All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 4, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:30
August 4, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
I don't believe that.
Fox has got a graphic up that says the Muslim role in the global war on terror.
That is a discussion topic as though that's open for the Muslim role in the war on terror.
Which reminds me, folks, I am fed up with these videotapes.
From these insane terrorists like Zawahiri today.
I'm fed up with watching this stuff.
Who cares?
You might say, what the all is going on?
Greetings.
Welcome, Rush Limbaugh, the EIB Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
Here we go again.
Osama's number two lackey tapes an inflammatory video, ships it off to Al Jazeera TV, gets beamed around the world, gets analyzed all over the place.
Look, he's outside.
Look, his shirt doesn't have one wrinkle.
I heard somebody say, look, why, he looks healthy and he's wearing a different color headdress.
Big deal, folks.
So here we have a guy who will not even appear before his own people.
A guy who doesn't have the guts to show up in public.
At least Castro will do that.
At least Kim Il-Jung or whatever his name will do that.
But this clown won't.
And Bin Laden won't.
So they ship off these videos to Al Jazeera, gets beamed all over the world, inflaming terrorist cells, embarrassing moderate Muslims and unnerving peace-loving people everywhere.
And of course, it gives the cable nets something to focus on for 48 hours.
And of course, now it's Tony Blair's fault.
Tony Blair is an SOB and America, you're next, as though we don't know.
You know, we're going to get a poll.
Here's Zawahiri's got a tape out.
The next thing you know, Bill Schneider at CNN will do a poll.
Do you agree with Eamon Zawahiri that it's Tony Blair's fault?
And of course, the result will be, yeah, 42% blame Blair and agree with Zawahiri.
This whole cycle is just, it's maddening.
I'm fed up.
This is permitted propaganda.
And it's all done under the guise of news.
We should have just bombed Al Jazeera out of existence.
Oh, no, Rush, you can't do that.
If you set down Al Jazeera, the terrorists win.
No, you wackos.
You shut down Al Jazeera.
The winner will be us.
The good guys.
What's so hard to figure out about this?
As I say, any leader, quote unquote, who does not appear live before his people ought not get airtime on television.
It's just that, you know, it's like this guy may as well be an alien that landed and has got the world in his grips.
And every time he speaks, the world goes, oh, no, are we safe for a while?
Zawahiri's got a video out.
Oh, no.
Big deal.
Folks, it really does.
It bothers me.
I mean, Saddam appeared before his people.
Castro does it.
Kim Il Thug, whatever his name is, appears before his people.
Bush does it.
Sometimes the Democrats appear before their people.
You know, no live appearances, no TV.
What ought to be the rule?
Well, really, I know this may sound funny to you, but I'm not trying to be funny about it.
Why do we constantly want to be on the defensive?
Oh, no.
Sawahiri's got a new tape.
He's threatening Britain again in the United States.
And Bill Schneider's going to take a poll and find that 42% of Americans agree with him.
The thing is, if you don't have the guts to appear in public, you are either a craven coward or a special effect.
And that's all this guy is, is a special effect.
Yeah, and it starts this unending media cycle.
I'm sorry, folks.
It just makes me mad.
Folks, we need your help out there.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation needs your help.
As you know, 21 Marines dead in Iraq this week, a majority of them from Ohio.
One of the longtime charities that this program has been happily and proudly associated with, I mean, for almost probably 15 or 16 years, is the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation is headed up by some great friends of mine, and they're all Marines.
And I can assure you, 99% of the money that they collect gets dispersed.
This is 100% an act of charity.
And what they do, the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation supplies money and other assistance, primarily in the form of education scholarships for the children of Marines killed in action.
21 Marines were killed from Ohio, incidentally, this week in Baghdad.
And at times, the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation helps members from other services.
When the Oklahoma City bombing occurred in the World Trade Center, they helped Secret Service, Customs, U.S. Marshals, the Army, the Navy, the whole thing.
They really are doing the Lord's work here, and your help is really needed.
This is 21 Marines in one week.
And if you have some spare chains lying around, I have an address for you.
We're going to post the link here at our website as well, which will have the phone number in the mailing address you can use if you'd like to make a donation.
It's the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, P.O. Box 37 in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, 07046.
That's P.O. Box 37, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, 07046.
I'm not going to give out phone number.
If I gave out the phone number, it's 877 a toll-free number?
It is.
I'm not sure if this is a donation number or not.
I'm going to have to check.
They do have the number on the website, but I don't know if this number is set up to handle a nationwide full of phone calls or not.
And if I give the number out, it's just going to lead to busy signals in a lot of places.
And I don't know if it's a toll-free number, I'm sure it's a donation number.
But you can get it off the website, and I'll sneak it in here a couple times as the program unfolds.
We've got the link up at rushlimbaugh.com right now.
The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, again, at P.O. Box 37, Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, 07046.
And again, they need your help.
21 Marines dead.
And these former Marines, well, once a Marine, always a Marine, supply needed financial assistance, scholarships for education for the children of Marines that are killed in action.
Have you seen the Drudge page?
This is, I'm not, I guess nothing surprises me anymore, but the tastelessness of this.
Drudge has uncovered, well, as he writes here, a plot in the New York Times newsroom to look into the adoption records of the children of John Roberts, the Supreme Court nominee.
The Times has investigative reporter Glenn Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts' two young children, Josie, age five, and Jack, age four.
Judge Roberts and his wife, Jane, adopted the children when they were each infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
An insider at the New York Times claims a look into the adoption records of part of the paper's standard background check.
Roberts, as you know, young son, Jack, delighted millions of Americans during his father's nomination announcement when he wouldn't stop dancing while the president and his father spoke to a national TV audience.
The Washington Post style section previously had published a story criticizing the outfits that Mrs. Roberts had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
Remember that?
Yeah, they said the kid was wearing the saddle shoes.
They claimed that the, well, I don't know if the Post did this, but some reporters claimed that the Roberts dressed their children up as the Kennedys dressed JFK Jr. had him looking just like JFK Jr.
Some said that Mrs. Roberts showed up in a Jackie Kennedy Dallas 1963 colored outfit.
They've looked into her background, his wife, and her work and so forth, as they attempt to turn over any kind of dirt they can on this man.
The top official in Washington with knowledge of the New York Times plans to do an investigative piece on the adoption records of John Roberts' two kids said trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts family like this is despicable.
Children's lives ought to be off limits.
The Times is putting politics over fundamental decency.
One top Republican official, when told of the situation, was incredulous.
This can't possibly be true.
Yes, it can when a U Republican is going to learn that anything is true and possible with the Democrats today because they are in a state of desperate panic.
So now the adoption records of John Roberts' two kids are being looked into by the New York Times.
The Los Angeles Times has a story on Roberts today, which has as its purpose undermining him with conservative groups.
I'll have the details when we come back.
Stay with us.
America's anchorman, America's truth detector, the doctor of democracy, all combined and rolled into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball.
El Rushbo serving humanity here on the EIB network.
Listen to this.
I knew this is the kind of stuff I was talking about.
We've got the Arab expert from CNN, Octavia Nasser, talking about this latest tape from this coward thug, Eamon Al-Zawahiri.
Very interesting.
Again, it's interesting to hear from these people because, you know, you think that on the run, you look at that video and you don't see a man who's wearing wretched clothes or dirty clothes.
He looks pretty neat, clean, as if he's living in a comfortable environment, getting his clothes even pressed and cleaned.
And look at him.
He's a bit threatening.
So what?
So now we're going to have raving reviews of the sartorial splendor of the number two man to bin Laden.
Who is a coward?
Why don't you say, Octavia, he's a coward.
He will not appear in public.
If it weren't for Al Jazeera, the tapes wouldn't get out anywhere.
Somebody has to know where these tapes are made.
Anyway, back to this John Roberts business.
You know, it is, to me, folks, it is not stunning.
I know a lot of Republicans are stunned, but I think the days of being stunned should be behind us.
I don't think anything should surprise us.
This is desperation time.
This is the Supreme Court.
This is the ruling body of government as far as the left is concerned.
And they are scared to death of this guy.
They're scared to death of any Bush nominee getting on this court.
So now the New York Times looking in and in big, big, deep investigations, not in the paper today.
Just got a heads up here that it's in the works.
And amazingly, the reporter doing the story confirmed it to Drudge.
He confirmed it.
And so you've got the New York Times looking into the adoption records of John Roberts' two adopted children who are five and four.
So we'll wait to see what story says.
The New York Times says, hey, standard operating procedures is what if it's our normal vetting process here.
A normal vetting process.
Then you go to the Los Angeles Times today.
Roberts donated help to gay rights case.
This is an attempt here.
The L.A. Times to use gays as a wedge against Roberts by angering those in the so-called religious right.
Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes, behind the scenes for gay rights activists.
And his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.
Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, Roberts, the conservative Roberts, it says in the L.A. Times story, helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work.
He didn't write the legal briefs or argue the case before the Supreme Court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments.
This according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.
Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important.
Well, you know what this ruling was?
This was the, I think it was Romer versus Evans.
And this was a ballot.
The people in Colorado had voted to prohibit the inclusion of sexual orientation in civil rights laws.
The people of Colorado had voted this way.
And Romer versus Evans reversed the people of Colorado.
And this is the case that Roberts worked on pro bono with the gay community or gay activists.
And the Times says his work was valuable.
Romer versus Evans, that case barred the enforcement of a Colorado ballot initiative that was passed by citizens of Colorado, which prohibited the inclusion of sexual orientation in civil rights laws.
The Supreme Court decision was 6-3.
Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and they ruled that Romer versus Evans violated or that the ballot initiative violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
Now, it's interesting to note that this decision, Romer versus Evans, then led to the next decision, Lawrence versus Texas.
That was the case in which the Supreme Court reversed a prior decision called Bowers versus Hardwick.
By the way, so much for upholding precedent, because here you go, the Supreme Court overturning the duly elected people of Colorado and their duly elected ballot initiative.
And here's the Supreme Court overturning itself, Bowers versus Hardwick, via Lawrence versus Texas.
And they held in Lawrence versus Texas that same-sex sodomy is also protected by the 14th Amendment.
Both these cases, Romer versus Evans and Lawrence versus Texas, are considered to be the building blocks that the Supreme Court will eventually use to strike down state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples.
And this is being done through the misuse of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
So these two cases, court watchers all agree that the court, you know, they take steps.
And these are two steps along the path to finally striking down the notion that marriage is strictly a heterosexual affair and it can be between anybody.
I guess you could marry the horse that you made love to out there in a stud form out in the state of Washington we talked about yesterday, as long as the horse enjoyed the sex afterwards.
It's getting insane.
But the Los Angeles Times story is running its story, making it look like none of this would have happened, that Romer versus Evans in Colorado wouldn't have happened without the pro bono work of John Roberts, the president's nominee.
Now, there's no question this is going to upset people on the right.
There's no question that this, and the people on the right are going to say, wait a minute, wait a minute, the guy's doing pro bono work and helping gay activists.
And people are going to say, see, this is what happens when you get caught up in the D.C. culture.
This is what happens when you get caught up in the Washington establishment and culture.
You want to be seen as enlightened and so forth.
Roberts, for his part, says he doesn't really remember this.
He didn't write anything.
He didn't go before the court itself, didn't try the case.
And it's interesting that it was pro bono because his, what's the name of his law firm?
I'm having a metal block on the name of the law firm.
It's a big, huge firm.
They got offices in New York as well.
But it's well known that you can pass on pro bono work.
I mean, law firms like their lawyers to take it, but you can pass on which case comes up if you don't want to do pro bono in that case.
But he took this and says that he is not really cognizant, doesn't really remember it.
Hogan and Hartson is the law firm.
And it said the case was one of several that Roberts worked on pro bono at Hogan and Hartson.
And they expect their partners at this firm to volunteer time and community service.
In his answers to the Senate questionnaire, Roberts talked generally about his volunteer work.
My pro bono legal activities were not restricted to providing services for the disadvantaged, he wrote, explaining that he often donated behind-the-scenes time and expertise on projects.
Roberts' work, this is now the L.A. Times again from which I'm reading.
Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.
There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues.
He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.
I can confirm that any number of ways.
And so it'd be interesting to see what now transpires from this, because on the same day, we have two stories.
Well, we've got one story and one story in the works, but we know about the story in the works.
The story in the works is the New York Times conducting an in-depth standard, they say.
Standard investigation into the adoption records of Judge Roberts' two children.
And the L.A. Times the same day exposing Judge Roberts as a closet supporter of the gay rights movement in the hopes of driving a wedge between the James Dobsons and the Pat Robertsons and the so-called religious right out there.
And it's, I'm just going to tell you, it is going to cause some angst among certain groups of people who are constantly worried about the next suitor or Kennedy.
So you've just been warned.
I'm just passing along the information here, folks.
We'll be back.
Isn't it fun today, Dawn?
And we are back.
It's El Rushboat serving humanity.
This is the one and only excellence in broadcasting network.
Looking bad out there for Raphael Palmeo.
They now got to be called back up before Congress.
They're going to look into potential perjury.
The perjury, when he appeared in March, right, March 17th, somebody said, they have to be able to establish he was using steroids prior to March 17th.
Anything he says or did after March 17th, he would not be, they couldn't go after him on perjury.
But Bob T. What do you want, Ms. Sterling?
looking like you have a questionable just make sure it's not tinged with sex there's nothing about sex in the palmero story Uh well, that's even Sterdley says.
I thought nobody prosecuted for perjury anyway.
You don't understand, mr Snerdley.
This man's name is not Clinton and this guy went up there and he wagged his finger at him.
Did it remind you of anything, by the way, when he wagged his finger up there at the member as it?
I'm gonna say this one more time and I want y'all to listen, I never had sex with that woman, miss Lewinski, not a single time, never.
And I never asked anybody to lie.
Right Janet, look at what went all in the 90s.
Look at all of that went on.
It's just we have the steroid ball going on.
All through the 90s we had lying to everybody.
But these guys, these Republicans, are going to say, okay, you don't come up here, wag your finger at us, big boy, you don't come up here and do that.
So they're going to call him back up now.
Tom Davis said, yeah perjury, we seldom go after this, but we'd be, we'd look like idiots if we didn't do anything in this case.
Uh Palmero, I feel bad.
I don't know, I just feel bad for the guy he's.
This is, this is you.
Where's the brain?
Where is the brain?
You go up there and you wag your finger and you say, I have never done it.
I have never ever, i'm not gonna do it, never.
You can kind of put me on your committee to solve the problem.
And then, lo and behold, he tests positive, like a couple months ago and the Major League Baseball had his 3000 hits coming up and they didn't know what to do.
And so they, they wanted him to get the 3000 hits before they made the announcement.
They run this ad in Usa today, congratulating him on it, knowing full well he had tested positive.
This is all being appealed.
Then he says when he, when it when, on on monday in a conference call, when it all came out, he said, well, you know, I don't know how this happened, it was accidental.
They find out that the steroid that he uh tested positive for stolen ozole or something, is not in a supplement.
It's a very powerful uh steroid.
Uh, you just have to.
I just it it.
It doesn't, it doesn't compute.
Nobody can be this stupid.
Nobody can be this stupid.
It but and and he's not stupid from uh, everything i've uh i've heard.
By the way, ladies and gentlemen, we uh.
I want to give you a new telephone number to call in on.
I have just been informed that our standard 800 line is down and we have come up with another number and it's uh.
You're gonna have to write this down.
It's uh number is 866-437-8343.
Now this is just going to be temporary till we get the other number back.
You know we ought to change, we ought to get a new number anyway.
800 talk, rush or some such thing.
Uh, it doesn't matter.
Uh, it's still toll-free.
We're not going to charge you for the call, folks.
Uh, it's 866-437-8343.
Is that number working now?
Uh Brett uh, all right.
So uh Sterdley, call a number, see if it's.
Uh, see if it's working.
It's busy.
Uh, you getting any calls?
Uh Brett, all right, they're rolling in all right okay, so that's why it's busy.
866-437, uh.
8343, uh.
Paul Hackett, uh, out in Ohio, continues talking.
Continues talking.
Uh, this is from National Review Online AND THE Corner.
This is a little blurb submitted there by Tim Graham in one of those congratulations on your loss interviews on the Radical LEFT Pacifica Network.
Paul Hackett keeps finding that Bush and conservatives are Un-American.
I thought liberals hated that word.
Here's the question.
Amy Goodman is interviewing Paul Hackett.
She says, you've called George Bush the greatest threat to this country.
Why?
Hackett, I think that any president, be he or she, Democrat or Republican, who cultivates a sense that political dissent is unpatriotic, is dangerous.
And I believe that this administration's cultivated, forgive me, I'm so tired, has cultivated a sense that political dissent is unpatriotic, and that's completely un-American.
And later in the interview, he says, well, I think everybody by now knows I'm pro-choice.
And I think that that's the only choice.
I mean, the very simple way I explain that is, I don't need Washington, D.C. coming into my personal life, telling me, you know, how to live my personal life or dictating to my wife what choices she make with her doctor.
Not only is that un-American, it's contrary to the Republican Party, as best known by perhaps Barry Goldwater.
Now, this is all fine and dandy, except where was all this during the campaign?
It was absent.
He was saying this stuff to national media all over the campaign.
But for those of you in local media in Ohio's 2nd District, Paul Hackett was acting like he was the best friend George Bush ever had when it came to the subject of the Iraq War.
And you want to laugh?
You want to hear a laugher.
I have a soundbite here from yesterday's afternoon say, inside politics on CNN.
This is a package by their senior political analyst, William Schneider, on the Ohio congressional election centering around Democrat Paul Hackett.
Listen to this.
The Republican won, barely, which is why the Democrats are celebrating.
The losers have more to celebrate than the winners.
Ohio's 2nd congressional district is one of the reddest districts in the country, 64% for Bush last year.
But when the Republican margin slips to 52%, the GOP could have a problem.
The Democrat, Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, was running as a critic of President Bush's war policy.
Suddenly, hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it.
Bill, you're going to need to find a new job.
No, you won't.
You're on CNN.
Never mind.
What you just said here is totally untrue.
He was doing just the opposite of this bill.
He was running as a hawk on Vietnam in local media.
He was not running as a critic of President Bush's war policy.
He was doing just the opposite.
Especially after Hackett attacked President Bush personally.
Republicans expected to see a backlash against Hackett.
It didn't happen.
You expect lower turnout in a midsummer special election, but the GOP lost almost five times as many votes as the Democrats.
Why?
Here's a clue.
The latest National Gallup poll shows only 48% of Americans with a favorable personal opinion of Bush, down from 60% last November.
That's the lowest personal rating Bush has ever gotten.
Could one special election be a sign of trouble ahead for Republicans?
Hey, Bill, yeah, yeah, keep thinking it.
And I want all you other Democrats to keep thinking it.
It's irrelevant.
When are you guys going to figure out Bush is not on a ballot next time you run for office, either in 06 or 08?
Bill, you're supposedly a brilliant political analyst.
Why don't you go take a look at what the local Republican Party's doing in Ohio and maybe look into that being a factor in suppressed turnout?
Maybe it is that the whole point of this election was that the Democrats are better getting their turnout out because what they did was just continue to preach hate.
And the Republicans, this is, by the way, standard turnout for a special election.
But Mr. Schneider misses the whole point here, as are many in the national media, just continuing to look at this as a victory.
It's a moral win.
It shows the Republicans are in deep trouble.
No district is safe, blah, It's amazing to behold this, ladies and gentlemen.
And it continues.
And you can, I've got other stories in the stack of stuff here about this, some other things people are saying.
And it's just it continues to be the Twilight Zone.
It really does like everything here is in a parallel universe.
It's surreal.
False Church, Virginia.
Kevin, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Hey, Rush, big dittos.
Quick question for you.
Heard that listening to your show that you were kind of upset about the airing of the Osama tapes and that sort of thing.
I share that sentiment as well.
What is your thoughts about the ABC network airing the Chechen terrorists and that interview with that?
Do you think the Russians had a right response kicking ABC out of the Russian Federation?
Well, what they did was decline ABC access now to Russian news.
Okay, here's my instinctive reaction.
Anytime the mainstream media gets kicked out of anywhere, I like it.
I just do.
I'm just sorry.
But then people say, Rush, but Rush, it's a free press.
You can't have big governments declining networks that get coverage.
I know, I know, but it's just sweet justice.
When these networks are out there promoting the enemies of states, I know it's a tough call.
But the Russians are the Russians.
I mean, Vladimir Putin is his KGB, folks.
This is what they do.
You cross the KGB and you lose your news clearance.
And when you cross Putin, when you cross the Russian government, you're crossing the KGB.
In terms of a mentality.
But, you know, going in the whole notion that, and how many of you have seen, there is, I had this story yesterday, or maybe it's in the stack today, but there are more and more pieces talking about the romantic appeal that terrorists have for us.
There's something about insurgents.
There's something about rebels.
There's something about freedom fighters that we just love.
There's something that we identify with about these.
Now, that's perverted and sick.
But if that's the kind of thinking that's guiding these exposés on these, and you know that we've had various elements in the American media compare the Mukhtar al-Sadr faction and all the other insurgents in Iraq to our founding fathers, you've seen that.
I can understand in a KGB-like mentality that you'd close off a network that gave aid and comfort to terrorist enemies of yours.
But, you know, it's just, it's a fascinating thing to watch.
I think the crackup and the breakup and the destruction of the whole left, a whole spectrum, the media, academia, intelligentsia, Democratic Party, it's just, it's happening right before they're vaporizing themselves.
I got to go quick time out.
Remember, a new phone number today temporarily.
Yeah, it was Ann Applebaum.
That's Ann Applebaum in the Washington Post yesterday.
Insurgents are sexy.
Insurgents, get me that story.
Go to their archives and get me that.
And I, because you guys can get it to me faster than I can find it in stack here behind me.
New phone number today is temporary 866-437-8343.
That's 866-437-8343.
We'll be right back.
All right, for what an hour this is.
What an hour this is.
This news here, ladies and gentlemen, is just breaking.
Commander Eileen Collins, one of the astronauts up there in the shuttle Discovery, says she has seen widespread environmental destruction on earth and she warned today that greater care was needed to protect natural resources.
She said, sometimes you can see how there is erosion and you can see how there is deforestation.
It's very widespread in some parts of the world.
So we got a shuttle astronaut up there uh, claiming all this environmental destruction.
What i'm?
Does she have before and after maps?
Does she have before and after pictures or something up there clear-cutting environmental destruction and erosion?
This is the first I've heard that erosion has been caused by us.
You know, did we create the Grand Canyon?
I still have a tough time believing that erosion created the thing, to be honest with you.
I mean, it's just an absurd hour here, folks, and let's add to it.
We have here now, I'm holding in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post yesterday in a column, The Discreet Charm of the Terrorist Cause.
Now, I'm on this rant, and I'll admit that it's a rant because I'm fed up with seeing these tapes of Zawahiri, a gutless coward who won't show up and speak before his own people, but he'll hide behind a videotape that's publicized by Al Jazeera, which should have been bombed off the map long ago in a serious war on terror.
It would have been.
Since the bombing attacks in London last month, a welter of columnists, writers, talking heads, and ordinary people have puzzled over the mystery of British Muslims, one in four of whom recently told pollsters that they sympathize with the July 7th suicide bombers.
The idea that British Muslims whose parents received asylum, found jobs, and made lives in Britain could be so deeply affected by the oppression of Muslims in countries that they've never visited seems incomprehensible.
The notion that events in distant deserts should lead the middle-class inhabitants of London or Leeds to admire terrorists seems inexplicable, but why should this phenomenon be so incomprehensible or inexplicable, at least to Americans?
We did, after all, once tolerate similar phenomenon ourselves.
I'm talking about the sympathy for the Irish Republican Army that persisted for decades in some Irish-American communities and is only now fading away.
Oh, so we had a sexy type attraction to the IRA here.
Like Britain Muslim support for Muslim extremist terrorism, Irish-American support for Irish terrorism came in many forms.
There were Irish Americans who waved the Irish flag once a year on St. Patty's Day and admired the IRA's cause, but felt queasy about the methods.
Now, I can see there's one major difference.
The Irish terrorists were setting off their bombs across the ocean and not in New York or Boston.
The range of Americans who were unbothered by this sort of thing was surprisingly wide.
Some were members of Congress, such as Republican Peter King.
Her whole point here, she says, isn't really about Northern Irish politics, however, but about the extraordinarily powerful appeal of foreign revolutionary idealistic violence to the inhabitants of otherwise peaceful societies.
Ms. Applebaum, this is screwed.
Yeah, we've always had leftists admiring these people, leftists admiring Shea Guevara, leftists admiring Fidel Castro.
We've probably got some leftists admiring Bin Laden.
But to say that Americans or anybody else civilized considers this sexy, for whom are you making the case?
All right, remember, folks, temporarily a different phone number for you to call to appear before millions on this program.
It's 866-437-8343.
866-437-8343.
We will be back.
There are other things, believe it or not, happening out there.
▲
Export Selection