All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:17
August 11, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And folks, it just keeps getting better for the guests at Club Gitmo.
Club Gitmo guests are going to get stereos and television sets now and rooms with views.
It says, It says fabulous.
The U.S. military plans to ease conditions for some detainees at Club Gitmo, housing them in a renovated section with TV, stereos, and a view of the Caribbean.
Oh, man.
Oh, all right.
Greetings and welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting.
We're here for three hours, and we are ready to go.
We just posted yet another page of our Club Gitmo photo gallery, and it's got some hilarious shots.
A guy is taking a studio tour of ESPN, and he's on the Sports Center set wearing his Club Gitmo shirt.
And then at the top of the page, there's a great one.
It's of a soldier in Iraq with his Club Gitmo shirt.
It's First Lieutenant Lance Frizel of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, Tennessee National Guard, Diala Province in Iraq.
The picture, this is what he sent in.
The picture's taken from FOB Cobra, which has National Guardsmen from Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
The cigar that First Lieutenant Frizzell is smoking, he calls a McCain McAnudo, named for its moderate price.
And the little pool party going on in the background with a couple small little inflatable pools.
And it's a great picture.
And there's many more.
Some guys killed a leopard shark with a bow and arrow while wearing his Club Gitmo t-shirt.
Plenty of great ones with kids, too.
The Club Gitmo gear continues to fly off the shelves, and we continue to publish your pictures at the Club Gitmo photo gallery.
Here's the phone number if you want to be on the program today, 800-282-2882.
The email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Want to start out today with once again the audio from the new NAROL ad with nurse Emily Lyons.
When a bomb ripped from my clinic, I almost lost my life.
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.
Don't believe Rush Limbaugh or Factcheck.org when they debunk our ads.
Our ad ran on CNN, so it must be true.
Not only did Judge John Roberts defend an abortion clinic bomber, but Judge Roberts drove the bomber to the clinic himself.
Drove him.
And used his own cell phone to trigger the explosion.
Just like the terrorists in Iraq stop Judge Roberts from getting on the Supreme Court before he kills again.
And former George Soros and NARAL friends of Nazi Pelosi.
All right, so yesterday we played the NARAL ad, and I asked a question.
I said, will any Democrat endorse the ad?
Will any Democrats step forward and say, yep, it's a great ad?
Will they endorse what's in it?
In fact, will any member of the media go ask them?
My friends, the power of this program, right here in the New York Times today is this story.
An advertisement that a leading abortion rights organization began running on national TV on Wednesday opposing Judge Roberts quickly became the first flashpoint in the three-week old confirmation process.
Several prominent abortion rights supporters, as well as neutral media watchdog groups, said the advertisement was misleading and unfair.
And a conservative group quickly took to the airwaves with opposing advertisements.
This is written by Linda Greenhouse, New York Times, who's their official Supreme Court reporter at.
Linda, the media watchdog group is the Annenberg Center.
And by the way, you know, guess who's there?
That's where Brooks Jackson went.
Brooks Jackson left CNN.
He was their political commercial fact checker.
He's now at the Annenberg Center doing factcheck.org.
I wondered where Brooks Jackson was yesterday.
CNN, by the way, is still running the ad, even after their former employee has gone on TV.
Yep, it's false.
And Lou Dobbs yesterday read a statement from CNN why they're still running the ad, which I've got that coming up here in just a second.
But Linda, factcheck.org, the Annenberg Center, did not say the advertisement was misleading and unfair.
They said it was false.
They said it was flat out wrong.
But what's happened here is that a whole bunch of Democrats have come out and said that this thing is bad, that it should not be heard, that it should not be aired, and it's misleading and it's causing a problem.
Some Democrats can't even go on record.
It's so bad.
The reason they're not going on record is because they don't want to get nasty emails and phone calls from NARAL and people for the American way.
Within the larger liberal coalition, of which NAROL is a part, there was considerable uneasiness about the advertisement, although leaders of other groups generally refused to speak on the record.
One who did, Frances Kistling, the longtime president of Catholics for Free Choice, said she was deeply upset and offended by the spot, which she called far too intemperate and far too personal.
She added as a pro-choice person, I don't like being placed on the defensive by my leaders.
Nayrall should pull that ad and move on.
Walter Dellinger, former acting solicitor general, Clinton administration, longtime NAROL supporter, sent a letter Wednesday to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and its ranking Democrat, that'd be Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy.
Dellinger said he had disagreed with Roberts' argument in the case about which the ad was made, but said he considered it unfair to give the impression that Roberts is somehow associated with the clinic bombers.
Said it would be regrettable if the only refutation of these assertions about Roberts came from groups opposed to abortion rights.
So you didn't have too many Democrats going on record, but a lot silently and anonymously voiced their displeasure with the thing.
And as I say, a lot of them are scared to go on record because these are the groups that fund their campaigns.
These are the groups that fund their reelection efforts.
I mean, one senator that did go on record was Senator Pat Leakey Leahy.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's top Democrat assailed all advocacy group commercials for and against John Roberts, suggesting they're not going to sway senators weighing his confirmation.
Leahy said those outside lobbying groups, whether on the right or the left, they become, for me anyway, basically irrelevant.
They'll probably be offended by that.
And I'm not saying that they shouldn't do what they do.
I just wish they didn't.
Well, that's really taking a firm stand.
They'll probably be offended by that.
And I'm not saying they shouldn't do what they do.
I just wish they didn't.
Well, if you're saying you wish they didn't, aren't you kind of saying you don't think they should?
Now, Leahy doesn't say so specifically here, but he's embarrassed by this ad too.
And he couches that these ads don't work anyway.
And when he says they will probably be offended by that, who will be offended?
No, the feminists are going to be offended.
So I'm wondering if Leahy is going to be the target now of some nasty emails from people for the American Way and Nayroll.
This is something that you just don't do, folks.
The Democrats don't disavow.
So this must be backfiring big time, just like I told you yesterday it would.
This is setting all women back 50 years.
This ad is reprehensible and it is backfired big time.
And the Democrats know it and they're running to distance themselves from this ad as quickly as they can.
Now, Bob Novak has an interesting column today about this ad and about the whole vicious attack on Roberts by the abortion lobby.
Novak writes, this is not really a desperate effort to defeat Roberts.
Rather, it is part of an intricate game that not only determines the occupant of one seat on the Supreme Court, but can set its ideological course for the next generation.
In other words, what Novak is saying is that the effort here by the left is to make sure Bush doesn't nominate anybody more conservative than Roberts next time out.
And folks, this is another thing that I predicted to you when Roberts' name was first mentioned.
One of the things I said was, if this guy sails through, look for the Democrats.
Say, okay, we'll give you this one, but nobody more conservative than this.
So Novak's theory is that a signal's being sent.
And if they go any further than this guy, if Bush goes any further than this guy, why all bets are off and they'll go to filibusters and all sorts of things.
I will expand on this and give you other details and explanations after this brief timeout.
Glad you're with us.
The EIB network rolls on right after this.
Ha, how are you?
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
El Rushball, America's anchorman, sitting firmly behind the golden EIB microphone here at the distinguished and prestigious Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, right?
Robert Novak's column basically says that the left is using the Roberts confirmation to set a marker for future nomination fights.
That is, if they're willing to slime Roberts this way, looking into adoptions and lying like Nayroll is, imagine what they'll do to a real conservative like, say, Lutig, Michael Lutig or one of Edith Jones or Priscilla Owens or somebody else that might be nominated.
In other words, they're trying to send a signal to Bush that he can expect worse down the road in hopes that he will feel threatened by them.
Novak says Nayrall's approach was not meant to sway the Senate, but to pick off nervous Democrats and perhaps a Republican or two, keeping Roberts as close to 60 votes as possible.
The president and his closest advisors then would have to ask themselves, if a nominee is squeaky clean, as John Roberts cannot do better than this, can we risk nominating another conservative for the next vacancy?
And of course, the left kind of got screwed up because they were planning on Rehnquist being the first resignation.
And they wouldn't have fought at all if Rehnquist is replaced by Roberts, because that would be a conservative for a conservative.
It wouldn't upset the balance of power, if you will, on the Supreme Court.
But O'Connor, considered by the left to be one of their own votes, being replaced by Roberts, uh-oh, that's not good.
So we're going to stop that.
And so they're desperate.
They're desperate.
This is Novak's theory.
They're desperate to make sure this guy doesn't get 70 or 80 votes in the whole Senate, because if he does, it paves the way for somebody just like him or even more conservative down the road.
So Novak's point is this ad is designed to keep as many Democrats from voting for the guy as possible, keep it as close to 60, and not even get to 70 by picking off a couple of Republicans.
Now, there's an argument about whether, you know, I think it's going to take three nominees to actually effect a power shift to give the conservatives a clear majority.
Two would be better than none, but you're really going to have to have three to do it.
And there probably will be a third nomination the president will get before his term expires.
But whether Novak's right or wrong, isn't it amazing to watch?
What we've learned here now, if he's right, that it's not about whether Roberts wins or loses.
It's not an up or down vote on Roberts.
It's whether or not the Democrats can keep Roberts from getting 70 or more votes.
Now, just think of this.
If the Democrats put as much thought into national defense as they do into abortion defense, can you imagine the safer world that we would have?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Democrats exhibited this kind of strategy and thinking when it came to national defense?
As opposed to just abortion defense.
So it's, and by the way, I'm not sure that Novak is totally right about this.
I don't think when he wrote the column, I'm just guessing, but I don't think when he wrote the column, he expected the Democrats to start running for the tall grass and turn away from this ad as quickly as they did.
And the other thing I would disagree with, the idea that the left will allow a certain degree of conservatism and then set down a marker, my experience with them is they don't allow any conservatism.
They'll go to the mat to stop any conservative no matter what.
I don't think this is any different than what they would have done if this were a nomination to replace Renquist.
They would still be doing this.
It doesn't matter.
I do distance myself from Novak a bit because I don't think this is any different than what the left has always done.
And it certainly wasn't a surprise.
The NAROL ad didn't surprise anybody.
We know this is how low they are.
We know this is what they're typical and capable of doing.
And so they did it.
I don't, you know, I think some people try to outthink themselves and be too smart by half sometime.
The only difference here is they can't get away with this as easily as they used to.
This is not 20 years ago.
This is not 20 years ago when an ad like this would work.
And it's certainly not 20 years ago when the Democrats would never, ever run from this ad.
The fact that so many Democrats are running from this ad is something new.
And it's a great illustration of just how significantly things have changed.
Well, that's right.
They tried this with Clarence Thomas.
Anita Hill is synonymous with this ad.
They tried, and they're going to do this.
And by the way, just because this ad bombs, don't expect them not to throw a bunch of bombs at the hearings when they start.
I mean, I think there may be some realization that's set in on the left that Roberts is going to get confirmed.
And I think there may be some desire to keep Roberts, you know, as close to 60 votes as possible as opposed to, say, 70 or 80.
But I don't think that NAROL's ad is any different than it would have been had they been trying to defeat Roberts.
And I still think that's what they're trying to do.
I mean, if the left had its way, this guy wouldn't get confirmed.
Bush wouldn't get one nominee confirmed if they had their way.
And I'm not suggesting they've given that up.
I'm just saying their same old strategy now is predictable and you can defend against it and they don't get away with it.
Now, in a related story, this is from the San Francisco Chronicle today.
Senator Boxer said yesterday she's going to vote against John Roberts unless he supports rights that she considers essential.
Those rights would include abortion and privacy.
And she's going to slow Senate business to a crawl if he doesn't answer her questions.
If he declines to answer her questions, she said she will use all the parliamentary tools I've been given as a U.S. senator, including procedures that'll make it difficult for other business to get done until we get the information that we need.
She did not threaten a filibuster.
However, reflecting Democrats' hesitation to embark on an all-out political warfare against the nomination.
So Barbara Boxer threatens to slow the Senate activity over this court picture unless he basically what she said here, unless he tells me that he is for Roe versus Wade and is not going to overturn it, I'm slowing down the Senate.
So that's what I'm, I don't think this is anything new from these people.
It's utterly predictable.
The difference is that these far-out leftist extremist ads no longer are going to fly.
They're just not going to be able to get away with these things.
Related court news.
Here we go.
This is from the Chicago Sun-Times.
What's wrong with citing rulings by judges in other countries?
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer asked attendees at the American Bar Association convention in Chicago Tuesday.
Conservatives, of course, led by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have criticized Breyer for backing up opinions with references to rulings from abroad, such as the 2002 death row case in which Breyer cited decisions by British and Canadian courts and the European Court of Human Rights.
Justice Thomas wrote in response, the Supreme Court should not impose foreign moods or fads or fashions on Americans.
But Breyer said on Tuesday, we're not bound by any foreign laws, but this is a world in which more and more countries have come to have democratic systems of government with documents like our Constitution that protect things like free expression.
And there are judges, and they have a job that's somewhat similar to the jobs we have.
Why not learn something if we can?
To tell you the truth, some of these countries, they're just trying to create these independent judicial systems to protect human rights and contracts.
If we cite them sometimes, not as binding, I promise, not as binding, well, that gives them a little boost, sort of gives them a leg up for the rule of law.
And he admits that his and other justices' citing of non-U.S. cases has hit a political nerve.
It came to a head in March when the court voted 5-4 to outlaw the execution of juveniles, citing amid other evidence the fact that other countries had outlawed it.
So he's back out there on the stump at the ABA and he's making the case.
And now not only is it good to find beliefs that he once inculcated in the American system of law in foreign cases, now we got to buck up these emerging democracies by citing them in our law say, see, they're doing a good job and give them some confidence.
If this isn't touchy feely liberalism, I don't know what is.
You want the truth here at the right place, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network, Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, the EIB Southern Command A little Sports News.
Terrell Owens of the Philadelphia Eagles kicked out of Eagles training camp by the head coach Andy Reed yesterday, sent home to New Jersey, told a report back to the Eagles on Wednesday that they'll be back to their regular training camp in Philadelphia, not at Lehigh University, on Wednesday.
T.O. upset about a number of things.
He's not being paid the money he wants, even though he just signed a new deal last year.
And he's been dissing the team.
They think he may have been exaggerating or faking a little groin injury out there.
And the one thing you don't do in this team is diss the head coach Andy Reid or the quarterback Donovan McNabb.
And, of course, I'm surprised T.O.'s still with the team because in the offseason, he was really ripping McNabb.
He's saying, well, I'm not the guy that got tired in the Super Bowl.
In other sports news, Tiger Woods, seven shots off the lead at the PGA Championship at Baltus Roll in Springfield, New Jersey.
And I only mention this because last night I'm channel surfing around and I'm watching all these sports shows because I, you know, football season's back, folks.
And so I'm spending a little time watching sports now.
And you got the obligatory reports on the PGA championship.
And I don't care where you read.
I don't care what you watch.
There are 150 guys in this tournament and 149 shouldn't even show up, according to the sports media.
Tiger's going to win this.
Nobody has a chance.
Phil Mickelson doesn't have a chance.
Nobody has a chance.
This course is just too long.
It's just too tough.
Nobody has a chance.
I mean, Ty, they're all going to show up.
But Tiger, I mean, who else can win this?
Phil isn't playing well.
Ernie's not there.
Sergio's a big pretender.
Nobody's.
Let's see who's leading Ben Curtis.
And it's early.
I mean, we haven't even had the first round fully tee off yet.
Ben Curtis, Steve Elkington, and well, they're tied at minus three.
Tigers plus four.
Tigers four over after like 13 or 14 holes today.
And I just mentioned this because it's just ESPN had a little thing last night.
They talked to Gary McCord.
I know Gary McCord.
I like Gary McCord, but the interview was five minutes long.
Who can win this?
Nobody but Tiger.
And he may well yet do so, but seven shots, and it may get larger than that as the afternoon group tees off.
Just wanted to pass that on.
Let me grab a quick phone call to Palm Springs, California.
Michael, I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB Network.
Hello.
Hey, Rush.
It's a pleasure to talk to you again.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, listen, I was trying to call in when you were discussing other aspects of the Supreme Court, but, you know, you're so popular, it's hard to get through.
But I got through today and I wanted to know your opinion on, you know, what the Democrats or the Liberals are going to do in reference to what the Europeans did in England about kicking these people out.
Remember a few months ago they looked at European law prior to making a decision?
Well, you know the ACLU is eventually going to get a case in front of the Supreme Court about this action liberties.
You have swerved into something here out there.
Michael, are you a subscriber to RushLingbaugh.com?
I am.
You are.
Have you got any club Gitmo gear yet?
Oh, not yet.
Well, I'm going to take care of that.
But Michael, I'm going to send you a Club Gitmo t-shirt, a cap, and a golf shirt.
Okay.
No, it's thank you.
So what have just stay on hold here and we'll get all the information necessary to send you the stuff.
Has he swerved into something here?
We just had Stephen Breyer say, oh, yeah, totally appropriate.
We must import what they're doing around the world and other democracies.
It will help establish their attempt or buttress their attempt to establish the rule of law.
And we might learn something too.
Well, here's something I'd like to import.
I'd like to import the ability that the Brits are doing to export and deport a bunch of hate rhetoric-filled mullahs and imams that are spoken and stoking out of the American incentive.
Wouldn't it be great if anybody speaks out against this country, just kick them out of the country?
Anybody that threatens this country, kick them.
We get rid of Michael Moore.
We get rid of half the Democratic Party.
If we would just import that law, that'd be fabulous.
The Supreme Court ought to look into this.
Absolutely brilliant idea out there.
I want to play before we before we have these other three soundbites.
I meant to do this in the previous half hour.
Before we move on, I want you to hear, we got three soundbites about this NAROL ad.
First up is Brooks Jackson, who used to do this at CNN, used to fact-check all these political ads.
He got hired away by the Annenberg Center, factcheck.org.
CNN reporter John King investigated the new NAROL ad yesterday, talked to Brooks Jackson, and here's Brooks Jackson reaction to the NAROL ad.
False is strong language, and we use it very seldom.
Usually, ads are misleading, twisted, distorted, but this one's just downright wrong in the total impression it tries to create.
Okay, so the Annenberg says it's false, it's wrong, and we don't often say that about these ads, but this thing, it's just downright wrong in the total impression it tries to create.
So John King, reporting for the record now for CNN, says the ad is false.
The facts do not show that Roberts, quote, excused violence.
He did argue for the first Bush administration in the 1991 case that violent abortion clinic protesters had not violated federal anti-discrimination laws, saying such crimes should be prosecuted in state courts.
Virginia, in that specific case.
The White House also points to this Reagan administration memo Roberts drafted in 1986, saying abortion clinic bombers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
No matter how lofty or sincerely held the goal, those who resort to violence to achieve it are criminals.
Okay, so that CNN's done its official investigation now.
John King has rendered the ad a lie, a falsehood.
Talked to Brooks Jackson, former CNN guy, says the same thing at the Annenberg Center.
And now let's go to Lou Dobbs tonight.
And I love Lou, and I think Lou's in a tough situation here because they dumped on Lou.
They made him explain the CNN policy on this ad.
The CNN, we should point out its policy on this.
The ad is absolutely wrong, according to the Annenberg watchdog there.
CNN says it accepts advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the political spectrum who wish to express their views and their opinions about issues of public importance.
So that viewers can further research claims made within the ads.
The messages must identify the name of the sponsoring organization, usually by displaying a website address.
John King, I want to thank you for helping our viewers ascertain the validity of the claims of that particular ad.
We hope you will do so with more to come.
Well, the bottom line is we're still going to run the damn thing.
Poor Lou.
Did you hear him reading that statement?
I mean, it accepts advocacy ads.
We don't care whether they're right or wrong.
You know what?
Grab our ad.
I ought to see if I can get this ad.
Is it ready to go?
I ought to see if I get this ad on CNN.
Don't believe Rush Limbo or Factcheck.org when they debunk our ads.
Our ad ran on CNN, so it must be true.
Not only did Judge John Roberts defend an abortion clinic bomber, but Judge Roberts drove the bomber to the clinic himself.
Drove it.
And used his own cell phone to trigger the explosion.
Just like the terrorists in Iraq.
Stop Judge Roberts from getting on the Supreme Court before he kills again.
Headed for by George Soros and NARAL friends of Nancy Pelosi.
What do you think our odds would be?
They ought to be pretty good.
I mean, if they're running a NAROL ad, this thing ought to be a slam dunk.
We just have to have a website.
And what do they say?
We have to have advocacy advertising from responsible groups from across the spectrum that wish to express their views and their opinions.
So the viewers can further research claims made within the ads.
The ads must identify the name of the sponsoring organization.
Usually by displaying a website address.
Can do that.
You know, and I'd spend $125,000 to see if we can get the ad run on CNN.
Well, the problem is, well, yeah, no, not one time, Mr. Lee, for I'd have to get a week's worth.
I need the same deal that they gave the NAROL people.
We'd have to put some video together.
Well, we could do that.
We just put some pictures together of explosions and fires and bombs and so forth.
A cell phone at the right place in the ad, and John Roberts, a stealth picture of him in a car driving away from a crime scene or something.
Yeah, we could do that.
Quick timeout, folks.
Wouldn't that be funny?
Back after this, Dave.
Back to the phones we go on the Rush Limbo program.
Great to have you along for the ride today, folks.
Ditto Cam will be.
In fact, Brian, go ahead and turn it on now.
What the hell?
Let me turn the bars off.
All right.
Frankfurt, Illinois.
It's Jim.
Jim, is it Frankfort or West Frankfurt?
It's Frankfurt.
I'm up from Chicago.
Oh, that's right.
West Frankfort's down where I grew up.
Okay.
Right, down in the south end.
Yeah, that's right.
And what happened yesterday, Rush, was I was listening to another talk show, and a gentleman called in and was just beside himself that he had listened to a he was listening to a radio show, I guess it was in Detroit.
And he even said the time, he said it was about quarter to three Eastern time yesterday that they played this awful, awful commercial.
And as he went on and described what this commercial was about on the radio, it became really apparent that it was one of your parodies that he was describing, and he took it as a real thing.
So it was pretty amazing.
So this guy was just indignant.
Well, what show did he call?
Can I say?
Sure.
It was Sean Hannity's show.
So he called Hannity.
So he called Hannity and he was complaining to Hannity, but what did Hannity do?
Hannity said, well, you wouldn't, you know, he kind of believed him.
I don't think he realized what was going on, but he said, well, he would look into it and find out how they could possibly be running ads like this.
The way he described it, it was the one that you just played that said that he actually.
Let me play it for you again, and you tell me if this is the one you think the guy was describing.
We have that ad ready to go over playing it out of rotation here.
All right, see if this is the ad.
Don't believe Rush Limbo.
Or factcheck.org when they debunk our ads.
Our ad ran on CNN, so it must be true.
Not only did Judge John Roberts defend an abortion clinic bomber, but Judge Roberts drove the bomber to the clinic himself.
Drove him.
And used his own cell phone to trigger the explosion.
Just like the terrorists in Iraq.
Stop Judge Roberts from getting on the Supreme Court before he kills again.
Farmer George Soros, and they're all friends of Nazi Pelosi.
Okay, Jim.
That would be the one.
That's the one.
And the guy that called Sean believed the ad, thought it was real.
He did.
Yes, he did.
So, yeah, I think you ought to get it on CNN.
I think it'd be great.
Yeah, but apparently people will believe it.
Well, that just makes it a good parody.
But, you know, we've had a lot of these parodies lately, and all of them are believed to be real by some people, we have found out.
And that's a testament to their effectiveness.
I think they're so good, and they so closely approximate and sound like the things that they are parodying that people believe it.
If somebody heard this ad yesterday, actually believes it, it means that they are, after a while, believe the left is actually capable of running such an ad.
Now, I took great, great precautions here to make sure everybody knew this was a parody by putting my own name in it by, hey, folks, listen to this and in place.
But some people apparently believe it.
Don't know that I don't know that Sean necessarily believed it.
If he did, it didn't take him long to figure out what it was, what was going on.
But, you know, I haven't gotten the point here where I'm going to say this is a parody before we air these things.
And believe me, there will be more coming.
We're constantly working on these.
And the idea now would be just since CNN has admitted that the NARAL ad is a fraud and they're still running it based on some policy.
It would just be a hoot to try to get this ad placed on CNN using their policy that they articulated via Lou Dobbs on his show last night.
I don't know.
We'll think about that.
Let's move on here to something.
Those of you on hold, sit-tight, we'll get to you in due course.
The New York Times today, this is about the 9-11 Commission staff and their rejection of that report on the early identification of Mohamed Atta, Kurt Weldon doing the Lord's work in this.
Republican congressman from Pennsylvania, September 11th Commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation by the summer of 2000 that identified as a potential threat the member of al-Qaeda who would lead the attacks on 9-11 more than one year later.
Officials of the commission admitted this yesterday.
The officials said the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer's account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about Mohammed Atta.
The aides to the Republican congressman who has sought to call attention to the military unit that conducted the secret operation said that such a conclusion relied too much on specific dates involving Mr. Atta's travels and not nearly enough on the operation's broader determination that he was a threat.
So the 9-11 Commission spin now is, well, the info conflicted with other stuff.
It was getting late and we had to write that report and we had to get it out.
We had to do this and we had to do that.
The story was out now that the 9-11 Commission members themselves never heard about this.
And yet we now know that the Commission staff was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before they issued their final report.
Folks, this thing is getting cloudier and cloudier while it becomes clearer and clearer.
I know that sounds contradictory, but it's becoming obvious that there were some people in the Clinton administration that didn't want this information out.
They didn't want it known that somebody in their administration at the Pentagon had identified Ada.
They had this wall built by Jamie Gorelik.
And now it is major spin time.
Now it is everybody involved in this is doing their best to cover their tracks and excuse why this information never made it to the commission members nor into the commission report.
There's a lot more to this too.
I want to take a brief time out.
We'll come back and continue in just a jiffy.
Now, folks, I'm tempted to say it's hilarious, and in part it is, but it's also extremely irritating because here you had a bunch of pompous SOBs on that 9-11 Commission and a bunch of Democrats also pompous supporting the 9-11 Commission that running around complaining and moaning and trying to finger the Bush administration for not connecting the dots, right?
So we basically had a commission looking into why dots weren't connected that we now have learned failed to connect the dots itself.
They had testimony.
It conflicted with dates that they thought they had, so they ignored it.
But the fact of the matter is they were not interested in a report that Atta was in America one year before 9-11 and that that information was not allowed to be shared with anybody.
And that's because one of their precious commission members, Jamie Gorellik, was largely the architect of the wall that prevented the transferring or sharing of such information, i.e. prevented the connecting of the dots.
So you have here the commission on connecting the dots, missing a huge dot itself, while all of its pompous supporters are out there just raving and praising about the work they did and demanding that we implement all of their suggestions.
They even were doing that for months after the end of the commission.
▲
Export Selection