All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 12, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:21
August 12, 2005, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
This is sort of like uh What do we start with today?
That's just amazing out there, folks.
That half of Washington's on vacation.
And uh and hell's a poppin' greetings and welcome.
It's the Rush Limbaugh program.
It's Friday, so let's go.
Yes, I love this day.
Favorite day of the week, folks.
This is where I take a giant career risk, unlike uh any risk taken by anybody else in the media.
I, as a highly trained broadcast specialist, turn over a single most important aspect of this program to a bunch of rank amateurs.
And that is the subjects we talk about.
But I do it with uh I do it with vigor.
I do it with eager anticipation.
I do it with total confidence.
Because I trust you people.
As you know the rules on the Monday through Thursday, we only talk about things I care about, but on Friday, I don't have to care about it.
If you do and you can make it interesting, give us a call.
Telephone number 800 282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
Ditto cam is up and running, it'll be up and running for the whole program.
I got a I got a pleading, begging request today from a 24-7 junkie who is in Eastern Europe, who uh desperately needs some contact with America.
You gotta you gotta turn on the ditto cam.
So uh, and I intended to turn it on at some point during the program today, but it is it is on now.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, 800 282-2882.
And the email address, if you'd rather mail it in, is uh rush at eIBNet.com.
Well, nahrol is uh withdrawing its heavily criticized television ad that link John Roberts to violent anti-abortion activists.
They said that its attempt to illuminate the Supreme Court nominee's record has been misconstrued.
Let me define this for you.
You people are too stupid to understand what Nayrol was trying to say in their ad.
After protests by conservatives, Nayroll Pro Choice America said Thursday night, it would pull the ad that began running this week.
We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts records, said the Nayroll president Nancy Keenan.
Unfortunately, the debate over that advertisement has become a distraction from a serious discussion we hope to have with the American public, she said in a letter to Arlan Spector.
Specter, who is pro-choice, said that uh the ad's not true and it's unfair, and he said it's uh not helpful to the pro-choice cause which he supports.
Now you can say that uh the conservatives got this banned, and I'm happy to take credit for it, or partial credit, but I I actually think that uh uh Specter's letter uh really probably had more to do with it than his comments and anything else is a pro-choice guy.
I find it interesting.
It says here in the story, Senate Democrats have not taken a position on the ad.
Senator Patrick Leakey Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat told the AP that ads for and against Roberts wouldn't sway senators weighing uh the confirmation.
Um but but no Democrat has yet spoken out against the ad.
Now they haven't they haven't confirmed their support for it, but they haven't spoken out against it, but all of a sudden the Washington Post, you got an EJ Dion Jr. column today.
He's and by the way, EJ deserves some credit because EJ says the reason the ad should have been canceled is because it's blatantly false.
And he gives the details of how it's false.
The others that are claiming this ad should be dropped are simply it's hurting the cause.
Drop the ad.
You know, as in, my gosh, we got we got to do something to stop hurting the cause here.
Never mind that it's false, never mind that it's full of lies.
No, no, no, don't pull it for that reason.
Pull it because it's hurting us.
So you've got what do we got?
Well Washington Post editorial, E.J. Dion Jr., uh, and I think what is it, the Washington Boston Globe or somebody's editorialized against this against this ad today.
Just a few few of them out there that I found here that I have in the stacks of stuff.
But where was this earlier in the week?
Where's all this outrage from the left earlier in the week?
And what um folks, I'm telling you, this is a huge chink In their armor.
This would not have happened 20 years ago.
They would have not had to pull this ad 20 years ago.
And I I um I actually do think that it is conservative pressure, and I do think it's something else.
Remember that Greenberg, Stanley Greenberg survey that I told you about yesterday, that essentially uh says to the Democrats, no matter how much Bush is hated on a war, and no much no matter how bad people think the economy is, you people aren't going to capitalize at all because you have no credibility on issues of morality and ethics.
And I think that probably had something to do that there's a lot of factors involved.
But ladies and gentlemen, we are compassionate here at the EIB network, as you all know, and we are fair.
We exist, uh ladies and gentlemen, to be fair, uh, to show both sides of the issue.
And I find it frankly unfortunate that in a land with the First Amendment, particularly about political speech, uh, a group has been forced to pull its ad because it's not true.
That shouldn't matter.
The First Amendment says in political speech, you can say whatever you want to say, and it's up to the people to ferret it out.
And I understand I have researched this.
CNN has even pulled this ad.
CNN has pulled this ad, so NARAL has gotten the ad pull, but this just isn't right, uh, ladies and gentlemen.
And as a as a as a a show of uh of uh magnanimity and compassion, and in an illustration of fairness, uh, I am going to air the Nayrol ad during the program today, at least the audio to it.
Uh they didn't buy any time here, so we're going to do it free of charge.
They may have pulled the ad, but but but we think you need to hear it since Nayrol's position is you're too stupid to understand it.
We regret that many people have misconstrued our recent advertisement about Mr. Roberts' record.
The debate over the advertisements become a distraction.
Well, we're gonna try to cut through some of this uh this fog, and we will play the ad for you uh throughout the program today as as a show of solidarity, compassion, and understanding to Nayroll.
Frick, let's play it now.
Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a woman's health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
When a bomb ripped through 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 am 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.
Well, fact check.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 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.
For my George Soros and they're all friends at Nazi Pelosi.
See?
You see how fair we are here at the EIB network.
Nayroll may have pulled their ad, but not here.
They didn't buy any time here, so they can't pull it.
We want to help.
They clearly intended for as many Americans as possible to hear and see this ad, and we're gonna come to their rescue uh today, uh, ladies and gentlemen, our own operation rescue to make sure that the Nayroll ad gets the exposure it deserves.
Free of charge.
Courtesy EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh.
Back after this.
Everyone's a winner, folks.
Yes, sorry.
Great to have you with us, Rush Limbaugh here on Open Line Friday.
Telephone number 800-282-2882.
We just had a drive-by caller who said, Rush, isn't this uh the the the what happened to the NARL ad, sort of like NAyroll aborting the ad?
No, sir.
This is like a partial birth abortion.
That ad lived.
That ad saw the light of day.
That ad was out there for a while, and then Nayroll aborted it.
So NAyroll had a partial abortion of uh of their own ad, which of course um uh I guess they could they can say illustrates the safety of uh of partial birth abortions.
All right, ladies, this this gentleman, this this this able danger Story and the and the uh the the 9-11 Commission.
I am stunned.
I I am stunned.
I can't find this at the top of any news organization's webpage or newspaper.
The Washington Post has a story today.
September 11th panel explores allegations about Atta.
It appears on page A9.
The New York Times has a story today.
9-11 panel decided to omit a reference to Atta.
Uh, they just run an AP story on it.
They don't even write it themselves, and I can't tell you where in the paper it appeared, except it's not on the front page.
Now, is this not this is to me this is evidence that the people in the liberal media assume this could be a problem for the Clinton administration.
Because I'll tell you, if this if this if this abomination of an error uh could be could be really targeted and pinned on George W. Bush, that would be all you would see on the front page of the New York Times, followed by a story on Cindy Seahan, she hand, and you who, by the way, uh, as much coverage as she is getting on the NBC networks, they ought to give her her own show.
She's just she's just everywhere out there on NBC.
Got a segment on the Nightly News last night.
Their cable primetime shows devoted a lot of time to her.
Just give her own show out there.
Take a camera down there to the ditch, uh Crawford, Texas, and and uh just let her have it.
But this uh the New York Times uh all the Fox News website, I mean, nobody is spending a whole lot of time talking about this, and they're not making it prominent, and I just have to believe that if they could pin this on George W. Bush, this would be front page everywhere, and it would be pretty much all that we are seeing.
Now, let me give you uh just an update today, and I'm not gonna bother telling you what the Washington Post and New York Times wrote because you already know it.
Deborah Orin, though, in the New York Post, has a fascinating piece today that has some information I didn't know.
It's starting to look as if the 9-11 Commission turned a blind eye to key questions that could embarrass one of its own members, Jamie Gorellick.
This week brought the stunning revelation that elite military spies pinpointed Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a terror cell more than one year before 9-11, but they were barred from alerting lawmen to try to lock them up.
A prime reason why that warning never came is that Gorelic issued a 1995 order creating a wall that blocked intelligence on terrorists from being shared with law enforcement.
Commission staffers at first denied knowing that the elite military unit known as Abel Danger even existed, but later admitted that they were briefed twice that Atta was specifically named.
Still it was conveniently left out of the 9-11 report.
Do you know why?
Because the 9-11 report already had its agenda.
The 9-11 report already had its story.
Here came some conflicting information.
Oh, it's too late for this.
We don't want this now.
And I think what part of what's going on here, folks, is the Clinton administration didn't want to deal with the fact that there was a terrorist cell on American soil.
They wanted to roll the dice that nothing would happen.
They didn't want to have to do something about it.
That's one of the reasons for the wall, and I'm sure you uh probably could come up with many others, but they just didn't want to do anything about it.
They didn't want the hassle.
Clinton, I mean, the last thing Clinton needed was that, you know, while he's uh dealing with impeachment and Lewinsky uh and trying to rehab a legacy and so forth, which is also ironic too, because of course, after 9-11 happened, the same people that tried to shield Clinton and everybody in that administration from any terrorism, then lamented the fact that the event had not occurred when Clinton was president, thereby affording him an opportunity to be a great president by dealing with a serious crisis.
Remember that?
After 9-11 happened on the Bush watch, you had some anonymous Clinton people out there saying, Oh, why couldn't this happen with us?
Why does Abda Bush?
We were there for eight years.
Well, they didn't want to deal with stuff like this.
That's one of the reasons why the wall existed.
But here's here's the thing.
It gets worse than even that.
Gorellick's defenders might argue that hindsight's 2020, but that excuse doesn't work in this case because Jamie Gorellick was warned way back then when the CNO Evil Wall was created.
That warning came right from the front line in the war on terror.
The current, at that time, Manhattan U.S. attorney Mary Joe White, who headed up key terror investigations, like the prosecutions for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
Mary Joe White, who was a Clinton appointee, wrote directly to Janet Reno that the wall was a big mistake.
It's hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States attorney's offices when such prohibitions are not legally required.
Mary Joe White wrote in June of 1995.
To Jamie Gorelik and to Janet Reno.
The most effective way to combat terrorism with his is with as few labels and walls as possible, so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.
This is June 13th, 1995.
And the U.S. attorney is decrying and lamenting the existence of this wall.
That memo surfaced during the 9-11 hearings, by the way, this memo I just read to you.
But the New York Post has learned that Mary Joe White was so upset that she bitterly protested with another memo, a scathing one, after Reno and Gorelik refused to tear down the wall.
With eerie foresight, Mary Joe White warned that the Reno Gorelic wall hindered law enforcement and could cost lives, according to sources familiar with the memo.
This memo still secret, by the way.
The 9-11 Commission got that white memo, the Post was told, but omitted any mention of it from its much publicized report, nor does the report include the transcript of its staff interview with Mary Joe White, who no doubt told the staff all of this.
So it's not just Kurt Weldon coming in after the scene and revealing information.
We now know that Mary Joe White was begging the Clinton administration Justice Department to tear down the wall, and that she testified about all this with a memo that still remains secret to the staff of the 9-11 Commission.
White yesterday declined comment via her spokesman, the 9-11 Commission spokesman Al Felsenberg didn't respond to repeated phone calls either.
At the time that the first White memo surfaced, it was a hypothetical question.
The wall could have prevented intelligence from getting through to stop 9-11 if there had been any intelligence.
But now that the 9-11 staff acknowledges that there was intelligence about an atta cell more than a year before the terror attacks, it's fair to ask if the attacks might have been stopped were it not for the Reno Gorelic Wall.
CIA may have failed to detect the hijackers, but it appears that military intelligence did better.
Maybe the real problem wasn't an intelligence failure after all, as the 9-11 Commission concluded.
Maybe it is the Reno Gorelic Wall.
That's Deborah Orin today in the New York Post.
And I want to take you back to um April 17th of 2004, when we were smack dab in the middle of the 9-11 Commission hearings, writing in National Review Online.
Our legal analyst here and uh the leader of our legal division, F. Lee Levin, noted that the 9-11 Commission is sitting on a damaging post-millennium plot report that chronicles the impact of Gorellick's terrorist-friendly directive, which Attorney General John Ashcroft alluded to during his Wednesday testimony.
Remember when Ashcroft alluded to a memo written by one of the members of the committee?
This is just to revive your memory here.
Ashcroft said the report dubbed the Millennium After Action Review by the Clinton National Security Council, chronicles how Al-Qaeda's role in the Millennium plot was nearly missed because Gorelic's guidelines blinded U.S. prosecutors to critical intelligence in the case.
Though a hunch by an alert Washington State Customs agent led to the capture of the would-be millennium bomber Ahmed Rassam.
When he was turned over to the Justice Department for interrogation, they didn't have a clue who he was, Ashcroft told the Commission.
It took a French magistrate with full access to his own country's counter-terrorism intelligence files to tip U.S. probers to the fact that they had nabbed one of Al-Qaeda's most dangerous operatives.
Ultimately, because of Gorelic's directive, the French magistrate had to travel to the United States and testify for seven hours to lay out Ahmed Rassam's Al-Qaeda connection.
So, and remember the Clinton administration was taking uh a lot of credit for stopping the Millennium Bomber.
Uh because of their policies, and it wasn't that at all.
Their policies almost allowed the guy Through customs down to LA to do his dirty deed at LAX, which is where he was aimed.
But it was an alert customs agent, not executing any policy, simply just, you know, being a good uh investigator, just a good cop, uh, if you will, who discovered this person.
So all of this stuff now is coming back in droves, and yet there is a veritable for all practical matters and intense silence on this at uh at major news outlets.
You don't see anybody focusing on this anywhere.
Cindy Sheehan, I guess, is too sympathetic, and the nayroll ad is too big a story.
Quick timeout, we'll be back, though.
We will continue in mere moments.
America's anchorman, truth detector, doctor of democracy combined into one harmless, lovable little fuzzball, firmly ensconced behind the golden EIB microphone.
On Open Line Friday, uh telephone number 800-282-2882 and an email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
One more story on this.
This is from the New York Sun today.
The recent disclosure that a Pentagon unit experimenting with data mining technologies apparently linked the ringleader, Mohammed Atta of the September 11th, 2001 attacks to a Brooklyn-based terror cell.
More than a year before the strikes is prompting new questions about whether the Pentagon and Congress acted too hastily when they publicly disavowed such database intensive research in 2003.
Now, this is another key factor because what what we have learned here is that the way this able danger group found out about ATTA was simply reading.
They simply read text.
They didn't, there was no investigation, there was no denial of somebody's civil rights, there were no search warrants, none of this.
It was just something called total information awareness.
That's what data mining technology is.
Total information awareness.
And total information awareness has a uh a little bit of a history.
At some point in mid-2000, while the uh unit, the Able Danger unit was running data mining experiments using total information awareness, the computer produced Mohammed Adda's name along with a suggestion that he was linked to other suspected Al-Qaeda operatives.
Those connections led back to a Brooklyn cell, and that Brooklyn cell contained four of the terrorists.
This is all from Kurt Weldon.
While the Able Danger Project was little discussed until recently, a broader Pentagon data mining effort, known originally by the Orwellian name Total Information Awareness, was shuttered in 2003 after an outcry from privacy advocates.
Some who were critics of that program say the recent development suggests that the data-intensive technologies now deserve a second look.
Sonia Arrison, who is director of technology studies at a San Francisco think tank, the Pacific Research Institute says, I think we dismissed it too quickly.
I was really against TIA, total information awareness, when it first came out.
Mr. Weldon said that the Total Information Awareness Program was hamstrung by several factors, including the association of its director, Admiral John Poindexter, with the Iran Contra scandal.
He said we put the wrong person in and we put the wrong spin on it.
Somehow it became a massive big brother spying effort on the American people.
That perception killed what was a necessary effort.
I read this today, and the memories of that came flooding back.
I remember specifically now when they put Poindexter in charge of this effort, Total Information Awareness, which basically was just going to be mining as much data as they possibly could, and there was an outcry from all over the country.
You're going to be spying on America, you came with a supercomputer, you can't do that.
So they shut it down, and they shot Ademicus Poindexter arrived with a tainted image because of the Iran-Contra scandal, so it died.
But they were still experimenting with it in 2003.
The Able Danger Group was, and lo and behold, it was total information awareness or data mining that that led them to the discovery.
Now, the important thing about that is that doesn't make any of it illegal.
It's no different than if you go scanning websites and find out something.
You have done nothing illegal.
Abel Danger did nothing illegal, and that means there was no prohibition on sharing it with anybody.
There was no violation of the law if Abel Danger had shared this with anybody because it had not been developed during an intern during a criminal investigation.
And that's what the wall was there for.
The wall was to protect information from going one segment of law enforcement to another because the Clinton administration was dealing with terrorism in a criminal matter with indictments and grand juries.
Grand jury testimony secret.
So once an investigative agency comes up with information, they take it to the grand jury, it stops there.
Nobody else entitled to know what goes on.
The wall was designed to create that effect.
There has to be other reasons for the wall, too, folks, and I don't know what they are.
We could all just speculate.
But obviously this wall was to cover something up.
There's no question me.
Ronald Reagan said, tear down this wall.
Bill Clinton said cover up this wall.
So I I you you you can you can just fill in the blanks yourself as to what they were trying to cover up or what they were trying to protect or what have you.
But the real irony is now that had the able danger group shared the information with the FBI, it would not have been illegal.
They it was it would be no different if you learned of it and decided to pass it on to law enforcement authorities.
There would not there was there was no criminal investigation going on, and as such, there was no prohibition against passing this information along.
So you have to look, okay, why wasn't it passed a law?
Why was nobody interested in it?
And it takes me back to something it just it I'm I'm throwing the walls, you know, throwing it up against the wall here hoping it'll stick, but I'll bet this a pretty educated guess.
I think it's because the Clinton administration didn't want to deal with it.
They didn't want to know if there were terrorists and terrorist cells on our shores.
They weren't interested in it.
They would have to deal with it if that were learned, if that were discovered.
And remember, the entirety of the Clinton administration in the 90s was to shelve all the big ideas and to focus on little accomplishments and little things and build them up to make them sound like big things and try to promote this uh whole mentality of the peace dividend, the Cold War was over, we don't face danger anymore.
We can take the peace dividend, and we can put it into schools and we can spend it here, we can spend it there, whatever we want to do.
We had the roaring economy, and everybody just wanted to be hunky-dory and fine.
Nobody even cared to learn that Clinton was doing what he was doing, and the impeachment was not even all that popular.
They were probably also afraid of another reaction after Waco.
You know, the Waco invasion where Janet Reno ended up torching the branch Davidian compound.
That was uh that was not all that big a PR uh uh uh venture and gain for the Clinton administration.
They didn't harm, they weren't harmed as much by that had it been a Republican administration that did it, but they want to deal with it.
I just I don't think they wanted any part of it because A, the Waco's part of it, but I don't think they wanted to deal with big things.
I don't think they wanted serious challenge, and certainly not in 1999.
Not in 1999 and 2000 when Clinton's getting ready to leave office, and he's just trying to pad that legacy and build it up.
So it's uh it it's it's fascinating here.
And then you get to the 9-11 Commission itself, and if you ask me, and you do, and you have because you're listening, if you ask me, the 9-11 Commission ought to be profoundly embarrassed.
The 9-11 Commission has been has been uh they didn't want any part of it either.
This is the interesting thing.
The staff heard about it, it upset their agenda.
Whatever their agenda was, you fill in that blank, however you wish, but it didn't fit with what they already had about ATA.
It didn't fit with what they were already going to do.
They were they were set to blame this on an intelligence failure.
They were gonna make the CIA or somebody else take the fall for this and all the lack of connecting the dots.
And don't forget there was a sub-agenda.
The Democrats in that committee, led by Gorellic and Richard Ben Vanista were trying to blame all this on the Bush administration.
And so this I want to know which staffers.
I'd like to know who the staffers were that were privy to this information and passed on it.
I want to know if they were staffers to the Democrats or staffers to the Republicans.
I really would like to know that.
And I'd like to know what the commissioners actually knew and didn't know.
Because it is clear this information makes an absolute joke of the 9-11 Commission because they ignored a serious piece of information, they focused on something that turns out not to have been the major problem.
They wrote a report and then arrogantly demanded that the Congress implement every damn one of their suggestions to fight terrorism, and yet they blew it.
They blew it sky high.
They didn't get what was really going on.
They didn't get in their report the fact that there were terror cells already here, that the ringleader of 9-11 was in the country for a year and it was known.
So, you know, I I was never one of these people that had uh, you know, uh sycophantic respect and adulation for the 9-11 Commission in the first place.
I thought it was your typical blue ribbon panel of a bunch of former elected officials and high profile prosecutors pontificating, padding resumes, doing a number of other things, doing what blue ribbon panels in Washington always do, come in, chew up the expense account at the nicest hotels and restaurants, make sure you get buddy buddy with the right people in the media and pad your reputation and your image while doing diddly squat about the problem while at the same time trying to convince everybody else that you have solved it.
When in fact not one thing ends up being done.
And can you find this anywhere in prominence in the American media today?
No, you can't.
Back after this, stay with us.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you back, El Rushball.
Remember, the Nayrol ad has been pulled, but we um we feel sorry for this partial birth abortion that Nayrol had to perform on itself.
That ad did live.
That ad lived two or three days, and then they've killed it.
Uh and uh we've formed our own Operation Rescue here today.
Uh Nahrol regrets having to pull the ad.
Their excuse is that conservatives are responsible for getting it pulled, and that you were too stupid to understand what they were trying to say.
And so uh, in uh expression of total fairness and understanding, we at the EIB network are offering this ad free of charge throughout our program today.
Uh we are conservative and illustrate we didn't uh uh demand the ad be pulled.
In fact, we loved it, loved it airing.
Uh, but we also want to help you to try to understand this ad.
Since Nayrol says you don't quite understand it, that you misconstrued the meaning.
We want to give you ample opportunity today to understand fully the Nayroll ad.
Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a woman's health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.
And 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.
I should say not.
The guy may as well drone, driven the bomber to the clinic, and helped the bomber set the bomb, even though this happened...
Seven years before Roberts even got the case.
Just trying to help you understand the ad.
Function, it's Friday.
People say TGIF a lot.
You remember that?
Thank God it's Friday.
I feel like today it's TGIB.
Thank God it's Bush.
I mean, take a look at what's happening out there.
Seriously now, Iran flips off France, Germany, and England when it comes to nukes.
They just said, hell with these seals.
We're going to go into these are the terror sponsors around the world.
The biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world is Iran.
They've just flipped off our powerful allies in Europe, the French and the Germans, and they unsealed and they're um they're they're ginning their program back up.
The United Nations is unwilling or powerless to do anything.
That idiot Mohammed Al Baradai and his international atomic agency, atomic energy agency, issues all sorts of statements.
We deplore, we regret, we urge, yeah, and the Iranians sit back there and say, You do what?
You can deplore, you can urge, you can do all you want, but you are a bunch of jokes to us because we know you're not going to do diddly squat to stop us.
That's why I say, thank God it's Bush.
The economy.
Economy moving along nicely, very nicely, despite the barrage of trash talk from the media.
An example of the trash talk from the media, the oil price.
Boy, is panic being ginned up on this.
The oil price and the gasoline price.
Now they're high, there's no question, but historically, uh, if you factor inflation, I saw today the the per barrel oil price would have to be $90 a barrel for oil to be as high in proportion to the economy and inflation as it has been in previous decades in this country.
It's at six uh sixty-five or uh sixty-six.
I mean if you want to go back to when gas prices were exorbitantly high in relation to everything else, go back to good old Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Had to have a misery index back then so we could actually tell ourselves how rotten it was.
It was so bad we had to have a misery index to calculate it.
Now I know that $2.90 a gallon or three bucks a gallon gas is high.
Don't misunderstand, but don't believe this talk that it is higher than ever and it's out of control, because historically it's not.
That's not any comfort, I know, but I want you to keep things in perspective here.
Despite all this trash talk from the media, the economy is moving along very nicely.
Another T GIB.
Uh we we're approaching here a uh a challenging few days.
Uh and it could be an important tipping point.
And I'm not talking about the search for the missing girl in Aruba, and I'm not talking about this overwrought mother being used by move on.org and John Conyers in the media.
And I'm not even talking about the attacks on Judge Roberts.
Look what our country look look what President Bush has on his table in the next few days during his quote-unquote ha ha ha vacation.
Which he's not on.
He's just in Texas.
Iran has defied, embarrassed, and humiliated the European Union.
Iran has said, okay, okay, what are you gonna do about it?
They've even embarrassed the above embarrassment United Nations.
Okay, Mohammed, on about a day.
What are you gonna do about it?
You can deplore it, you can you can condemn.
What are you gonna do about it?
So we got this going on in Iran.
They're building up their folks.
The Israelis are, you know, the Israelis took out the uh the Iraqi reactor, but and then the Israelis uh they're they're saw a story in the Times in London last night.
The Israelis are are are are looking at what would be the possibility, but there are nine reactors in Iran, and they are buried under feet and feet and feet of concrete.
They are not penetrable.
Unless we launch buck uh bunker buster bombs.
And can you imagine the United States uh turning the Israelis loose to do that?
This is a serious problem, folks, and it's not, you know, this is not Natalie Holloway, and it's not it's not Nancy Sheehan, and it's uh not John Roberts, but this is huge stuff.
These are the terror masters of the world.
And it's high noon for the draft of the Iraqi constitution.
We've got Israel withdrawing from Gaza.
We've got the mainstream media th, even though they're weakened, they're still dangerous.
The blackout on good news around the world persists.
The attacks on the president are relentless, the trash talking of the economy is constant, the anti-war bias is unrelenting.
You know, most of us are rooting for a united country here.
Most of us are pulling together for a common cause to put down this attack on civilization that is occurring in Iran and worldwide terrorism.
You know, thank goodness it's Bush and not Gore or Kerry, or we would have reason to be triple or quadruple concerned and frightened.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Let's grab a call quickly before the hour ends.
Janet in uh in Venice, Florida.
Janet, I have one minute, if you can make it.
Okay.
Uh, concerning the Kurt Weldon revelation rush, um, really, this is a story or the crime of the century, in my opinion.
Does Hillary Clinton's purchase of the Democrat nomination, does it diminish every day?
This story simmers until it explodes.
I I've been over that Gorlic appointment.
And and who directed Sandy Burger to steal and destroy what from the National Archive?
I mean, the dominoes are are maybe beginning to fall finally, I'm hoping.
Well, the if it if it's gonna harm Hillary, I i it it it's there there's nobody's gonna pin this directly on her.
That isn't gonna happen.
So I uh my guess is no, but if it did harm Hillary, it it could only happen because the Clinton administration comes under the microscope again, and the Clinton administration is found to have really uh done some of the things that we've all thought they did all along.
And then it would have to be uh stated and reminded that Hillary was a major player.
Uh but the any new scandal involving the Clinton administration, uh it it it will touch her, but it's gonna take it's gonna take a lot more than this, I think, to uh to affect her.
Uh she's is sort of immune uh from these things.
I'm talking about in the media.
Uh we'll take a break.
▲
Export Selection