All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
34:37
August 9, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings, welcome back, thrill seekers, music lovers, and conversationalists all across the fruit and player through with that.
Throw that away.
We just keep.
Well, that trash can't full.
I've been throwing a lot of s I can't believe how full it is today.
Anyway, we're back with a final hour of the Excellence and Broadcasting Network underway.
Thrill and delight to be with you.
Telephone number is 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
If you're on hold, sit tight, be patient.
We'll be with you.
The ditto cam is up and running.
We got, we got a request from Club Gitmo itself.
We got a request from a commander at Club Gitmo.
We actually got a letter in a request.
It was an email, a thank you for the support of the hotel staff down at Club Gitmo and everybody involved.
And a request for some of our club Gitmo gear.
From our Club Gitmo gift shop.
I mean, this is cool.
The actual Club Gitmo wants stuff from us.
And so we're going to put together a little care package.
They requested stuff for 128 people.
And I don't know if we're going to be able to meet that quite, but we'll do our best to come up with a satisfactory amount of uh of gear for the uh for the for the staff down of Club Gitmow.
That was that was cool.
Uh I just I got that email just this morning when I got in today after uh after missing yesterday.
All right, uh still a lot to do on this program today.
Let's just get straight to it.
I want to take you back in time, not just to the 9-11 committee hearings, but shortly after 9-11 itself.
When everybody was talking about why didn't we connect the dots?
Why didn't we connect the dots?
And I said, you know why we didn't connect the dots, meaning the FBI and the CIA, military intelligence, why couldn't we share information with each other?
There's one reason.
The Clinton administration.
And uh most importantly, Jamie Gorellick.
Uh Jamie Garellick, who was number two at the Justice Department, she really ran the place while Janet Reno was the face of the Justice Department, erected a wall.
And because the Clinton administration determined that they were going to fight terrorism not as a war, but as a legal matter.
And they were going to use indictments, and they were going to use grand jury testimony to try to nail these people.
And of course, grand jury testimony is by law confidential.
And so any information gathered by, say, the CIA or the FBI had to be turned over to justice.
And when justice got it and took it to the grand jury, it became confidential, could not be shared with any of the other branches.
And that's one of the reasons why we couldn't connect the dots.
Because of the strategy that the Clinton administration used to fight terrorism when they cared about it.
Well, get this from no less than the New York Times.
It's a story that's headlined this way, uh, four in 9-11 plot are called Tied to Al-Qaeda in 2000.
This story is all about how we knew four of the 19 hijackers, and we were tracking it.
We knew who they were in 2000, but we couldn't do anything about it because the information that was known couldn't be shared.
More than one year before the September 11th attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al-Qaeda operating in the U.S. This according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.
This is about Kurt Weldon and his book.
And remember how the left tried to cream Weldon in his book?
Turns out now that in the summer of 2000, the military team known as Abel Danger, summer of 2000, who was president.
Who was president in the summer of 2000?
Somebody somebody help me out here.
I I think it was this guy Clinton was uh president at some point because yeah, because uh the campaign of 2000, the election of 2000 wasn't until November, and Bush wasn't inaugurated until um uh January.
Of course, that election wasn't decided until December.
Remember that, Brian?
So the summer of 2000 would be Bill Clinton was president.
And this uh this uh military team, Abel Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the Military Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the FBI.
The recommendation was rejected, and the information was not shared, say Representative Kurt Weldon, the former intelligence official, apparently at least in part because Mr. Atta and the others were in the U.S. on valid entry visas.
Under American law, U.S. citizens and green card holders may not be singled out in intelligence collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies.
Now that protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence officials said it might have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before September 11th about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.
Former spokesman for the September 11th Commission, Al Felsenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikau, the executive director, were told about the program on an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but Mr. Felsenberg and the briefers did not mention Mr. Atta's name.
The report produced by the Commission last year does not mention this episode, the 9-11 Commission report.
Mr. Weldon first spoke publicly about the episode in June in a little noticed speech in the House floor, and in an interview with the Times Herald in Norristown, Pennsylvania.
This accounts the first assertion that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who became the lead hijacker in the plot, was identified by any American government agency as a potential threat before the September 11th attacks.
Among the 19 hijackers, only Khalid Al-Midar and Nawaf El-Hazmi had been identified as potential threats by the CIA before the summer of 2000, and information about them was not provided to the FBI until the spring of 2001.
Now, this story does not say what I just said to you.
The story does not go on to talk about the wall that Jamie Garellick erected and that the 9-11 Commission was not interested in hearing about, but it does cite the fact that Otta was known and that military intelligence was not allowed to share the information with the FBI.
They don't say why, the why was because of the wall.
They try to hide this under some visa law, but it has nothing to do with that.
It is everything to do with the fact that the Clinton administration had laws on the books that these agencies couldn't share information with one another, i.e.
connect the dots because of the uh need to maintain the privacy and secrecy of grand jury testimony.
I kid you not.
And I don't know where Richard Clark was on this, and I don't know where the Jersey girls are on this now, since the Jersey girls out there leading the charge that Bush didn't do enough and Bush didn't act fast and Bush didn't connect the dots.
Uh and of course we all know now, and we've known it for a while.
It's just I find it fascinating that the uh New York Times uh actually runs with the story, especially considering Kurt Weldon is one of the uh one of the sources, but it's just another C I told you so.
Now to the BBC News.
Security vetted judges would weigh up sensitive evidence against suspects before cases went further in a separate move.
This is all about they're gonna want to set up special courts sitting in secret for pretrial hearings in terror cases, being considered by the home office in England.
In a separate move, judges may oversee plans to allow terror suspects to be held for longer before charges.
On special terror courts, the uh home office officials say it's unlikely that plans will be ready to be included in planned new anti-terrorism laws due to be debated by Parliament this autumn.
Uh Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer has said the courts could help with using intelligence material, including phone tap evidence used in courts without revealing informants or how the information was obtained.
And so the Brits getting tough.
Secret courts now.
They're fed up.
They're not going to put up with this.
Anybody who starts making vocal plans and statements about about blowing up Britain, about uh committing acts of terror, they're going to try to hunt them down and find them and kick them out of the country.
They're not going to put up with it.
Not as easy here.
They don't have a constitution there, and they don't have anything approaching a First Amendment there.
But it's heartening to see.
I tell you what's happening here, folks, in Great Britain.
Let me just let me and we had a big row on this program about two months ago about this whole subject.
Let me tell you what the Brits have figured out.
They figured out that multiculturalism doesn't work.
They have figured out that allowing all these disparate cultures into England and letting them set up their own balkanized little communities has allowed a bunch of hate-filled people to roll in people who hate Western society and Western democracies and blow them up.
And so the Brits are saying the heck was special with multiculturalism.
We're not going to put up with it anymore.
They have learned that multiculturalism is as silly as political correctness.
And they are on the move against it.
I think it's got its opponents over there because they've got their libs just like we have here.
But this is a quick lesson learned, is it not?
You have uh you have yeah, you have two incidents over there, and all of a sudden they're getting tough, and they said, hell with this multiculturalism stuff.
We're gonna we got to put England back together as it was, and people that come here are going to assimilate into England.
And they're gonna be c they're gonna become Brits.
What do you think this is not an overreaction?
Now I know the left is probably say it's an overreaction, but it's clearly not an overreaction.
It's a commonsensical reaction.
Nothing but common sense.
Quick timeout, back with more.
Just a second.
We are making a little headway at the uh at the UN and his oil for food business.
Former UN procurement orificer released on bail yesterday after pleading guilty to accepting nearly one million dollars in bribes in connection with the oil for food program.
The UN Secretary General Kofi Anon, hours earlier had lifted Alexander Yaakovlev's diplomatic immunity in response to request by the uh U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said his chief of staff, Mr. Yakoblev was the first UN official indicted in the scandal, being investigated by federal prosecutors, several uh congressional panels and a UN commission headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker.
Also yesterday, the the uh IC uh, which is that this is it's funded by the UN uh for the same oil for food program it's investigating.
I that which is is interesting in and of itself.
Uh this the this investigative body, in other words, is funded by the UN from the same oil for food money that is being investigated.
So money that was intended for the people of Iraq is being used by the UN to investigate itself.
They released a final accounting of purported wrongdoing by Benin Seven, the former executive director of the $64 billion program.
Uh federal prosecutors have also shown an interest in him, who is thought to be in Cyprus.
He's accused by the panel of pocketing about 145,000 from steering oil contracts to a small company owned by a friend who is the brother-in-law former UN Secretary General Boutro Boutro Boutros Boutros by Golly.
Uh and of course, Kofi's kid uh Kojo long ago thrown overboard.
Uh and I last I heard still swimming for shore.
Uh out there.
Yeah, I that's why I say it's just a little headway.
So here's a guy, okay, he took a million and they're got 145 grand.
Where did the billions go?
You know, this is the largest scandal in the history of the world.
Sixty-four billion dollars.
Where did it go?
Or a portion of it, a majority of where did it go?
I mean, they did this is just they're just sort of like clipping the fingernails here, folks.
They're not they're not getting anywhere, not even near the quick here on finding what end.
They're hoping that everybody's gonna be bought off with this guy, Yakovlev and maybe Benin Seven, but I hope not.
Brian in Rockford, Illinois.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Thank you, Rush.
Doctor of Trichinology Ditto's from a TV show veteran here in the hard way.
Yeah, there's a term I'd forgotten.
Doctor of trick.
Yeah, with some civil rights gang accused me of trichonology.
Uh actually, I thought that's a good thing.
Oh, that's right.
It was Rita X. That's right.
Rita X from Detroit accused me of trichonology.
Yes, I remember that call many years ago.
Yeah, yeah.
I'd forgotten that part of it.
Back on the subject of racial profiling.
Yeah.
I'm concerned about this only from the standpoint that I believe when this tactic has been used in the past, it causes these bums to change their you know, mode, their the way of doing things and to employ innocent third parties to carry out their dastardly things.
Always a possibility.
Always a bit.
It hasn't happened yet.
One thing we do know I believe the Israelis have some experience with this with Palestinian uh suicide bombers that when they uh began to racially profile uh some of the Palestinians that there was a case or several cases where innocent third parties were actually used.
Um they may have had a few instances.
It hasn't happened yet.
We in other words, an eighty-year-old grandmother has not blown up an airplane in the United States, yet we keep wandering them at the airports.
Um a five-year-old kid has not blown up a bus or a subway here in the United States, yet we keep wanding them.
In the meantime, the statistically uh targeted suspects get a pass so we don't offend them.
I I agree that obviously there's uh there's a cost and there's a uh uh both not only to our civil rights, but also you know, to the government to conduct the searches the way we're conducting them.
But I think that it's important that we employ both tactics, not only random searches, but the idea that we we racially profile some of these individuals because uh of course random searches are are fine, but when you but like you say, if it let we gotta get away from calling it profiling, folks.
The the politically correct crowd has set that up where you can't do it because profiling in this country means race-based, and we we're just it's never gonna happen.
It's it's one of those genies we're never gonna put back in the bottle.
So forget talk about profiling.
When it comes to racial or otherwise, talk about statistics.
It's that simple.
You'd simply take the number of terrorist incidents in a country and look at the statistical makeup, the makeup of the people who've committed them, and you put together statistics of who they are, and then you've got a statistical guideline to go by and has nothing to do with profiling.
Now it actually would probably be profiling, but it's not, it's based on statistics.
It's not based on prejudice.
See, the whole the whole problem with with with profiling is that when it was started and when it was being used in the U.S., it was prejudicial.
A lot of people, a lot of blacks driving nice cars were stopped for no reason whatsoever, simply because some sheriff didn't think a black ought to be driving a nice car in such a neighborhood.
That's bad.
That's not good.
And that and that should not be encouraged.
That but but that that was based on prejudice.
You base this on statistics, and nobody can accuse you of prejudice.
You're just going on the statistical odds based on actual events.
And that's why uh uh I think it's it's absurd not to do this.
But I'm gonna tell you if if we keep if we go out of our way not to offend the people who are blowing us up, they're gonna keep blowing us up.
And it's there's there's no two ways about it.
Terry, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hi, Rush.
Uh, back to Janine Peryl and the Patriot Act last hour.
You had a caller, and the two of you mentioned the liberal opposition to the Patriot Act.
I'm a conservative.
Here's my opposition to it, and it comes right from the word right out of her mouth yesterday to use it against organized crime.
We've had this Patriot Act a couple of years.
It was developed to go after terrorists who attacked the United States already within a few years, we're now going after organized crime.
I don't think Mario would appreciate that.
And where does it go from there?
Well, there are people, I know some people have legitimate concerns uh with it.
Um there are those who say that an enlightened government would never abuse uh uh terms of the Patriot Act to go after the genuinely innocent.
What's your reaction to that?
Me is it me as a contractor, who used to say in five years, if I'm if I'm developing a piece of property and I I plow over a piece of wetland, I'm now in a federal court with the Patriot Act to face me.
Where does it you know within a few years when we're now with organized crime?
You got more to worry about with eminent domain uh that than that with a Patriot Act in that circumstance.
Now you say that you you you say you heard uh Janine Piero compare uh the Patriot Act to prosecutors going after organized crime.
Roll the tape.
Roll her tape from yesterday.
Her own words, oh boy, her own words were the importance of the Patriot Act to go after organized crimes.
I believe that works.
I've got the transcript here.
It's a 50-second bite.
Unfortunately, I can't squeeze it in before our next enforced format time out.
But I can read to you what here's here's what she said.
I'm gonna talk about the issues that are important to New Yorkers, the economy, making sure that social security is there for our seniors when they get to their golden years, making sure that the war on terror is fought in a way where we have the tools that we need through the Patriot Act, comma, the tools that we as prosecutors have to investigate organized crime.
It sounds like she's asking for the same things they already have to fight organized crime in going after terrorists to me.
It doesn't sound like she wants to.
It doesn't sound to me like she wants to take the Patriot Act and expand it to other areas of uh of society, but rather, okay, look, like they've got RICO.
We got we got all kinds of things we can use to fight organized crime.
Uh we need that to fight terrorism.
That's what I heard her.
I'll play the bite for you.
I may be misinterpreting the comma.
I'll play the bite for you.
We come back after the break, and we'll um we'll see how it it it sounds in her own words.
Stay with us.
Hey, Mike, I need you to get one of our uh one of our uh uh PSAs on the dangers of soccer.
Uh standing by.
Well, you these.
And please don't get the one with the crushed testicle.
Get get the one where I'm talking with the guy about uh mental disease, and he he may not know that he suffered it from uh having all those soccer balls that he's don't don't get the okay.
Can you can you find them?
Yeah, good.
I don't know if they're all a one cart and rotating.
I'm just so sick of that crushed testicle.
Yeah, not that one.
Don't use that one.
All right.
Now, but first here's Janine Pierrot.
I promise you play Janine Pierrot.
This is the soundbite from yesterday morning on the Fox News.
Well, actually, today, Fox and Friends, and uh she got a question from the anchor E.D. Hill.
You you you gotta go out there, you're well known in Southern New York State, Westchester County, the areas around the city.
How are you gonna get your name out around the rest of the state?
I've been fighting for New Yorkers for thirty years.
I've been a fighter and and an advocate for families and children and and the elderly, and uh making sure that the the innocent are protected.
I'm from upstate, interestingly enough, and even though I live downstate right now, and I plan to get around the state, talk to people about the issues that affect them.
Hillary Clinton promised tens of thousands of jobs to upstate New Yorkers.
Where are those jobs?
Those jobs and that promise has not been met.
She listened, but she and she's promised, but there hasn't been delivery.
I'm gonna talk about the issues that are important to New Yorkers.
here it's coming up here now.
Making sure that Social Security is there for our senior citizens when they get to their golden years.
Making sure that the war on terror is fought in a way where we have the tools that we need through the Patriot Act.
The tools that we as prosecutors have to investigate organized crime.
We need at the very least those tools to make sure that we can investigate terrorists.
All right, so it's it's very clear.
What she's saying is look, we we we we have essentially a whole lot of tools we can use to fight organized crime, the mob.
Uh we at least need that much to uh and again the Patriot Act gives it to us to at least fight terrorism.
So I don't think she's talking about expanding.
Well, I know she's not talking about expanding the Patriot Act into the fight on on uh the mob.
It's the other way around.
We have more ability to to horn swoggle a mob uh than we do terrorists right now, and that's what she's campaigning on.
Uh ladies and gentlemen, you may remember this.
This is this is at least I'd say four years old now.
But this program became aware of the rash of injuries that occur to kids playing soccer.
And of course, I I've I've uh always been uh a little dubious and suspicious.
I'm just a natural, you know, skeptic when it comes to hear parents say, I'm not gonna let my kid play football.
Oh no, no, that's too dangerous.
I want my kids to play soccer.
Well, I came across some statistics that uh soccer is dangerous and uh in some cases deadly.
And we began a little campaign here, just a public awareness campaign, uh called the Keep Our Own Kids Safe campaign.
I just here's a sample of uh of of the work we did with the Keep Our Own Kids Safe campaign.
Was happening out there that uh a bunch of people were saying that the safety records were being doctored in other sports and that they were very dangerous.
And I came to conclusion the same thing was happening with soccer.
Here was a guy, he did he'd he'd uh he'd uh headed the ball a number of times by his own admission and claimed he hadn't suffered any image.
I said, Well, uh I mean damage.
I said, Well, oftentimes victims are the last to know.
You should ask some family members if they've seen any changes in you.
So, you know, people laughed and poo-pooed, but this is what I mean by being on the cutting edge, folks, of societal evolution.
This is at least four or five years ago this happened.
Listen to this report today on the Today show.
The guest host was Lester Holt.
And he says, if you are the parent of a budding David Beckham or a mini Mia Ham, you probably think soccer is a safe sport.
But as NBC's Kevin Tibbles reports, there is a hidden danger you need to know before you drop your child off at the field.
Around the country, more than three million kids in cleats and shin guards.
Tearing up the soccer field.
Zachary Tron loved it so much.
He was already a soccer veteran by age six.
But two years ago, during a practice, Zach was killed when the 180-pound goal cage toppled over, crushing him.
Since 1979, 30 people, mostly children, have been killed by unstable goals.
Hundreds more have been seriously injured.
In 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued safety guidelines recommending goals be anchored with stakes or counterweights and warned that climbing or hanging from the goal can cause serious injury or death.
See?
Four to five years ago I warned everyone about this.
And you laughed.
And you thought that I was just making fun and making it all up and so forth.
See?
How many of you have heard about these deaths?
The soccer lobby keeps it quiet.
And this is, we've just scratched the surface here.
This is only the injuries that have occurred with falling and deaths that have occurred from these goals that are falling over on these kids.
What about other injuries, such as collision injuries?
Injuries involved from tripping and uh knees and ankles and so forth.
Not to mention the shattered testicles that have happened.
And uh we we had a woman call about that.
So I mean, I I I think the soccer lobby has done a great job of promoting this safe sport when it's deadly out there.
And uh and I just you know, I just I love the five years no Halliburton, I don't think makes soccer goals, Mr. Snertley.
I I I have I have no clue who makes these soccer goals.
Uh but but the but the point is they're not safe, and they have no warning labels on them, and that's got to change.
Uh but there's the the you know, big soccer's been out there keeping all this.
They've got this image here that this is the safest game that your kids can play.
But see.
Four to five years ago, who was on the case?
Who cared?
Who had the compassion?
Who was it sounding the warning bells?
Who was it trying to get you to pay attention?
Jonathan and Wichita, welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush, Megan Ditto.
Uh I was calling about the previous caller that uh had a comment about the Patriot Act, how he was a contractor to the something like that.
Yes, sir.
Um, I was under the impression that the Patriot Act was strictly for intelligence purposes and not for prosecuting criminals.
Is that correct?
Uh you may be right.
I must I must uh admit I'm not sure because there are the reason I'm hedging is because there are different proposals on the books for expanding it at at the point that we uh it's being debated now to uh to um extend it.
And there's some people that want to cut it back, some people that want to expand it.
I I think in general uh uh you're right, but I don't want to go on record as uh with ontological certitude about it because I'm not sure.
Okay.
Well, that's that's all I had.
Okay, well, if it if it if it but the the point is uh uh what what good is intelligence gathering if the I guess the point of the intelligence gathering aspect is to be able to stop and connect dots and so forth.
Uh the the prosecution would occur after a terrorist act occurs, or better yet, the um the military tribunal uh would occur after a terrorist act occurs.
I'll get an answer to that because I really am not I'm not sure about it.
Uh little football news here.
The Washington Redskins are revoking season tickets belonging to fans caught selling them for profit on eBay.
Redskins vice president Carl Swanson yesterday confirmed the club's policy of canceling the season tickets of any fan who sells any tickets for more than face value.
Uh this is a common practice for getting rid of unwanted seats.
Note that he didn't say scalping.
Is the By the way, do you do you have have you seen these pictures uh reactions to this NCAA rule last week?
Last people are up in arms, and I totally understand it.
The University of Florida State University is saying the hell with this.
We're gonna keep calling ourselves a Seminoles and a Seminole Nation love us for calling ourselves a Seminoles.
The NCAA said in postseason play, you got to get rid of Indian mascots and logos on your uh on your uniform and your cheers and this sort of stuff.
And it's silly.
You can keep them during the regular season because they can't, they don't have the power to tell schools what they can and cannot do.
Uh and I I suggested then, well, if you're gonna have to get rid of, say, Indians or Redskins or whatever your nickname is, your mascot name, you better change what we call these people who sell tickets to events at a price higher than face value.
We call them scalpers.
That's probably offensive too.
And you'll note, you'll note that this Redskins guy did not use the word scalpers in describing what happens.
Scalping.
Because the Redskins have been targeted, too, by uh by these groups to change their name.
Carl Swanson confirmed the club's policy of canceling the season tickets of fans who sell any tickets for more than face value, a common practice for getting rid of unwanted seats.
That's scalping.
EBay yesterday get this.
EBay yesterday alone listed nearly 1,500 auctions for Redskins tickets, ranging from single game tickets to a full season package, uh season packages that include parking permits.
Mara Bray Love of the District, D.C., last month had six of her 12 season tickets revoked after a relative sold four of them on eBay.
Miss Bray Love said that the tickets had been in her family since the 1940s.
Redskins policy states that the account holder ultimately is responsible for the actions of whoever uses the tickets.
Whoa.
So if you get caught doing this on eBay, you lose your license to those season tickets at the Washington Redskins.
I'm still waiting, by the way, for a New York Times investigation to see if Janine Pierrot got her children on eBay.
Back after this, stay with us.
You dropped a bomb on me.
Rushlinball to EIB Network.
Time now, folks, for the obligatory weekly.
We ain't getting our message out, Story from the Democratic Party.
Despite that's true, there's one of these every week.
Uh despite ample friends in Hollywood and the news media, Democrats have yet to craft a compelling public message.
The party is, quote, missing potential marketing opportunities to convert red states into blue states, according to Ira Tenowitz of Advertising Age magazine.
Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, said Democrats are clearly not making the sale.
If you look at the polls, people don't see where the Democrats stand.
Insiders and observers said a major stumbling block is disagreement over the effectiveness of ads so far away from an election and whether funding is better spent during election years, Mr. Tenowitz writes.
Others felt the problem was in the Democratic message itself.
Band-aids when they need a major operation, said George Lackoff rhymes with.
What Republicans have discovered is that values are central to how people vote.
People vote on their identities, said Mr. Lakov, advising Democrats to learn how to express their values in public.
They don't dare, see, that's the thing.
The Democrats don't dare express their values in public.
They don't dare be honest about what they really believe in public, folks.
That's their problem.
They know what they believe.
This is the biggest scam.
All these meetings and backdoor and behind door meetings to figure out what their message is.
All that is is all those are strategy sessions to come of how can we say something that sounds good that isn't true.
How can we come up with a message that we can make people believe even though it's a lie?
And that's what they're trying to do, because they don't dare be honest.
Ladies and gentlemen, here is a little bit of an example.
And this, I can't believe this, but this gets major coverage in USA Today.
Headline, ad says Roberts tied to clinic violence.
The first TV ad opposing Federal Judge John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court ignited controversy Monday by accusing him of supporting violent anti-abortion fringe groups in a case before the court in 1920 uh 1991.
The allegation was made by NARO pro Choice America, the nation's leading Abortion rights group.
It stemmed from a case Roberts argued on behalf of the first Bush administration.
Nayroll's ad will begin running Wednesday on CNN, the Fox News Channel, PMSNBC, and a few local stations.
Nayroll said it'll spend a half million dollars to broadcast the 32nd ad between now and Robert's confirmation hearing, which begins on September 6th.
The ad focuses on Robert's work in the case of Bray versus Alexandria Women's Clinic.
In that case, the court voted six to three against a Virginia clinic and others that said the group Operation Rescue had denied women their right to abortions by blocking access to clinics.
Sandra Day O'Connor, one among the three dissenters.
Nayroll for its uh uh.
Well, what the the president there, Nancy Keenan, said her group isn't they're not saying Roberts condoned the bombings of clinics.
She said, however, that Roberts, through his arguments, essentially supported the bombers.
What is the difference, Nancy babe?
He didn't condone the bombers.
Or he didn't uh he yeah, he he he he didn't condone the bombings, but he essentially supported them.
Supporting them is is probably more damning than uh than condoning.
And of course, he didn't either.
This is a classic argument made by the left, by the way.
Uh that they always try to associate.
Roberts had nothing to do with this one way or the other.
And the fact that this ad is getting so much attention in something like USA Today is despicable, if you ask me.
Because it's it's it's slanderous, libelous, whatever.
It's just it's irresponsible.
By the way, Patriot Act, we had a question.
Can the information gleaned in the Patriot Act be used for prosecution?
Yes, is the answer.
The first sentence of the Patriot Act is this to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools and for other purposes.
It covers everything from money laundering, border security, surveillance, and the prosecution of these and other crimes in the pursuit of terrorists.
Iran's nuclear program goes back online.
The French are concerned.
Their foreign minister, Philippe Duste Blaze called Tehran's decision to restart uranium conversion grave and troubling and a clear violation of a 2004 agreement reached in Paris.
What's so surprising that the Iranians would violate an agreement with the French?
Why are the French upset?
What's what's the surprise here?
I thought they were big allies anyway.
So so much for all these Europeans getting together and trying to be diplomatic with the Iranians.
Back in just a second.
Stay with us.
Okay, Brian, stand by to kill the uh Ditto camp feed in there because the program is about over.
Mere seconds remain, but remember we make more, we say more in five seconds than most hosts say in an entire week.
And we'll be back tomorrow and start it all over and do it all over again.
Look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection