Uh Rinquist served as assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.
He didn't become a suitor.
Uh he he didn't he wasn't a judge anywhere, and he wasn't he wasn't controversial either, and he didn't go out and make enemies.
Uh but he didn't have a portfolio of opinions and writings for people to pour through either.
Uh and he turned out uh okay.
I also think that that uh Judge Roberts is not David Souter in this sense.
Uh Judge Roberts has worked with scores of conservative lawyers.
He was in the Reagan White House as a counsel there.
He was uh at the Justice Department under Ken Starr in the Solicitor General's office.
He's tried cases uh representing the government before the U.S. Supreme Court and other clients.
Uh he also uh is a member of the Federalist Society, and that's believe me, the Federalist Society didn't have a bunch of skirt wearers in there uh in in terms of phony baloney, plastic banana, good time rock and rollers.
So I don't think that the uh analogy she makes to suitor uh is complete.
Uh you know, suitor was recommended by John uh uh Sununu to Bush.
I know this guy, President Bush, you can count on this guy.
And they appointed him, and again, nobody knew much about suitor either, and this is her point.
Uh the thing I'll never forget about suitor.
Uh and I I'm honest, folks, the first picture they ran of David Suter was of him coming out of his mother's house.
And they made the point the man wasn't married.
And he was coming out of his mother's house.
That was the picture.
And it was derisive.
It was subtly derisive.
This guy's not married.
He doesn't understand women then.
How could he be in the court if he doesn't understand women?
And he's visiting his mother.
His mother, he's this old, he still has to go see mommy.
I mean, the libs tried to destroy this guy.
People forget the libs tried to destroy David Suter as well.
They didn't succeed.
Obviously, he's on the court.
But I don't think Judge Roberts is a David suitor.
He's got too much of a what would be called a pr a conservative pedigree that can be uh traced.
Souter didn't have any of that.
But now, none of this says that Roberts cannot be asked some thorough and thoughtful questions by Republicans on the committee, too.
I mean, this uh he he can he can I you know he's gonna get he's gonna get fired at they're gonna try to destroy him, make no bones about what you're hearing now, but ooh, we like the guy, ooh, he's this and that.
They're keeping the powder dry.
They're gonna do what they always do.
This is it, folks.
This is what matters.
It would be it would be sophistry to think that the Lib's gonna lie down on this.
They're not.
This this is on this nomination or the next one, or if there's a third on that, they are not going to they'll do whatever they have to to keep Bush from getting the people he really wants on this court.
So, you know, now if if if you think that it's troubling that somebody uh has kept themselves so close to the vest that nobody knows much about them to the point of being critical.
If you if you distrust somebody that everybody likes, that nobody has a bad word to say about.
And this is where Ann's coming from, because as she said in her piece, she she gave up uh, you know, she she was controversial when she was three weeks old.
Uh and and so it's it's a it's a train of thought that that a lot of people uh understand.
Uh, but the comparison to suitor doesn't hold water with me for the uh reasons that I have have given.
We'll see.
I mean, I I'm one of those that doesn't know Judge Roberts very well, and I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that I do.
Uh that's why I had Juliani on uh earlier today, who does know him, spoke glowingly of him, and we'll be talking to the vice president here in well about seven minutes And uh get his thoughts on it.
Danny in Las Vegas, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Thank you, Rush.
It's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
With all the seriousness of Bush's choice and the Supreme Court.
My favorite aspect of the whole thing was the surprise that the Bush White House was able to keep a secret to keep it under their hat and surprise everybody.
What you really mean is you love the way the president screwed the media.
Yes, absolutely, because in between my calls to Congress and my letters to the editor, I was listening to the talking heads all day long, and never once was this man mentioned.
They all thought he was going to pick a woman.
They all thought he was the all this all their expertise, and then all of a sudden I'm listening to Fox News, and they said John Roberts.
And I just I just love it.
Well, you know, I th there's there's there's two schools of thought on this that that are and again, this is the punditry school of thought, so it's probably, you know, worth what it's costing you to listen to this.
But uh one thought is that the naming of Clement was a trial balloon, that they maybe really wanted Clement, but they wanted to check what reaction she got out there.
And uh re quite honestly, the reaction that Judge Clement got was lukewarm among the president's supporters I'm talking about.
A lot of people scratching their heads.
And uh so when the response wasn't what the White House wanted, okay, plan B John Roberts.
I don't happen to think uh that you run a trial balloon uh for just one day and you've got two judges sitting there and you choose the one on the basis of how your trial balloon works.
I I think that and I'm I I don't think the White House lied to anybody uh about this.
I I I'm with you.
I I I think that they just did a good job of keeping a secret.
This is a White House, of course, they're trying to nail Carl Rowe for leaking things, and the media wants to put him in jail for leaking things, and yet all day and all night last night they are fit to be tied because nobody was leaking them the name of this judge.
And I uh I think that I think part of what's going on I think there's a lot of rope dope aspects in this administration.
I really, really do.
I think they enjoy reveling in sitting watching these flapping gums on the mouths of journalists, make no sense whatsoever.
Remember, folks, as I very, very accurately pointed out at the beginning of the program, this is the first judicial nominee to come forth in the 24-7 news cycle.
Now, I know we had CNN uh back when uh when Clarence Thomas was confirmed, uh and and so forth, but it will all we had was CNN.
There was uh there they were cable, but but there was no real 24-7 news cycle.
Now there is, with an alternative media as well.
Uh and uh th so this this whole procedure here process is gonna be a little different than uh than it has been.
For instance, if the libs come out and start firing the heavy artillery too soon, they're gonna they're just gonna they're gonna destroy everybody's ability to maintain an emotional fever pitch.
That's why they're gonna keep the powder dry and they're gonna wait for what they think is the strategical time to launch the salvo.
But make no mistake, they will launch the salvo.
We'll be back after this.
And we welcome you back.
Great to have you here at the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and we are always honored and happy to have with us the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Mr. Vice President.
Welcome back, sir.
Well, good afternoon, Rush.
How's it really good?
Uh couldn't be better.
Uh thank you.
What's uh give us your perspective on on Judge Roberts before we get into more detailed questioning?
What you know him personally?
How long have you known him?
Uh what can you tell us about him that we may not know as of this moment?
Well, I've I know of him.
I can't say we're personal friends or anything like that.
I I've been aware of uh his work in the past and of course uh the search that uh the president uh had us do prior to making the nomination uh that he made last night.
Uh we we looked at uh an awful lot of judicial talent over a long period of time.
And um he stands out as uh one of the absolute best.
He was on the very very short list of the president after very careful consideration and long interview and so forth, decided he wanted to go with Judge Roberts, and I think he's a great pick.
He's uh had a good solid philosophy.
He's got uh a distinguished career.
I mean, this is a guy whose credentials by anybody's standards uh are absolutely impeccable.
So I I think you'd be a great choice.
Um are you are you at all concerned, as I've listened to some of the uh reaction, predictable reaction today from uh uh critics uh saying, and particularly Senator Kennedy saying, well, we we need to know on whose side is he?
Is he on the side of the polluters or is he inside of big government, is he inside of big corporate interests?
It seems to me that uh uh the opponents of Judge Roberts increasingly look at the court as a political instrument to be used to their own ends.
Does it trouble you that uh s uh enough or a lot of Americans seem to look at the court as the ultimate final arbiter in political matters in this country?
Well, I th I think it's important.
One of the one of the things I like frankly about Judge Roberts is that that he clearly understands the role of the courts in our society, and that there's a you know, the the political realm where the Congress uh gets involved and legislating and the executive branch and the role of the courts is different.
Um I obviously disagree with Senator Kennedy's views with respect to uh Judge Roberts.
He's one of only three senators who voted against him in the Judiciary Committee when uh he was confirmed for his current slot on the DC circuit.
I didn't feel like he had uh very good uh argument then, and I don't I don't think he does now.
He uh uh if if you're looking for somebody who's got uh the qualities of integrity and judgment and intellect that you'd like to see in somebody who's gonna sit down and address those basic fundamental issues that do come before the court from time to time, uh you'd be hard put to find anybody more qualified than Judge Roberts.
And uh I you know the kind of comments that uh I've seen some on the other side make, it's almost as if they went to some focus group and uh tested out a bunch of lines and now they're all using the same lines, but it's uh it's not informed to debate, I don't believe.
What kind of questions do you all ask of all of the people that you uh have on your on your list?
Well, we're we're interested obviously in those things that tell us something about the individual in terms of their own personal life experiences, uh where they're from, how they look at the world, how they got to to where they are, um those you do sort of in any interview for virtually any position.
With respect to uh uh something like the Supreme Court, uh the process we went through was to obviously to look at their own legal experiences.
Judge Roberts, of course, that includes uh uh presenting thirty-nine, arguing thirty-nine cases before the Supreme Court, which is uh uh he's one of the most active appellate uh lawyers in the country, and that was important.
But also how he perceives um the um the role of the court, uh the role of a judge, uh in terms of the uh extent to which uh he thinks uh decisions need to be made to address uh specific issues that are presented in a particular case versus laying out broader uh lines of uh of argument um how he views the role of stereo decisis and the importance of uh uh of uh prior decisions by the court,
the relationship between the Supreme Court and the appellate courts, uh the appellate courts are in a position where they uh basically are uh uh in uh expected to rule inconsistent with uh decisions of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court uh they get to set precedence.
That's gonna be one of the areas I think that he's hit on.
You know, he uh he has had a he's had a position on uh on the you know the bullseye issue, Roe versus Wade, as an appellate judge.
Uh but uh you know, the the appellate judge has to I mean they uh has to go by vertically uh stare decises has to you know Supreme Court the law of the land, but when he gets to the Supreme Court, uh the he's free to rule as he wishes, and uh you you ask him on both both sides of the stare deceases, both as an appellate judge and a potential Supreme Court judge?
Well, you ask him we we don't get into questioning him about specific cases, obviously, uh and uh you don't want to be in and uh we're not in a position of asking him questions about how uh specifically he might rule in a particular case or how he might think about that.
But you're interested in things such as uh legislative intent.
How do you determine legislative intent?
How does he as a as a justice uh interpret statutes?
Does he look just at the statutory language itself?
Does he look at the legislative history?
Uh the uh those kinds of issues are important in terms of uh trying to assess whether or not a justice is a uh as as uh we layman argue a strict constructionist somebody who believes the role of the court is to uh interpret the Constitution and apply the Constitution versus somebody who sees uh much more activist rule for the court where they're in effect legislating from the bench.
Tell me about the consultation process.
I've heard the president contacted personally and spoke with over seventy members of the Senate.
How many of those were Democrats?
How did that consultation process go and were any names run by these people?
Well, we did uh an extensive consultation process, Rush.
Uh the President himself met especially with the leadership uh as well as with uh uh for example, Senators uh Spector and Lahey Chairman and ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a number of other senators.
We also set up a process where several members of the President's staff uh were involved, especially his counsel in terms of of uh seeking the advice of uh individual members of the Senate.
Altogether I'd say we probably consulted with uh sixty-five or seventy Senators, both parties, uh probably about two thirds of the Democrats were asked for their views.
We did not get into the business of giving them a list of names.
Um we felt that was uh went beyond uh the point of consultation.
The President's the one who has to make the decisions about who he wants to nominate, and the Senate obviously has to confirm.
But we did seek their recommendations if they had names they wanted us to look at.
Uh we talked about what kind of uh of uh issues they thought ought to be considered, what the criteria ought to be in terms of filling the post.
Um so there was uh I would say probably more consultation, at least in my experience than I've ever before seen on the Supreme Court nomination.
At the end of the day, and then I'm not this is a calling for a political opinion, but uh do you think at the end of the day the Democrats that were consulted will will feel that they were genuinely consulted?
Uh I know a number number of them already have said as much.
Um Senator Byrd, for example, from West Virginia, uh who was uh very complimentary in the extent to which the President really went out of his way to uh talk to him, uh consult him, seek his advice and counsel.
So I think there are great many Democrats who believe that uh there was uh uh consultation above and beyond anything they uh they expected.
And uh I frankly I believe that Judge Roberts will have a a large number of Democrats in the final analysis he'll vote vote for him.
Uh he was after all approved unanimously for his currency.
Just a couple more quick questions.
What steps do you plan on taking to prepare Judge Roberts uh for the hearings?
We've heard that Fred Thompson has been uh consulted for his advice on this.
What what will happen there?
Well, the uh the normal process for one of these is you get a sort of a Sherpa s a senior uh figure who knows the Senate well, uh, who can sort of honcho the process for us and and uh Fred Thompson's agreed to do that, of course, uh distinguished former Senator from Tennessee and well as his uh currently best known for his uh role on law and order.
Um but he's a very good man, knows the Senate well, and Ed Gillespie will also help former uh chairman of the Republican National Committee.
What'll they do with the Senate?
What will they do with the nominee?
It's a matter of working with the nominee, getting him around to visit all the members of the especially the judiciary committee, but eventually the as many of the members of the Senate as possible.
Will you have mock hearings?
Uh they may, although again, if you look at Judge Roberts, uh this man who stood before the Supreme Court, those nine justices, and answered all kinds of tough questions on thirty-nine separate occasions.
Um I can't think of better preparation than uh what he's already been through as uh one of the leading appellate lawyers in the nation.
So I think uh I know from my own experiences and uh the conversations uh that we had with him, this this man will be a great witness.
Okay.
How did you keep it secret yesterday?
How did you do everybody loves the fact that you were able to do this?
How did you do it?
Well, the president l likes that and uh uh the uh there was a small group that had been working on uh the possibility of a Supreme Court replacement for a good long time, and then as the uh when Sandra Day O'Connor's uh retirement was announced, then of course we kicked into high gear, but it's uh it's been on a very close hold basis.
That's the way the president wanted it done.
And uh everybody we dealt with uh respected our wishes.
And uh it was uh just a little extra added uh pleasure in uh being able to pull it off.
It was an interesting night last night to watch the media demand leaks.
Uh Mr. Vice yeah Mr. Vice President, next week, for a portion of next week I'm gonna be in France.
Is there anybody uh you'd like me to say hi to or anything you'd like me to say to uh anybody in France for you?
Well, um I think uh the their relationship is uh is uh somewhat improved.
They've been working closely with us on a lot of the counter-terrorism uh things that we're dealing with on on uh a global basis.
Obviously, we've had some differences uh with uh President Chirac.
But um they're uh over the long haul, the the relationship we have, for example, with French intelligence services is very good, and and uh we need to continue to work very closely together if we're gonna win the war on terror.
All right, Mr. Vice President, thank you so much.
I appreciate your time, and it's uh it's always nice to have you with us.
All right, Russ.
Have a good time in France.
You will Vice President Dick Cheney, we'll take a uh quick break and be back right right after this.
Don't go on.
So Vice President tells me to have a good time in France.
Little hidden message there.
Greetings, welcome back, folks.
I've got breaking news.
Breaking news.
Two Afghans released uh yesterday from Club Gitmo claim that about a hundred and eighty other Afghans held at Club Gitmore on a hunger strike to protest alleged mistreatment and to push for their release.
U.S. uh spokesman at Gitmo did not immediately respond to an email request from the Associated Press for comment.
The two said that they were taken from Club Gitmo on Monday and flown back to Afghanistan before being released.
By Wednesday, the prisoners would be on their 14th or 15th day of their hunger strike.
So today would be the 15th or 16th day of the hunger strike.
I doubt that I think this story probably has it wrong.
I don't think these guys are in a hunger strike.
They're probably on diets.
You eat so well at Club Gitmo that uh most of the guests at Club Gitmo gain weight.
Uh and and I think, you know, if you're gonna be a stealth taliban type fighter, you've got to be slim and trim and so forth.
And I think this is simply a way for them to uh get back in shape.
But anyway, that's the breaking news.
Starvation and uh and a uh mistreatment uh leading to a hunger strike among guests at Club Gitmo.
Uh in fact, uh the uh Neil Neil Coslow, who is a Washington, D.C. based lawyer for twelve detainees from Kuwait said that several inmates had told him during a visit to Club Gitmo between June 20th and 24th.
June 20th and 24th.
This is the 20th.
What's this?
When was this has to be last year?
They have to have the dates wrong here.
This is the June twenty-fourth is not here yet.
At any rate, so there was a widespread hunger strike over the amount and quantities.
Oh, this is July?
Oh my gosh, this faster time flying than I thought.
That's right.
Okay.
This is July.
That's right.
NFL training camps open from now to, you know, the next ten days, two weeks.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
Uh several inmates had told him during a visit to Club Gitmo from June 20th, 24th last month that there was a widespread hunger strike over the amount and quality of water they received.
That the water wasn't any good.
Uh this lawyer said that he he was told that the tap water at Club Gitmo was discolored, foul smelling, and caused gastrointestinal ailments among inmates.
I think they're just going to the diet Coke spigot.
And uh and thinking that it's water.
So the detainees received three small bottles of purified water emblazoned with American flags every month, but that was inadequate in the tropical climb of uh of Cuba.
He said the bottled water had also been taken away from detainees who break detention center rules.
So um that's the latest out of Club Gitmo.
Wait a little wait a little.
Well, I it is.
It sounds like the same gastro problem that Judith Miller's having, according to her editor, Bill Keller, uh, out there.
Uh we'll see.
Uh they there's there's so many guests at Club Gitmo.
Uh the quality service is uh is guaranteed.
I'm sure they'll uh they'll get this straight and I get this.
This is the Washington Post today.
Headline, new law requires workers to learn about constitution.
Federal employees' lack of knowledge is lamented.
Is this not does this not make my case?
Civics lessons do not get much swankier than this.
The 160 or so federal employees who filed into the National Archives McGowan Theater yesterday for a program on the Constitution sat in plush red chairs and heard a five-piece brass band play patriotic songs.
They were given pocket-sized copies of the Constitution.
They settled in for speeches from such experts as National Archivist Alan Weinstein and Deputy White House Counselor William K. Kelly.
Then came the featured attraction, the 87-year-old Senator Sheets Byrd, who has made his living in the Senate for nearly 50 years.
He was there to sing the praises of the Constitution.
Our Constitution is not merely a dry piece of dead parchment.
It's a revered and living document that's helped inspire our nation and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Anyway, there's a new law.
Federal workers have to learn the Constitution if they don't know it.
Now, if they don't know it, why don't they know it?
Where have they not had it taught to them?
Is it any wonder that the Constitution gets bastardized the way it does?
Nobody knows what it says, especially people that get the this is its own scandal.
I mean, they're going out and they're looking for people to work at the federal government who have no clue what the Constitution is.
Uh let's see.
Let's see.
I got to take a break here.
We'll have a phone call on the other side.
Don't go away.
I just heard from a representative of Club Gitmo.
Uh there's there's no hunger strike going on down there.
They are it's it's a new class that they've offered, the euphoria of starvation.
Um the euphoria of starvation is uh is a new uh uh item you can choose from uh when you're a guest at Club Gitmo.
And that is it's just being misrepresented by the people who have been uh released.
Scott in St. Peters, Missouri, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
I'll tell you why I think it plays into your strategy that you're thought about rope-dope.
But I I like it because I I think what the Bush administration, part of the strat strategia here is they what they want to do is draw out another Supreme Court retirement.
And and as opposed to to submitting Janice Rogers Brown or somebody like her first and then going after a John Roberts, if you put somebody like John Roberts up, I think he's from what I can tell, he's closer to someone like Clarence Thomas than David Souter anyway.
They're gonna get a good nominee with this guy, and then if they can draw out, if they can satisfy the liberals, uh then they can get another uh retirement.
That's the time when you go out to somebody.
I understand your thinking.
Gets but but what would ideally happen here is the left fire both barrels at this guy.
And then and then uh essentially be out of ammo.
But they're gonna do it on all these nominees.
It really, it really doesn't matter.
Um uh and and whether or not, you know, uh the the thing that could happen, the Libs could say, okay, at the end of the day, you can have Roberts, but nobody more conservative than this.
You know, then they'll go out to the country and start warning about all of that.
Folks, we are sadly out of busy broadcast time.
We will be back uh what is this?
Wednesday Wednesday, okay.
Well, yeah, we will be back tomorrow.
And whatever's happening between now and then we'll talk about.
Make more sense anybody else does.
▲
Export Selection