All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 10, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:37
August 10, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
That's right, another red letter day on tap here at the one and only excellence in broadcasting network, Rush Limbaugh, bright eyed bushy tail, ready to go, middle of the week Wednesday, fastest week in media already the middle of the week.
Zowie, great to have you with us, folks.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today is 800-282-2882, and the uh email address is rush at EIBNet.com.
But this Nayroll ad, you know, if I were an American woman, I would be outraged at this because this this NARL ad is setting women back 50 years.
I mean, I mean, the the ad is not only false, it's misleading and dishonest.
It is an assault on women.
It's a it's a setback to all the progress women have made over the years.
Every negative cliche, every cheap shot that demeans women comes back big time in this ad.
And women now everywhere can thank that ad, Nayroll and the Nags uh for getting so upset uh about Roberts.
But the the main thing is that the ad is a lie.
The Nayroll ad, and I've you've heard about this now.
They've got this ad running about Roberts uh supporting uh bombers of abortion clinics.
And it's uh it's been it's been put through the mill by factcheck.org, which is the Annenberg Center, uh, which is where Kathleen Hall Jameson works.
And I mean, here's their headline.
Nayroll falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee Roberts.
Attack ad says he supported an abortion clinic bomber and excused violence.
In fact, Roberts called clinic bombers criminals who should be prosecuted fully.
An abortion's right abortion rights group is running an attack ad accusing the Supreme Court nominee of filing legal papers, supporting a convicted clinic bomber and of having an ideology that leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.
It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says that Roberts supported a clinic bomber.
It is true that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case, but the case didn't deal with bombing at all.
Roberts argued that abortion clinics who brought the suit had no right to use an 1871 federal anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to blockade clinics.
Eventually, a six to three majority of the Supreme Court agreed too.
Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading.
The pictures of a clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal brief in question.
And then there's there's three pages.
I printed it all up.
Maybe actually there's five pages of analysis and documentation and proof about how virtually everything in the NARL ad is a lie, and yet CNN is, after examining the ad decided they're gonna run it.
Uh and I I I'll tell you, it looks to me.
Um, if you look at where this ad is going to be running on CNN, they bought some local uh time in the Northeast.
And who's in the Northeast to be affected by this ad?
This ad's clearly intended for senators.
Who's up in the Northeast that might be affected by the ad.
Well, you got two of them in Maine.
You get Susan Collins and uh what's her face?
Uh yeah, Olympia Snow, then you got Lincoln Chafee over there in uh in Rhode Island.
Uh, but it it's this this is this is backfired so so big time on these people.
It it's just it's comical to watch this.
It is and then we've got a companion story today in the New York Times that starts this way.
Terry Shivo, the brain-damaged Florida woman whose case provoked congressional action, and a national debate over end of life care became an issue on Tuesday in the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge John Roberts when a Democrat senator pressed him about whether lawmakers should have intervened.
Let me just give you the summary here of what happened.
Judge Roberts is making his goodwill tour of uh various Senates, senators, senate offices.
And he happened to show up in the office of Ron Wyden of Oregon yesterday.
And when Roberts left, Ron Wyden talked to the New York Times and reported to the New York Times what Roberts had said.
And he lied through his teeth.
He lied through his teeth about what Judge Roberts said to him.
Judge Roberts, in fact, said, I don't know anything about the Shaibo case.
I have no answer for you.
I didn't study it.
And yet you look at the New York Times today.
The Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that Judge Roberts, while not addressing the Shaivo case specifically, made clear he was displeased with Congress's efforts to force the Federal Judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.
Uh Wyden says, this is from the New York Times story.
It's amazing to sit here and watch these once great liberal institutions implode, and I'm telling you I know exactly why it's happening.
It is happening because they now face opposition, they no longer have a monopoly, and they don't get away with lying anymore.
They always have gotten away with this stuff.
But now it's pure panic that's set in.
And this it's it's it's it it's beyond my comprehension.
This is as silly.
The New York Times doing this is as silly as Raphael Palmero, thinking he could get away with using steroids after his appearance before Congress in March.
And for Nahrol to think that they can get away with this ad is as silly as Rafael Palmero thinking he'd get away with using steroids after appearing before Congress and knowing the testing was coming up.
So let's see and then go ahead and run it.
Let's CNN destroy whatever credibility it's got left at the same time, too.
Fine with me.
I think that's I think i i th this is this is a a classic illustration of a bunch of elitists who have run the school, who have run the school yard, who have been in charge of everything for years, and know they're losing their grip but can't figure out a way to hold on, and of course, all they do is resort to their age-old tactics, which have since been discovered and are successfully rebuked and defeated on a daily basis.
Wyden said in a telephone interview uh after the hour-long meetings, I asked whether it was constitutional for Congress to intervene in an end-of-life case with a specific remedy.
And Wyden said this of Judge Roberts.
Well, his answer was I'm concerned with judicial independence.
Congress can prescribe standards, but when Congress starts to act like a court and prescribe particular remedies in particular cases, Congress has overstepped its bounds.
The answer, which Mr. Wyden said his aides wrote down word for word, would seem to put Judge Roberts at odds with leading Republicans in Congress, including a Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and uh Tom Delay, uh both uh who led the charge for congressional intervention in the Chaibo case.
Now, what's happened here, and I don't mind admitted, the White House has been calling everybody they can today.
They've called National Review, and they've called a whole bunch of people because they read this story, and it's it that it it's obviously Roberts was brought in and said, Well, what is this about?
Roberts told him what happened, and so it's time to try to straighten things out.
Now basically it's this the reporter for the New York Times is Cheryl Gay Stolberg, and she attributed a quote to Judge Roberts that was provided by Senator Wyden.
She herself was not at the meeting.
She didn't speak with anybody from the White House who was at the meeting.
She never sought to verify the accuracy of the quote from the White House, nor Judge Roberts.
She just accepted what this lame brain Wyden had to say.
A guy who can't find his own state on a map half the time.
What Judge Roberts actually said is materially different, and parts of his comments were totally deleted by the New York Times.
Uh on the Chaibo case specifically, Judge Roberts said repeatedly he hadn't studied the case and he didn't want to opine on it.
He was asked if he would have denied cert, and he didn't answer because he's not examined the case.
On Congress overstepping its legislative role, he said that he was aware of court precedence, cases where the court found Congress had overstepped its legislative authority, but it was clear that he was not offering his own opinion on the Chaibo case or any specific case or issue.
He merely stated he was aware of such instances, but he never specifically went out of his way to say he hadn't studied the Chaibo case and didn't want to opine on it.
And even though the New York Times says uh that um while not addressing the Shaivo case specifically, made clear he was displeased with Congress's efforts to force the Federal Judiciary to overturn a court order withdrawing her feeding tube.
Now, this is as disingenuous reporting as you'll find anywhere.
The Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said that Judge Roberts, while not addressing the Chaivo case specifically, everything that follows is irrelevant.
Everything else that follows that phrase is now a lie.
Because it does intend to attempt to make it seem that uh Roberts did comment specifically on the Chaibo case.
While he didn't address It specifically.
In fact, he refused to discuss it.
So what's happening here is that Roberts is making his tour of the Senate.
He's going up and talk to these Lib Democrat senators.
And this is what I asked.
I asked Fred Thompson about this last week.
How's this all going?
Is this going to matter?
And he said, it probably isn't going to matter much.
I mean, it's all going to get, you know, blown up when the hearings start.
But but here they here these guys go up there, he talks with these senators, and the senators use the occasion not to get to know Roberts, but to then call her buddies in the press and lie about what Robert said so as to advance their own cause, which is trying to defeat the guy and harm President Bush and all that.
And they've got their willing accomplices in the press helping them right along.
But the fact is there's a giant magnifying glass.
We're like spies, folks.
We are spying on the mainstream press every day, and we're not hidden.
We're right out in the open.
And they simply don't get away with this anymore.
They're gonna get blown to smithereens over.
Now the Times readers are gonna believe it, but it's not gonna spread.
It's not gonna get the legs that it would have had years and years and years ago.
Uh it's it's and it all has a deeper meaning.
It all has a deeper, it means that they're typical.
They can't defeat the guy honestly.
They can't defeat the guy on substance, so they have to lie about it.
They have to make it, and they don't care because their friends in the mainstream press are never going to accuse them of lying.
They're gonna buck them up, back them up, and support them and promote them no matter what the reaction is, because they're all on the same page.
Before I go to the break, I want you to hear this Nayroll ad, by the way, that has been totally debunked.
I mean, I've got the audio to it.
And keep in mind that that uh the factcheck.org has totally, totally repudiated the ad, has come out and claimed it's all false.
Roberts did not do one thing this ad suggests, and they even use film or video of a burning abortion clinic that occurred seven years after uh this case.
But the uh the nayroll ad stars uh some babe named Emily Lyons, and this is her.
I will never be the same.
Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs, supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.
I'm determined to stop this ballot, so I'm speaking out.
Call your senators, tell them to oppose John Roberts.
America can't afford a justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.
The thing that's funny about this is they actually think people are gonna buy this.
That the the president's nominated a guy who is in favor of blowing up abortion clinics.
We've got a guy going on a Supreme Court who is in favor of violence against women.
And I that's why I say that this is gonna set back all the gains women have made for 50 years, because how can we take this seriously?
How can we take this is nothing but a bunch of women on PMS?
Can I give you an example of how it's gonna set women back?
Used to not be able to make jokes about PMS anymore because it says they can't do that, Rush.
Well, here you go.
This is PMS at work.
This is a bunch of feminists on PMS having PMS, and they can't not, they just deranged, they're hysterical.
This is exactly the kind of setback I'm talking about.
Who can take this stuff seriously?
You read this, you see this, you hear this, you want to send these women off to the doctor.
You certainly don't want them in your house.
You don't want them in your office, you don't want them, you don't want to even be around them.
It's on PMS, get her out of here.
You know, give her a couple three days, and I'll talk to her then.
Back after this.
Don't go away.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you.
It's Rush Limbo.
This is the excellence in Broadcasting Network.
You know, it'll be interesting to see.
I want to see if any senator comes out and defends the nayroll ad.
Have you seen this, Mr. Stern?
Has anybody seen a senator come out and defend the ad?
No, no, not yet, not yet.
And I want to see if one of them does.
And I will bet you nobody does.
I'll bet you not one Democrat comes out and defends this.
Oh, Maxine Waters might, but I'm talking about somebody in the Senate.
I'll bet you not one Democrat Senator will come out and defend this ad.
And furthermore, I think it would be fabulous.
They could be great if uh during the course of the news gathering process today, some uh mainstream um reporters would uh run up to Democrat senators and do you support this ad by nayroll?
You uh you uh could I get your position on this ad?
Uh no, I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it.
I'm just I'm making the point.
You won't see it.
You won't see any Democrat questioned on this.
If this were the if this were reversed, and and some wacko conservative group had come out and made some wacko ad, uh, say charging somebody with something, uh pick your pick your example.
You know the media would be all over every Republican at a center.
You support that ad.
Have you condemned that ad yet?
But they won't ask one Democrat about this they're all ad.
You just wait and see.
It doesn't matter, folks.
It doesn't matter whether they do or not.
Um this is gonna be like the Swift Boat ads.
Swift boat ads were condemned left and right, but this ad, if it I'm I'm I'm waiting for somebody to come out and praise it.
I'm waiting for somebody to come out and take on factcheck.org and say factcheck.org is either wrong or biased or what have you.
Because NARO's got a lot riding on this ad.
They've spent 125 grand on uh on CNN, and CNN's got such few audience members, you can buy CNN cheap now.
So for uh 125,000, you get a lot of coverage on uh on CNN.
I'll get you about two sixties on this show.
Uh but on but on CNN you can you could buy a week's worth of time uh for a hundred and twenty-five grand.
I think they also try to put out that Fox is running, but Fox is not.
Fox has not.
Somebody tried to say that Fox was running this ad too, but they're uh they're not going to do that.
Uh it's it's it's running on some Fox local uh local affiliates.
Uh but but not in any way the uh the Fox News channel.
Let me a couple things here.
Uh uh before we got uh take a break here at the bottom of the hour, and I want to talk a little bit more about uh this whole business of the uh defense department knowing the four hijackers and how the 9-11 Commission wasn't told about this.
And now Kurt Weldon and uh gotten in gear and has written a book about this, a senator from Pennsylvania, and it's beginning to look a little bit more like maybe Sandy Burglar uh has some relevance to this story.
What was Sandy Burglar taking out of the National Archives?
We may now have some kind of an idea, just a wild guess to throw out there, but now we may know what Sandy Burglar was doing and trying to take out of there or put back in once he had left with things.
Uh we also know that the 9-11 Commission uh was not told accurately about the wall that existed during the Clinton administration, and that they didn't take it up because one of their commission members, Jamie Garellic wrote the wall.
She should have been a witness, not a member of the commission.
Uh, and all this is starting to come to light now, which is gonna cause the Clinton spin machine to get back in gear, because you know the Clinton spin machine's busy trying to cast his legacy here as tough on terror.
And they sent Richard Clark out there trying to say, hey, we warned the Bush administration about all of this.
We told him about everything.
And the Bush administration didn't take it seriously.
Well, it turns out the Pentagon and the Clinton administration did not tell anybody, or was not allowed to tell anybody that they had ID'd for the 1991 hijackers, including the ringleader Mohammed Atta.
Because this wall existed because of the way the Clinton administration was fighting the war on terror as a legal matter, involved grand jury testimony, so these agencies weren't allowed to share information with one another because it would eventually compromise it.
Before we get into the details of that, last week, uh, as the shuttle was orbiting the Earth, uh, the shuttle commander Eileen Collins uh made a little speech.
He was talking of the Japanese prime minister and uh Koizumi and referencing all the signs of uh devastation uh on the earth, uh deforestation, how thin the atmosphere is.
And lo and behold, late yesterday afternoon press conference with uh Colonel Collins, uh Fox News reporter Adam Housley said, Commander Collins, I want to ask you specifically, because one of the things you talked about in prior missions was your concern about the ozone layer and what you've seen with the Earth.
Uh, what did you see once you got up there and got past the point where you were back into space, you were thinking about your time ahead of you the next 12 days, which turned out to be 14.
What did you see and any concerns that you might have?
The Earth's atmosphere is very, very thin.
You can see that from space, the the the lower layer of the atmosphere, but at night you can see the upper layers of the atmosphere in in kind of a glow, and you can see as the stars set, they set through this glow and and down over the horizon of the planet.
One of the things I saw was in Africa, uh massive burning taking place in the central part of Africa.
Um I'm not sure why they do that, but we do know that deforestation takes place.
We we flew over Madagascar also.
Deforestation takes place.
You can see that in the rivers in the streams that normally would be uh clear, maybe a bluish gray color.
If they're brown, and because of the deforestation, you see the the soil, you see the erosion taking place and even going out into the ocean?
And we saw many examples of that.
Man.
Folks.
You know, I fly too.
Now I don't I don't fly above the atmosphere.
The atmosphere's always been thin, by the way, but uh depending on the time of year.
You know, after a heavy rain, fly over the Mississippi, it's brown.
As to what's going on in Africa, it is a puzzlement because I thought only rich nations were destroying the planet.
But in Africa, there's deforestation going on.
Uh I didn't hear about any of these examples in the United States.
But it's uh it's this is anecdotal evidence from up in space, and it's uh it's since people are are are destined to believe the worst, this will have an impact on what she wants to have.
Yo, mama.
Have a more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here on the one and only Rush Limbaugh program for the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
By the way, if you get a chance, you need to go to Rushlimbaugh.com.
We've posted another page of pictures, people and their club gitmo gear.
Uh a couple went to West Virginia and they went to virtually every place that has been named after Sheets Byrd.
And they took a picture of themselves standing in front of highway signs, uh uh post offices, hospitals.
I mean, the whole state of West Virginia has been named after Sheetsbird, and they call it uh La Tour Sheets.
Uh instead of La Tour de France, the Tour de Sheets.
Uh and it's funny, we've given them their own page of uh of pictures of club gitmo gear being worn at every every place in that state that's got uh Robert Byrd's name on it.
I mean, everything.
There's the Robert Byrd Highway, there's the Robert Byrd Road, there's a Robert Byrd Institute, and they've doctored the photo for advanced liberal studies that they've put on it.
There's the Robert Byrd Post Office, there's the You just you have to see it.
It's a www.rushlimbaugh.com.
Now I've got two versions of uh of this story here.
Uh before let me get let me grab line five because I want to get this call now before too much time passes and people forget what we're talking about.
Jason, Tallahassee, Florida wants to talk about the NARL ad.
Yes, uh Jason, hi.
Yes, Dad, thank you very much.
Appreciate it.
Oh, you're welcome.
Um, I was making a comment on how I think we should call NARAL and these other gangs domestic terrorists, because just like the terrorists that blow themselves up in suicide or excuse me, murdering bombs, uh, they uh uh what they do is they replace themselves with another organization shortly after they lose their credibility and shortly after they uh demise themselves, if you will, or sublimate into nothingness.
Well, uh the they you know I I guess I guess your point is that getting mad at them and uh and and pointing out that they're a bunch of frauds uh is not gonna deter them.
I don't expect it to.
All I'm telling you is that their days of effectiveness are over.
They're not gonna this is this is not gonna be effective.
This is not gonna sway anybody.
So that's why I asked the question.
Have you seen one Democrat senator endorse the ad?
Have you heard one Democrat center point to the ad and say, see, this guy is a danger.
This guy supports the blowing up of abortion clinics.
No, you haven't, and you probably won't.
I don't know that there's a Democrat senator quite that deranged now, given that this thing has been exposed as a fraud uh by by factcheck.org, which is again the Annenberg Center.
You know, what's what's interesting about CNN is that they used to have a reporter.
What was this guy's name?
They had a reporter during political uh years that would that would analyze all the political ads and say that's wrong and that's wrong, but that's right, and that's wrong, and unbalanced this ad's probably 40.
Brooks.
No, it wasn't says no.
It's he may have done it.
Brooks something or other.
But but but now they've I guess they've they've got Brooks Jackson, that's it.
Thank you, HR.
They've gotten rid of their own fact checker, and they got again they go ahead and run this ad, even though factcheck.org is totally blown at the smithereens.
I think now this was of as of this morning.
I haven't heard that they have changed their mind about uh about running this ad.
But don't misunderstand me out there, folks.
I'm not saying that this is the end of NARAL.
I'm saying it's the end of their effectiveness.
And really, they've sent women back here 50 years with this kind of stuff.
This is pure hysteria.
You that I don't know how else to say it.
I don't know how else to say it.
They can't get away with the lies anymore.
They haven't changed.
They haven't changed.
This is nothing new.
This is what Nayrol has always been.
This is what they've always done.
It's just they're not getting away with it anymore.
Uh so let them uh I think, like I've been saying, let these kooks keep acting kooky.
Let them keep speaking kooky.
The more kooky they act, the more people will learn they are kooks.
You know, it's it's um it it's it's it's a it's a fact, and people are learning about this and numbers that are growing exponentially.
All right, now to this 9-11 business.
We have some audio soundbites here from Congressman Kurt Weldon to go along with this story.
I've got two um two versions of the story.
One is by the Associated Press, the other one's in the New York Times.
I want to give you highlights of both.
The uh AP story, September 11 Commission will investigate a claim that U.S. Defense Intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al-Qaeda cell more than a year before the hijackings, but they didn't forward the information to law enforcement.
Now, does knowing what you already know about this, what is that lead sentence say to you?
That lead sentence could possibly say to you, well, those scum at the Pentagon, why didn't they tell anybody?
They knew it.
They sat on it.
And this was the Clinton administration.
This somebody trying to sabotage Clinton.
That's what it was.
They were trying to sabotage Clinton.
The Defense Department, they didn't like Clinton because he was Well, this is this is what's in this is this is I'm predicting this will be the spin from the left.
This is totally untrue, but but this lead is totally incorrect.
They didn't forward the information to law enforcement is not the correct way to say it.
They couldn't forward the information to law enforcement because there was a wall which prevented them from doing so, erected by Jamie Gorellic, who ran the Justice Department while Janet Renault was the face of that department.
Representative Kurt Weldon, Republican Pennsylvania, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security Committees, said yesterday the men were identified in 1999 by classified military intelligence unit known as Abel Danger.
If true, that's an earlier link to Al Qaeda than any previously disclosed intelligence about Atta.
September 11th Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton said Tuesday that Weldon's information, which the Congressman said came from multiple intelligence sources, warrants a review.
He said he hoped the panel could issue a statement on its findings by the end of the week.
Hamilton said the 9-11 Commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9-11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or his cell.
Had we learned of it, obviously it would have been a major focus of our investigation.
The September led now.
That is not true.
That is not true, folks.
That is simply not true.
They were told about it, and they didn't do anything about it because Jamie Gorellick was on the committee.
September 11 Commission's final report issued last year recounted numerous government mistakes that allowed the hijackers to succeed.
Among them was a failure to share intelligence within and among the agencies.
Now, according to Weldon, Abel Danger identified Atta and three others as members of a cell uh that the unit code-named Brooklyn because of some loose connections to New York City.
Weldon said that in September 2000, and who was president then?
Bill Clinton.
Abel Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists.
However, Weldon said that Pentagon lawyers rejected that recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally, so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
Weldon didn't provide details on how the intelligence officials identify the future hijackers and determined that they might be part of a cell.
So that's the AP version.
Let's see, let's see how the uh the New York Times uh treats this.
Headline this is by Philip Shannon and Douglas Gell.
Headline 9 11 panel members asked Congress to learn if Pentagon withheld files on hijackers in 2000.
So, along with the AP, the New York Times now bending over backwards to blame the Pentagon and not the Clinton administration for these screw-ups.
Members of the Independent Commission that investigated the September 11th terror attacks called on Congress to determine whether the Pentagon withheld intelligence information, showing that a secret American military unit had identified Mohammed Ottawa, three other hijackers as potential threats more than one year before the attacks.
John Layman, Republican member of the Commission, I think this is a big deal.
The issue is whether there was in fact surveillance before 9-11 of Ottawa and if so, why weren't we told about it?
Who made the decision not to brief the commission staff or the commissioners?
Mr. Lehman and other commissioners said that because the panel had been formally disbanded for a year, the investigation would need to be taken up by Congress, possibly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Thomas Kane, the Commission chairman, said if this is true, somebody should be looking into it.
Spokesman for the commission members said this week that all the staff was informed by the Pentagon in late 2003 of the about the existence of a so-called data mining operation called Able Danger.
The panel was never told that it had identified Mr. Otta and the others as threats.
So they were told about able danger.
They were told the Pentagon was digging deep.
They were told that the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, had come up with this information, just didn't specify what it was.
In a final report released last summer, call the authoritative history of the attacks.
The Commission of Five Democrats and Five Republicans made no mention of able danger or the possibility that government agency had detected Otta's terrorist activities before September 11th.
Pentagon has had no comment on the credibility of the accounts of Mr. Weldon and the uh intelligence official.
Uh the official said in an interview Monday that the Able Danger team was created in 1999 under a directive by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry Shelton, to assemble information about Al-Qaeda networks around the world.
The official said that the information also was not shared with the CIA or other civilian intelligence uh agencies.
This was a highly compartmented uh program, very limited distribution.
Yeah, well, uh this also uh needs to be again said they weren't allowed to share the information.
Again, what we're being told here is that um Well, Otto was here legally.
Really?
Well, how many driver's licenses did he have?
How many different visas did he have?
It's strange that we knew everything about this guy the day of these attacks.
We knew everything about him.
We knew where he was.
We knew where he trained, we knew where he lived in Florida, we knew how he recruited the members, we knew how they bought those airline tickets on the morning of September 11th to go get on these airplanes to hijack them.
We knew everything we wanted to know about Mohammed Otto the day of and the day after 9-11.
So we had to know a lot about him before then.
Now there's a reason that this information was not shared with law enforcement above and beyond the fact that he was here legally and it couldn't be shared.
If he was here legally, how did we have such a dossier on this guy that we were able to identify practically what he had for breakfast that day?
There's a lot more known about this guy than anybody is willing to let on because it was released that day and the day after.
And the real question here is those who knew it didn't pass it on.
Why?
And this all happened during the administration of Bill Clinton and Richard Clark.
Let's not forget that, folks.
Richard Clark who said they gave the Bush administration everything.
Turned over everything that they knew, and the Bush administration didn't take it seriously.
Really?
Uh-huh.
Look at what we're now learning.
We'll hear from uh uh Congressman Weldon and Soundbite so we come back after this break.
Okay, we'll go to CNN.
Uh yesterday afternoon situation room with Wolf Blitzer.
Uh and then this is a bite here in which uh Congressman Weldon explains how he found out about uh the Gorelic Wall and how it prevented the sharing of information about the 9-11 hijackers in the Clinton administration.
Uh this question from um from Wolf is a long one.
Let me just paraphrase the question.
Congressman, uh, you've got all this from a former DIA defense intelligence uh intelligence agency official, is that right?
One, I've got about a dozen that I've been working with.
And Wolf, this goes back to 99 and 2000, when as the chairman of the defense research subcommittee, I was pushing money in for the increasing use of data collaboration and data mining.
The prototype for that was being used by Special Forces Command in the Army on this project called Able Danger.
Now, I wasn't aware of the specifics of what they did until two weeks after 9-11 when they brought me a chart that I took down to the White House and gave to Steve Hadley that actually showed Al-Qaeda cells.
So Wolf says, Well, what's most shocking here is that if in fact elements of the DIA were tracking ATTA and three of the future hijackers, they decided they couldn't share this information with the FBI because what?
These guys are in the U.S. legally, and it would be inappropriate to let the FBI know to watch what they were doing.
What we now know is that lawyers within the administration.
We don't know whether they were DOD lawyers or White House lawyers.
Lawyers within the administration told the special forces folks three times you cannot share this information with the FBI.
They even put stickies over top of the faces of Mohammed Ada, saying they're here legally, they have green cards, you can't give anything to the FBI.
The second reason they gave them was we're concerned about the political fallout that occurred after Waco.
So we don't want Special Forces Command giving information of this type to the FBI that stopped at dead its tracks.
This is unbelievable.
This is unbelievable.
With this kind of thinking, we're gonna lose this country.
We may as well just open the borders and let everybody in, and no matter what we know about them, so as we don't offend anybody or upset our political uh legacy because of what happened at Waco, we couldn't afford another raid there on these guys up in Brooklyn where they were hanging out because we had our legacy to worry about, so you've good you can't you can't tell anybody about this.
We got two more to go.
Blitzer says another shocking element of the story is that the 9-11 Commission uh say they never knew about this.
Uh Al Felsenberg, the former commission spokesman, tells the New York Times that the 9-11 Commission staffers say they were not told a thing about the Brooklyn Cell.
They were told about the Pentagon operation.
They were not told about the Brooklyn Cell.
They said that if the briefer had mentioned anything about that startling, it would have gotten their attention.
Brooklyn Cell referring to Mohammed Atta and his cohorts.
Let's put the intelligence folks under oath and let them be cross-examined, and let's put the staffers from the 9-11 Commission under oath.
And let those under oath tell what information they gave.
The intelligence officials I've been talking to, and it's well more than one, have told me they identified the cell and they mentioned Mohammed Atta.
That's not one person, that's several people.
The question the American people deserve to have answered is why did the 9-11 Commission staff decide this wasn't worth pursuing?
I've talked to two commissioners, Democrat Tim Romer, a good friend of mine, John Lehman, a Republican, good friend of mine.
Over the past two months, each of them separately told me they were never briefed on able danger.
How could the 9-11 commissioners never be briefed on a secret task force that was designed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, and carried out by General Schumacher?
To me, that's just unexplainable.
Fox News uh this morning, Fox and Friends, the question from Brian Kilmead to Kurt Weldon.
Do you think this is under the same guise as why Sandy Berger would go into the archives and stuff everything into his pockets and seemingly have to hide some records?
I would hope that's not the case, but it needs to be looked at.
Why did the staff of the 9-11 commission who were briefed by Able Danger intelligence officers not briefed the uh commissioners themselves?
And why was there no mention in the extensive volumes of the 9-11 commission?
Why was there no mention of Able Danger?
Now, to put this in context, Weldon is saying defense officials told the people they talked to, the staff members of the 9-11 Commission who conducted a lot of the interviews.
We told them all about Able Danger.
We told them about Mohammed Otto.
We told him we had this, and we told them we could not share the information.
We were told not to share the information with anybody at the FBI because they were here legally or forgot what they're wall that existed.
And the staffers didn't tell the 9-11 commissioners because you got Kane and Hamlin said we didn't know about this.
And you got layman saying we didn't know about this.
But Weldon says the staffers knew all about it.
Uh you cannot erase a simple fact, and that is that Jamie Gorellick, the author of the wall preventing the sharing of such information, was a commissioner on this uh panel, and that right there might provide some staffers a roadblock to imparting that information.
But I'm not sure that they all weren't told anyway.
I'm not sure I believed it.
Okay, folks, a sterling hour of broadcast excellence now in the can.
Soon to be on its way over to the Limbaugh Museum of Broadcasting.
We'll have the Dido Cam coming up in the next hour.
And much more of what you've already heard straight ahead.
▲
Export Selection