All Episodes
Previous Next
July 25, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
July 25, 2005, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 247 podcast.
It is great to be back.
Am I back by popular demand?
Has there been any demand that I be back or not?
In the uh time since I have last done Rush's show, has there been a demand or are you just saying that?
Are you saying there's a demand in order to pump me up and to deal with my fragile ego?
Was there any demand?
Yeah, I figured anyone.
Any demand at all.
In fact, there may have been demand that I not come back.
Well, I am back, although I am convinced that it's going to be for today and today only because I'm already making myself to be a complete pain in the butt for the staff.
Came into the studio and it's cold.
Now it's like a hundred, it's literally like 92 or 93 degrees in New York City today, and I'm in the studio and it's cold.
What is Rush doing here?
Hang meat?
And I'm cold.
So I go over to the thermostat, which I recall from the last time that I was here, which is in the left hand corner of the room, and the thermostat is gone, and instead there's this plastic contraption that's screwed shut so that you can't adjust the thermostat.
So I'm looking around and being rather careful in Russia's studio.
I don't see any thermostat.
So I ask, where is the thermostat?
It's not in the studio, it's in Kathleen's office.
Okay.
The thermostat for the most famous radio studio in America isn't in that studio, it's somewhere else.
Can you please turn the temperature up a little bit?
I'm cold.
Yes, and she's very happy to do this for me and turns up the temperature.
I'm still cold.
So I come back in and I complain again.
Can you turn up the temperature a little bit more?
They finally turned up the temperature.
Well, the show is now three minutes old, and I have to declare to the audience I'm now warm.
It's now too warm in here, so I'm going to demand that they turn the temperature back down, and it's going to be a soap opera all day, and I'm going to be remembered as the guy who came in and was not satisfied with the temperature, so I'm never going to be back.
Am I relatively speaking guest hosts, all things considered, a pain or rather easy to deal with?
Where am I in the spectrum?
Where am I in the spectrum?
I'm the biggest pain of all, correct?
So far, yeah.
I try not to be, but it works out that be that way.
It is great to be back.
I got into New York yesterday just in time for all sorts of terrorism fears.
Penn Station, which is a great train station in New York.
It's either above Madison Square Garden or below Madison Square Garden or inside Madison Square Garden, I'm not sure which, but it's there.
They had to evacuate it because of a bomb threat.
Some guy goes up to the counter at the Amtrak station and declares that he has a bomb.
This happened after some sort of dispute about they wouldn't let him get on the train because he didn't have any photo ID and you can't get on the train without a photo ID and this went back and forth.
Finally he takes his duffel bag and he puts it on his counter and says, There's a bomb in here.
He announced that he had a bomb.
And that was that.
Well, instantly all sorts of terror alerts occur.
They clear out the entire Penn Station.
All the commuters and all the Amtrak customers are forced out of the building for an hour, and they're taken out onto the street and forced to stand there and wait while they determine in fact that there is no bomb in this guy's duffel bag, which of course there never is.
In the high entire history of bombing, be it suicide bombing or non-suicide bombing, has any bomber ever declared in advance that they had a bomb?
I can tend none.
No bomber has ever announced that they have a bomb.
The guys on 9-11 didn't declare they were going to fly into the buildings before they got on the plane.
You do it after the fact.
So you know it's not a legitimate threat, as did everybody who was they're hauling these people out.
No one's afraid.
They're all pressing up against the building, waiting to be able to go back in.
No fear whatsoever.
The uh guy that is responsible for all of this, according to the uh New York Post is Raul Claudio, 43 years old of the Bronx, would be Bronx bomber.
That's what you're gonna get today, folks.
Rush isn't here.
This is the best I can do.
You're gonna get that.
That's the level of humor you got.
Uh Raul Claudio, 43 of the Bonx, has been arrested, charged with making a terrorist threat, and facing numerous other uh charges as a result of this.
Now, first of all, what a knob.
What a knob.
just to do that, knowing that you're going to inconvenience everyone.
We need a deterrent for this.
My contention is anyone who makes a false bomb threat on the spot, just hit him on the head with a hammer.
I think it would probably work.
It would have the support of everyone who is there.
And fairly good deterrent.
Either that or how about a special 10-day pass in which they're assigned to Guantanamo.
Just if you make a only four Americans who make phony bomb threats, whether you're calling something in, or you make something on the spot, or you have some sort of a threat, just go to Guantanamo, only 10 or 15 days.
We certainly know, according to Dick Durbin, that you're going to be terribly treated, so you'll have a deterrent effect if you do do that.
Send them down to Guantanamo.
Speaking of Guantanamo, I don't know if you caught this.
You know who was in Guantanamo last week?
Ted Kennedy.
Not as an inmate, he was there visiting.
Uh Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, uh also a Democrat, and Republican John Warner, the Virginia Republican who's the head of the Armed Services Committee, went down to Guantanamo to tour the facility and meet with soldiers.
According to the Washington Times, Kennedy got an earful.
The soldiers serving at Guantanamo have not appreciated the commentary coming out of Washington about the conditions there.
In particular, the comments from Dick Durbin who suggested that Guantanamo was similar to Adolf Hitler's concentration camps and Joe Stalin's gulags.
Quoting one official in the Washington Times, they got stiff reaction from those home state soldiers.
The troops down there expressed their disdain for that kind of commentary, especially comparisons to the gulag.
Somewhere in here is a joke about Ted Kennedy being at Guantanamo, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.
I do have my material in which I'm supposed to plug Rush's Club Gitmo material.
Should I work it in now or should I do it later?
This has been stressed to me that I should work this in.
In fact, I even have my own club Gitmo uh t-shirt from Rush.
Club Gitmo on the front, what happens in Gitmo stays in Gitmo.
W.rushlimbois.com.
You can go there, you can get that.
I'll be expected to wear that, huh?
Yeah.
Okay, I will wear that, and I'm going to march into Penn Station and mutter darkly about what's going to happen if I'm not allowed to board a train.
Anyway, Teddy Kennedy was down in Guantanamo.
Is there a joke there or not?
Everyone that I can think of is just one that I shouldn't probably go with, huh?
Yeah.
I don't know how he got there.
There's no bridge to Guantanamo.
Don't know how that happened.
All right, we do have serious material for you on today's program.
And the reason I talked about uh the incident at Penn Station, these New Yorkers who were moved out, there was no panic.
Nobody ran away.
They gradually filed out, muttering obviously about the inconveniences of life that have to occur ever since 9-11 in this country.
They handled it properly.
There wasn't any panic, there wasn't any pushing, there wasn't any shoving, and when they were taken outside, they waited right next to the door to go back in.
In fact, the police had to keep asking them, step back a little bit, we do have to take care of this.
They handled it just fine.
Compare that to the atmosphere in London, where people are terrified right now.
It shows you several things, including we really seem to be far removed from 9-11.
The fact that we have not had a major act of terrorism in this country since 9-11 has everyone back to the notion of treating bomb threats and terror alerts.
Not cavalierly, but we just don't see it as a real threat anymore, as opposed to in London.
I mean, if this guy had pulled what he did in London, they probably would have shot him based on what's going on over there.
Yet that did not happen.
I mean, we did overreact after 9-11, people afraid to fly, people afraid to do this, just convinced that the next day of their life was going to be the last one.
Now we're at a stage in which, well, do we really need to make the Patriot Act permanent.
Are we inconveniencing too many people with all of the security alerts?
Should we be going telling panicking people with the orange alert and the yellow alert?
I'm not sure where the happy medium is.
What's happened, though, in London, ought to be a reality check.
That the terrorists are still out there.
There are a lot of them.
And this is something that we're going to have to deal with for the rest of our lives.
And the folks in London who've had to deal with that situation have been given a rude awakening to the fact that 9 11 wasn't a one-time thing, whether it's Al Qaeda or copycats or just people with grudges, this problem does exist.
And it's a very, very real thing.
I believe that the flack that the British police are getting over the shooting of the innocent man who didn't obey the command, the subway station, has been overdone.
I think they did the right thing.
You've got to understand.
There have been there was an attack, and then there was a thwarted attack.
And in that atmosphere, here is a man who is refusing orders from law enforcement authorities, and then starts to run away from the police.
What would you do?
Put yourself in the shoes of those British law enforcement officers, including the one that fired the shot.
What would you do?
Imagine they had done nothing, and imagine this was another bomber.
And 15 seconds later he detonated his bomb, and 50 people were dead.
Can you imagine the questions?
You saw him there.
He started to run.
What did you think was going on?
They were in a very, very difficult situation.
Now, Tony Blair today issued an apology.
British law enforcement over the weekend expressed regret, but they wouldn't apologize.
Tony Blair today issued an apology.
That's supposed to make everyone feel better.
I don't think they did anything wrong.
I don't think they have anything to apologize for.
There are certain prices that we're going to have to pay because of the world that we live in.
And if you refuse an order from a law enforcement authority in a place in which there is the highest possible terror alert, it is not unreasonable to think that there's going to be consequences for your actions.
My name is Mark Elling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
My name is Mark Belling.
I'm sitting in for Rush.
The uh London police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, uh did confirm that ever since for the last two years at least, there has been a policy in Britain, shoot to kill when dealing with a suspected suicide bomber, and that is what happened to the Brazilian man who was in London and who obviously wasn't guilty of anything other than failing to follow that order.
I think that that order being in place is reasonable, and the second guessing that occurs after the fact here is unfortunate and also unfair, because I think that the policy they have in place is proper.
To Westfield, Illinois, Aaron, Aaron, you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Hi, how's it going, Mark?
I'm great, thank you.
I just wanted to tell you that I think you are exactly right.
If there had been planes flying over Washington, D.C., and uh, and they got an order that they need to they need to stop or turn around and they refuse that order, they'd be shot down in a heartbeat, and I think that would be the exactly right thing to do.
Um and I think that the the police officers in London did the right thing there, sir.
Yeah, I I I agree with you.
We faced that situation on 9-11.
Were it not for the heroes on the plane that was crashed in Pennsylvania?
That plane was headed for the U.S. Capitol building, and it was headed there after the first two planes had already hit the World Trade Center, and in the interim, the Pentagon was hit.
In the meantime, you've got this other jet headed for the Capitol.
By then, everyone in our government and the military would have known that this jet was one that was a potential threat because those cell phone calls were made by passengers on the plane.
We would have been forced to confront whether or not to shoot down That jet with innocent passengers on, knowing that it was headed toward the Capitol building.
And had it come to that, I think it would have been reasonable to think that that's perhaps something that we we should have done.
In this situation, putting yourself in the shoes of the British police officer who acted.
He's there, near the train station.
There were two there was an attack, a successful one, and an attempted terror attack on trains in England.
Here you have an individual who is refusing to respond to an order and starting to run.
What would you think?
I would think that this could be a very, very dangerous thing.
If you didn't have the backdrop of the bombings that had already occurred and the failed bombing that also occurred before this, things would be different.
But they did occur.
It did happen.
And rather than turn this into an international incident with the Brit Brazilian government with its nose out of joint over this, I think we ought to understand that the blame here is with the terrorists who created the environment in which this officer did what he was supposed to do and shot.
To uh Detroit and Nick.
Nick, you're on EIB with Mark Belling.
Hey, Mark, I I I definitely take exception to what you said.
I mean, if if there's a policy in place to of shoot to kill for suspected suicide bombers in and it's shoot first ask questions later, what's the difference between the terrorism that's committed by the police in that instance and the terrorism that's committed by the jihadists?
They are responding to a real situation.
By saying shoot to kill with suspected terrorists, you're first of all forcing the law enforcement officer to make a reasonable judgment that this is a suspected terrorist.
In this case in London, if the individual had not disobeyed the order, if he was merely somebody who acted hinky or looked the wrong way, then I would agree with you.
But this came after one successful attack and then a then a thwarted attack in a very, very highly charged environment.
Furthermore, the word was out in London.
We have extreme security at the train and subway stations and the trolleys.
There was extreme security in place.
To do what this man did in that circumstance was extremely reckless.
Furthermore, furthermore, if you were the commander of that cop, what would your policy have been when faced with exactly this type situation?
Well, well, that's a very good question, but but but but I think the reality is the question is are you advocating the killing of innocent people based only on suspicion?
Because that's what it sounded like to me.
The suspicion has to be real, and that's how you have to judge the police officer in London.
It seems as though he had real reasons to be suspicious, particularly since the guy was running and he was running toward the trains.
What I fear more than terrorism is is the escalation of the police state and that it's become so acceptable uh for for uh the populace, you know, everywhere in the in the Western world to and especially here to everyone.
This is the way police treat people.
What police state you get shot, you get you get uh, you know, this is this is this is the expectation going into it.
If you have a confrontation with the police, I'm asking you what police what police state you're referring to.
In England, in London in particular, they had one attack and a follow-up attack that was thwarted, and there may yet be others, and you had one incident after that in which an innocent person was killed.
Find another abuse, find anything in the United States that would even constitute it.
It's like the Democrats who were whining about the Patriot Act that they had all voted for.
Why they're searching library.
They weren't searching any library records.
We have yet to find one American who has been mistreated or had his rights violated because of the Patriot Act.
And if they found one, move on.org would be running endless ads about it.
There is no police state here, but to pretend that we shouldn't react at all and to pretend that we aren't going to do anything to protect ourselves is silly.
Well, all I know is I fear the police state more than terrorism.
Thanks, Mark.
Thank you.
Thank you for that, Nick.
That is all he knows, that he fears the police state more than terrorism.
The police state in this country, non existent as it is, hasn't killed anyone.
And when there have been abuses by law enforcement officers, they become huge stories.
Even looking at this case in London, it is now the subject of international we're talking about here.
It is an enormous story.
That is a huge check on law enforcement overreacting to the terror threat.
But we can't pretend that things haven't changed.
9-11 occurred.
The attack on the subways in London occurred.
And society has to ask whether or not we are going to accept it as an inevitability or try to stop it.
And if we are going to say we're going to try to stop it, there's a potential price that can be paid when well intentioned law enforcement officers or soldiers perhaps make a mistake.
In this case the mistake was I think a reasonable one.
I'm Mark Elling in for rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for rush we've been talking about the shooting several days ago the London subway train an innocent man from Brazil shot by a London police officer for not obeying an order to stop.
He was shot in a subway train shortly after the terror bombings that occurred about there about a week and a half ago and even closer to a thwarted attack that occurred only a couple of days earlier.
Prime Minister Blair did apologize today the London police had earlier expressed regret but did not apologize.
You've got to remember those suspects are still out there from the first attack.
They're not sure how many people may have been involved in the coordination and they also have reason to believe that there might be another attempt in London.
Under that backdrop, when a man is refusing repeated requests to stop and runs onto a train after having acted suspiciously was the decision to shoot all that unreasonable.
I think it would have been unreasonable to do nothing.
Cell phone in California will you're on Russia's program with Mark Belling.
Excellent excellent with all due respect to your previous caller I think he needs to put his brain in gear before he puts his mouth in motion after six years in the military you have to understand that uh and and dealing with these people personally and I can't go into details but these people will kill you and they don't care if they kill you or your children or whatever.
You're an infidel.
So what the police did in London was absolutely on the nose.
You have to take it take it in this way the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few I with all I agree I agree with you.
Now it should be pointed out this man was innocent.
He was not a suicide attacker they merely thought that he was but you are right suicide bombers want to kill you.
They are willing to die themselves therefore you can't deter them by saying well we'll just chase him down if they thought he was a bomber you have no idea how quick and how close he was to pull the pin.
Furthermore if you think he's a bomber and he's running you know he's likely to do it now if that's what he is you've got how much time to make the decision as to whether or not he's a threat or he isn't a threat if we have learned anything from Israel's experience and even our own experience and now what has happened in London this is not a vague abstract threat.
It is real.
And we have to be willing to empower soldiers at checkpoints, police officers, and certainly authorities now in London to be willing and able to act without second-guessing, oh my God, am I going to be criticized?
Will I have made a mistake?
I'm not suggesting that they just shoot first and ask questions later.
But when you make a determination that something is a threat, I don't want them to be fearful of acting and fearful of doing something that may in the end turn out.
turned out to be heroic.
Exactly you know we have to take uh take uh take this with a grain of salt here in America that you know with all due respect if you've got a family member or something who is going to be acting semi-suspicious and the police tell you to stop especially if it is a if it is a bomber he's got a fraction of a second to make a decision to either kill and save a couple hundred people on a train or or or or make the other decision or not shoot this person and then hundreds of people died because of his of his lack of decision.
You're afraid you're right about that what people need to understand is this wasn't Scotland.
It wasn't even Birmingham in England.
It was London and it wasn't in a public square in London.
It was London and he ran onto a subway train, which is exactly where the attacks occurred.
If there isn't going to be a heightened sense of security and a greater responsibility on the part of law enforcement to act proactively rather than sit around and wait for a bombing, I don't know where there would be.
And I think I think this is an important topic for those of us here in our country, because we're going to face this.
Eventually there's going to be another act of terror, or there's going to be a very, very high alert when we learn that there is a threat in a potential area.
I don't want the people who are given the responsibility of keeping us safe to be so afraid of acting that they don't do something when the signs are overwhelming that this guy is trouble.
And this guy was sending every signal that you could send that he was trouble and then ran onto a subway train.
Right.
He could have ran into any subway train on in any country, and someone, especially the police would have been real nervous at that point in any country after the London bombings, because they these guys don't care where they work out of, they don't care who they blow up.
They'll blow up Spaniards, they'll blow up English, they'll double up Americans, they'll blow up Israelis.
They don't care.
You're correct about that.
You're correct about that.
Thank you, Will.
I appreciate it.
Cell phone in St. Louis.
Joe, you're on EIB.
You know, I fear the one caller more than I fear terrorists or or or a police day.
I can't believe anybody would make a dumb comment like that.
I heard Alan Combs on Hannity and Combs the other night, and he asked some guy, you know, they shot the kill.
Did they have to shoot the kill?
And the question that comes in my mind is is there any other way of shooting other than shooting to kill?
Well, you don't understand this mentality.
That was that was addressed by the London police commissioner.
Why did they shoot in the head?
Why did they shoot as many times as they did?
And his response was the reason we don't shoot in the chest is that's usually where the bombs are.
They shoot in the they shoot in the head because it's the surest way of bringing down someone they don't want to shoot.
Let's imagine it is a bomber.
Shooting him once, he can still detonate.
I know that sounds ludicrous, and I know it seems like a reach, but it's real.
These policies, I mean, first of all, London is not exactly a trigger happy city.
Most of the police officers don't even carry guns.
These policies have been developed after a whole lot of thought.
If you make the determination that this man is likely to be a suicide attacker, you've got to shoot with the intent of killing.
I think you can question whether or not the officer made an error in judgment.
But given the facts that he had and the amount of time that he had to make a decision, I'm not going to say that what he did was wrong.
No.
No, if if you've made the determination that you need to draw your gun and shoot, there is no other way of shooting.
And obviously you don't want to shoot into an area that there might be a bomb that you might detonate yourself by firing at this guy.
Now was it wrong?
Well, obviously it was wrong because we kill an innocent man.
Is it the cost of war?
It's the cost of war.
Well, it's an innocent Remember, it's an innocent man though, who refused orders to stop in the area th there's probably no place other than somewhere in Iraq right now where there was a heightened sense of security than a London subway train station.
And you know, this is the story that has been obsessing Britain.
It's been on page one of every newspaper for a week and a half of all the reckless things to do to after acting suspiciously to run away from the cops, one of whom is carrying a machine gun and run away from him when they're telling you to stop.
He acted extremely irresponsibly.
It wasn't like the this officer went into a crowd and just shot a guy because he was twitching.
He was acting very suspiciously and then ran onto a subway train.
If a police officer tells you to stop, I would say it's a good idea to stop.
Particularly on a subway train in a city where there was just a major fatal suicide killing.
On a subway train.
Thank you for the call.
Let's go to Oklahoma City on a cell phone.
Don, you're on EIB.
Hey, good afternoon or good morning, Mark.
Thank you.
I find it really irritating to think that people are still calling this guy innocent.
He's not innocent.
He may be innocent of being a terrorist, but he's not innocent of committing a crime of submitting to the authorities.
There was nothing irresp uh.
He was just it just frustrates me.
It's classic here that the media is worse there than they are here.
Because they're the ones that's blown its own out of proportion is the way I look at it.
So I'm frustrated on more than one level.
Well, it this the story is going to be large, just given the fact that the guy was not a suicide attacker.
I I'll quarrel with you.
I I think you probably do we do need to acknowledge that he was innocent, although he certainly resisted extremely important orders at the most important place, literally in the world right now to be following orders.
I mean, think any kind of reasonable person, if they're going to get on a subway train in Great Britain right now, especially London specifically, uh England specifically and London to be directly to the point, ought to know to follow orders.
You just don't do something like this.
It would have been like here in the United States after 9-11, right after the plane started to fly again, that a person ran through the security checkpoint at an airport here and headed and jumped onto a plane.
You can imagine what that kind of environment would have been.
Who would have done that?
Who would act so recklessly?
Only someone who you would assume would be up to no good, and that's the assumption that was made.
The other point that has to be made is this cop had like two seconds to make a decision.
You've got to decide very, very fast.
There's a whole lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on from people who've now had three or four days to dissect the whole thing and determine what they would have done with all of this ability to look back and see what the individual really was.
Thanks for the call.
Go ahead, Don.
I think they should be commended.
I I think it's great.
And also their efficiency to put five bullets into five specific spots without any other injury to anyone else.
These guys are good.
They and everyone else who is going to be on the front line in a high-level terror risk situation, like all of our soldiers in Iraq.
Look at the situation they're under right now with suicide bombings right and left, and the charged atmosphere of what happens if they would kill an innocent Iraqi.
They are being forced to make extraordinarily important decisions that have life or death death ramifications, not only for the individual they're shooting at, but for the people who might die if they don't stop something.
And I think you've got to give them at least some degree of a benefit of a doubt here.
I'm not saying they should go off half-cocked, and I'm not suggesting that this man should have been shot if the situation wasn't what it was.
But it was what it was, and it was a subway train that he ran on ran on to, and that context I think is being missed by a whole lot of people who say, well, I would not have done it.
Really?
Would you not have done it if you were in that place at that time?
What that officer did, I think is reasonable, and it probably was the right thing to do, given the behavior of the suspect.
Thank you for the call.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
I knew this was going to happen.
I now think it's too warm in the studio in here.
I was mentioning earlier in the program that it was way too cold, and I made everybody work very hard to warm up the studio.
It is too warm.
I'm now going to complain.
Hey, this is exactly what they were doing at Guantanamo, right?
Lower the temperature.
First it's too cold, then it's too warm.
Get Dick Durbin in here.
I need him to advocate for me.
Well, this is like a gulag.
This is Hitler how they treat you here.
With regard to the guy in London, the Brazilian man who was shot by London police.
They had been following him because he came out of a building that was under surveillance as being a possible place where some of the terrorist suspects had been.
And he's wearing a jacket on a rather warm, relatively speaking day.
So his behavior leading up to this was hinky.
You've got to put all of that in a context.
All of the intelligence analysts from Egypt, Britain, and the United States are trying to determine whether or not what happened over the weekend in Egypt is linked to the attacks in Britain, and they don't think that they are.
Say that they can't they don't see an Al Qaeda link here, and they don't think that this was Al Qaeda in Egypt.
I don't know if it is or it isn't.
I'm certainly not an intelligence expert.
The problem that we face is that for way too many radical Muslims, suicide attacks, bombing and terror are acceptable.
That's the problem that we face, and we can't just assume that Al Qaeda is going to be the only problem that we have with regard to terror.
And with bin Laden on the run and hiding, I don't even know how well organized Al Qaeda is anymore.
They may have 14 different branches and a lot of different individuals who are going to try to to assert themselves as being the baddest guy in town.
That's the real concern.
From Iran, this news flash.
I am not making this up.
A report drafted by the Iranian judiciary, the judiciary in Iran acknowledges that there have been human rights abuses in Iran.
This is a story.
Iran is admitting human rights abuses.
This is a major breakthrough as Iran tries to dry join the civilized world.
They're acknowledging that there have been abuses of prisoners in Iran.
They also admit that they were torturing people in Iran.
Who would have thought?
Who would have thought?
You have to wonder if this is going to lead to an entirely new wave now of people coming clean.
What, Castro's going to admit, you know, there never was going to be any democracy.
I grew up wanting to be a dictator, and Chev Guevara and I set up the whole thing as a ruse.
I just wanted to be a strongman for the last 50 years.
France admits, yeah, we're just weenies.
We're afraid to fight.
Hillary.
You know, that cattle future deal, it was all a scam.
That was really a way for me to just accept a big bribe from a bunch of interests in Arkansas.
And the ultimate admission of all, following the lead of the Iranian judiciary that there are human rights abuses in of all places Iran, the media, the American media admits, yes, we're all a bunch of liberals, we hate Bush, and we slant and bias the news deliberately, just to achieve our goals.
So I am hoping that the positive step taken by the judiciary in Iran in which they acknowledge that there are human rights abuses in Iran will lead to a whole new wave of everyone coming clean everywhere.
To Leesburg, Virginia, Ken, you're on the EIB network.
Hey, Mark, thanks.
I just wanted to point out that I heard the uh guy from Brazil didn't speak English.
And if that isn't a warning to all these illegals who are running into our country and everywhere else, if you're going to live in a country, you better the heck understand not only the language but the laws.
He had been in Britain for several years.
I don't know if he did or he didn't.
So I don't know if that was a problem or not.
But he certainly, if he was functioning there as long as he did, would understand when a law enforcement officer is telling you to cease and to stop moving, and he certainly should have understood that.
Putting myself in his shoes, you know, I'm not sure I could understand the You listen to British people speak.
I I'm not sure I would have understood him.
But if a guy with a gun who's wearing a police uniform tells me to stop, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to run.
Thanks for the call, Ken.
Appreciate it.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm sitting in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush.
Another thing you've got to consider about the mindset of the average London police officer.
This is a country where there has been terrorism.
It just wasn't Middle Eastern terrorism.
It was the IRA.
So they've developed policies about what it is that they need to do in all sorts of circumstances.
And I just think that it's important that you cut them a little bit of slack.
Yeah, the IRA is the one that really the IRA, which is now sworn off terror, has got to be a little jealous here.
I mean, they tried forever and ever and ever to panic the British people, and they never succeeded.
And now they see uh an attack from apparently Al Qaeda panicking the entire country, and they probably wonder why they didn't get any of that.
Uh let's go to Laura in Traverse City, Michigan.
Laura, go ahead.
Laura and Traverse.
Oh, I really appreciate it.
Um my feeling is that this guy is was a suicide when it's a phenomenon that we call suicide by cops.
Well he was certainly acting as though he wanted to be shot.
And I'm not suggesting that you're right about that because I don't know and we don't know enough.
But everything he did acted as though he wanted to draw the attention and draw fire from that police officer.
He almost wrote a book on how to be shot by a cop.
▲
Export Selection