All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
August 18, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And greetings once again, thrill seekers, music lovers, conversationalists, all across.
The fruited plane time for the award-winning thrill-packed ever-exciting, increasingly popular, growing by leaps and bounds.
Rush Limbaugh program here on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
Great to have you with us.
Telephone numbers 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
You remember the audio soundbites we played for you yesterday from the Today Show with Matt Wauer when Lauer was talking to these soldiers?
And Lauer couldn't believe when they told him their morale was high.
Just couldn't believe it.
They said, well, I mean, how can the morale be high?
We keep hearing how bad it is over here and so forth.
And one of the soldiers said, well, if I read the American newspapers every day, I'd feel bad too, but what's in there isn't true.
And Lauer was sort of taken aback.
Well, what's wrong with it?
What's wrong with it?
What's wrong with it?
Well, they don't get out and report.
I mean, they're not reporting the things that we see, and we're on the ground over here.
I got an email from one of those four guys.
He's a subscriber at Rush 24-7.
Randy Kirgis, Chief Warrant Officer for United States Army.
Dear Rush, I was one of the soldiers interviewed by Matt Wauer today.
To say the least, we were all sorely disappointed, each of us.
We're there to talk about specific activities that we are doing in our individual units here.
Instead of talking to us about the topics we were scheduled to discuss, human interest stories, Lauer decided to engage us with the line of questioning that you highlighted on your show.
We had no rehearsed comments, and we were not prompted to give specific replies.
And in fact, until getting lined up with the producer for the interview, none of us had ever met the rest.
The story I was there to talk about is Operation Teddy Drop.
We parachute stuffed animals to Iraqi children from our helicopters as we fly other missions over Iraq.
So far, we've delivered over 6,100 teddy troopers to the children of Iraq, and we will deliver a minimum of 20,000 by the time we have completed our tour here.
More information can be found at, and he gives me a website for information on this.
Respectfully, Randy Kirgis, Chief Warrant Officer for United States Army.
Now, does this surprise anybody?
Let me tell you how these TV shows work.
Anybody out there, I'm going to offer you some advice.
If ever you are invited to be on a television show, such as the Today Show, or such as Good Morning America, or anything like it, or some of these nighttime cable chat shows, they will do something called the pre-interview.
Now, the pre-interview is a sham.
It is a scam, in fact.
The pre-interview, in fact, well-known media expert Bernard Goldberg got caught himself in a pre-interview appearing on some low-rent CNBC show that doesn't even show up in the ratings.
What they do in the pre-interview is some producer will come talk to you and act very, very interested in what you have to say and will start asking you questions.
And eventually, the questions will turn away from what you thought you were invited to do.
And the questions will be things that will irritate you.
And when they find that they have irritated you, when they find that they've gotten your goat, that's what they're going to end up asking you about on the show.
Nine times out of ten.
It has happened to me countless times.
I'm wise to it, but I don't even put up with it anymore.
As you know, I don't go on these shows.
It's not worth the time or the trouble or the makeup.
But that's obviously even what happened here to these soldiers.
They were gotten there under false pretenses, and then they were all hit with this notion of why is the morale so bad?
Why are we losing?
What do you think you're doing here is worthwhile, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And they had to end up giving answers, and they gave great answers, spontaneous answers on this.
And I'm sure the effort was to trip them up.
But you can't trip up people who know the truth.
You can't trip up people who know the truth with a bunch of lies.
And you certainly can't trip up these people in Iraq and the United States Armed Forces who fully believe exactly in what they're doing.
But I want to thank Chief Warrant Officer 4 Randy Kurgis for sending me the email at rushlimbaugh.com for the update on this.
It's a thrill to get emails from the people that are over there or Afghanistan.
It really does.
It gives me tingles down the spine.
It's sort of like, my gosh, look who's listening to this show.
It's fabulous.
The U.S. Armed Forces.
All right, now moving on to other matters.
Let me get this out of the way first.
I don't mean to get it out of the way, but I haven't talked about this yet.
And I'm sure it's going to come up on the phones.
Is it there yet?
No, but I'm sure it will be.
That's the Israeli pullout of Gaza, these settlements out of Gaza on the orders of Ariel Sharon.
Let me give you a little history lesson.
I went to Israel in June.
Maybe it was July of 1993.
I was in Israel when Vince Foster was found dead at Fort Marcy Park.
So whatever that was that summer, that's a four-day trip.
And this four days, folks, was worth two years of college.
Among the things that I did was this.
I got a three-hour private bus tour led by Ariadal Sharon of the settlements in the West Bank.
We didn't go to Gaza.
The settlements in the West Bank.
And I met some of the settlers and I heard their stories and I learned why they're there.
And they're there for defensive purposes.
And I was shown the whole settlement area.
Well, not the whole, but the West Bank's fairly large when you're in it.
It's pretty small compared to other countries as the whole country of Israel is, but it's still a pretty large area when you're in it walking around.
And these settlements were strategically located on high ground because the settlement, the settlers could also serve as lookouts.
The thing about Israel, you look one direction and there's an enemy, Syria.
You look another direction, there's another enemy.
Iraq.
You look another direction, there's another enemy, Jordan.
You can see it.
It's like being in New York and being able to see New Jersey and knowing that they've got all kinds of weapons and guns aimed at your house.
They hate you, the fact that you're alive.
It's a whole new experience.
Now, Sharon was the architect of these settlements, and he was very proud of them.
He explained the whole philosophy and policy behind them.
And the settlers that came out of their homes that I was able to meet were equally respectful of him.
He was like a god to them.
Now, as I say, didn't go to Gaza.
Well, here we are.
Now, the latest challenge of the Israelis is that they have to withdraw the settlers from Gaza, and they're doing it.
And these are some of the most heartbreaking pictures.
A woman sets her on fire, sets herself on fire, refusing to leave her home.
There have been other protests and people attempting to stay.
It's their homes.
Their homes.
And they're being forced out of them by their own country.
And the theory behind this is, well, you know, there's a new Palestinian authority.
No more Yasser Arafan.
And we must do this.
We must do this.
We must do this to show that we want peace with the Palestinians.
We must do this to show the world that we are willing to compromise.
And this action must be taken to also demonstrate to the Palestinians at the dawn of a new day.
They too are interested in peace.
Yada Well, you know, it all sounds good.
And I listen to the intellectuals in this country talk about how Sharon has to do it.
He has no choice, and Sharon should do this.
It's up to Sharon now to be the big guys.
Sharon to be bigger than his enemies.
Up to Sharon to give the Palestinians another shot at showing the leadership that they are serious this time about peaceful coexistence.
Well, earlier today, you see some Palestinian demanding that the settlers start leaving the West Bank.
Oh, okay.
Now we.
But my point is there's nothing new, and I don't understand what's on the table that people think is new.
Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, they're all still there.
They're all being funded and paid for by Iran.
This pullback is nothing more than Israel giving up more land and more ground, and it's not going to stop anything.
I hate to be negative about this, but I mean, roll the dice, the odds here that history that has happened is going to repeat itself.
The idea that there's a new dawn of a new day on the Palestinian leadership side, somebody show me the evidence.
Somebody show me where these enemies of the Israelis have retracted their statements of extermination.
Show me where they say, you know what?
We no longer think that every Jew in the world ought to be dead.
We no longer think that these Jews should be run to the Mediterranean.
We are willing to live.
Show me the statement.
It hasn't been made.
It hasn't been written.
So, Sharon, who established the settlements, is now the architect of their dismantling, all on the vague hope, wing, and prayer that it's a new day for the Palestinians and that they can peacefully exist side by side.
And this is necessary to give the Palestinians one more chance to prove their goodness and decency and so forth.
We all have hope, but we have our doubts at the same time, and we'll just wait and see here what reality brings.
But my fear is that the reality is already known, that there are decades and decades and decades of reality that have said, Israel, you've got to give up that portion of the country.
You've got to give up that portion.
And they've done it.
They've given up that.
They've given up that, given up that, and nobody's ever happy.
Nobody's ever happy with what they end up giving away.
And it's hard to believe that this is going to satisfy anybody now.
It's hard to believe this is going to be this is going to accomplish anything other than we've got them on the run.
And so we'll have to wait and see.
That's my take on it, in case anybody's going to call and ask.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
Our old buddy ZZ Top.
The EIB Network and L. Rushball.
This is Janet in Gross Point, Michigan.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Raj Arts and Croissant Crowd Today.
Thank you for taking my call.
It's my pleasure.
Regarding the last hour and Richard Dreyfus's comments and the foreheads.
Yes.
What I heard in those comments, and I mean clearly.
Hold it, hold it, hold it, hold it.
Let's go back.
Let's get Dreyfus.
Let's grab Dreyfus.
What number is Dreyfus in the...
Yeah, I want you to be able to comment on this after people have heard it again.
We played it in the last hour.
It doesn't take long.
This is the actor, the Hollywood actor, Richard Dreyfus, who may not realize he's not in a movie saying this.
No one should come for my son and tell my son to go and kill someone or put himself in harm's way unless I understand and agree to the need.
All right, there you have it.
You wanted to comment on what Dreyfus and the forehead basically said the same thing, talking about Cindy Shid.
Yes.
Yes, they view children as property.
And I find that highly ironic because all the policies they support, children, parents do not have rights, and that children make excellent decisions from the age of five onwards because they want them to learn about masturbation.
I was just going to say, Richard Dreyfus probably thinks that his 13-year-old daughter should be able to get an abortion without him knowing about it.
Exactly.
And but should we be surprised, Rush, that they deny the choices, the good choices these young men, men, okay, men and women are making in the military when they deny the right to life of unborn children.
Well, you know what?
Janet, no, you shouldn't be surprised.
One of the points I've sorry, what were you going to say?
I'm not surprised.
I was being ironic.
All right.
I'm not surprised.
Yeah, good, because you shouldn't be surprised.
I mean, the point that I've been trying to make all week long is, and what the left apparently, I don't know if they understand it or not.
Benefit of the doubt, they don't.
If they do understand it, it's even worse.
They are impugning the very people who make this country work.
They are impugning, just as you say, these are adults who are making choices to go serve their country.
They are offering their lives in sacrifice for this country.
They believe in it.
They think it is worth dying for.
They think that it is worth their effort.
And here you have these linguine spines like Dreyfus and others come along and literally impugn them by making them out to be nothing more than a bunch of robots who've been stolen by a bunch of recruiters, sneaking into people's homes while people like Dreyfus are asleep or out at some opening or party, stealing their kids away from them and sending them over to this dastardly place called Iraq, and the kids don't want to be there.
And as you say, they're adults and they're making choices, and they are honorable choices.
These are choices that are made with considerable valor.
And the ease with which the people on the left impugn and degrade this is disgusting.
And it's also contradictory and it's hypocritical because on the one hand, these are, as you point out, the same people that are thinking, you ought to make kids grow up five years old.
The world's tough enough out there.
Grow them and let them grow up fast.
Get them out there.
Let them find out how evil it is that they can make their right choices in life.
And blah, blah, blah, blah.
And if one of them wants to have an abortion at 13, my God, get out of the way and let them.
And the parents can't even know.
But somehow when an adult makes the choice to go serve in the armed forces, somebody's polluted their minds.
Somebody's brainwashed them.
Bush has snuck into the house under the cover of darkness and pointed a gun and said, hey, you're going to Iraq so my little girls don't have to.
Get out of bed and get over there now.
Then they actually make people think they believe this kind of thing.
They have no, I don't think they have any concept of the disgust and the absolute contempt for themselves that they bring on.
Appreciate the call, Janet.
Clay County in Florida.
This is Greg.
You're next on the EIB Network.
Hello.
Ditto, Rush.
Thank you, sir.
I lost my oldest son, Sergeant Justin Ridley Garvey, July 20th, 2003.
And what these wackos next to Waco are doing out there, and my wife hates me to say that, is they're not the voice of America.
They're not telling the American people how we truly feel.
No, they know this, by the way.
They know it, and that's what's frustrating to them.
They know that their voices are lone and in the wilderness.
Yes, they are.
And I'm heading to Waco or Crawford, excuse me, tomorrow.
And I will have a thing set up for the foundation that I've set up for my son and all of our fallen brothers and sisters of my son.
We have, our goal is to put a memorial in the hometown of every soldier that we've lost in our war against terror.
And this is just ridiculous.
This is stupid.
I mean, I don't.
Yeah, and you know what's, by the way, you know what's going to be said about, I just want to warn you, Greg, you know what's going to be said about you?
That you're nothing but a stooge and a stool pigeon for the Bush administration, and you're only doing this to respond to Sheehan because she's being effective.
They're not going to believe for a moment that what you're doing is to truly erect memorials for great Americans who have joined the armed forces and gone over to defend the country and to defend and protect it at the same time.
They are going to attempt to impugn your effort as nothing more than a defensive response to the great Cindy Sheehan movement.
I want you to be prepared for this.
I have been warned by that, to that effect, by a number of local and other radio talk show hosts, and I'm fully prepared for that.
I have been interviewed by a number of newsprint and television people from across the country.
And I've had similar sits.
I won't mention any names, but it was a year and a half ago in Daytona Beach.
I told the woman that let's jump in my truck and drive downtown and let's see what's going on here.
We're in the freest country in the world, the world's most famous beach, and I can guarantee you you can find a bum on any street corner that says he got this bad.
It's not going to happen.
This is not going to happen to my son.
It's not going to happen to his fallen brothers and sisters.
They deserve the utmost respect that this country has to offer.
And I'm not worried about who's going to support this project or who's not going to, because the people that will will, but I'm not going to cowch out the ones that won't.
And you shouldn't.
And I'm glad you've got this plan.
And I want to assure you something, too.
And people, even though the dominant influence of the mainstream media is no longer a monopoly, once they glom onto something like this, they don't let go of it.
And they keep pounding it and pounding it.
And it can affect the mood.
Not that it's representing the majority of thinking.
It just makes you mad.
You have to watch this because you know it's all such BS.
But you have to know that the vast majority of Americans have the same view of the men and women in the armed forces of this country in Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever they happen to be, South Korea, Germany, wherever, that you have.
You're making the effort to honor them will be appreciated and joined by far more millions Americans than you know, in spirit at least.
Quick timeout, folks.
We'll be back in just a moment.
As usual, exercising, utilizing talent on loan from God.
Go ahead, folks.
Admit it, you are addicted to this show.
Robert Palmer and our bump rotation, and thanks for sticking with the stuff that you didn't bring from home.
All right, there's the latest on Able Danger.
The chairman of the September 11th Commission, this will be Tom Kane, called on the Pentagon.
Did I not predict this?
I told you that by the time all this settled in, they were going to start blaming a building.
The chairman of the September 11th Commission called on the Pentagon yesterday to move quickly to evaluate the credibility of military officers who have said that a highly classified intelligence program managed to identify Mohamed Atta more than a year before the 2001 attacks.
Tom Kaine, former Republican governor of New Jersey, offered no judgment about the accuracy of the officers' accounts, but he said in an interview that if the accounts were true, it suggested that detailed information about the intelligence program, Abel Danger, was withheld from the committee.
It was not withheld.
It was presented twice.
They weren't interested in it.
They had their agenda.
It was like news people.
They go out and do a story.
The story is already written.
And they go out and interview people and cover things to fit the story as written.
The 9-11 Commission had its agenda.
And this thing came along.
This Abel Danger came along.
Oh, it doesn't fit the agenda.
And we can't use this business about Ada.
What do you mean he met with the Iraqi security chief in Prague?
Why, we have his cell phone records and he was on a cell phone in the United States the very day before and after he was in Prague.
Well, maybe he didn't take his cell phone to Prague because it wouldn't work there.
And maybe somebody else was using his cell phone in his cell at the flight school in Florida.
Wouldn't that be worth looking into?
But to just discount the fact a cell phone was used in Florida, obviously he had to be there.
They didn't want any part of this.
The CIA didn't want any part of that either.
CIA didn't want any part of this accuracy of Atta meeting with the Iraqi in Prague, Czechoslovakia, because they blew that.
They missed it.
Everybody was in a CYA mode here.
The purpose of this commission was twofold, to dump it as much on Bush as possible.
Take a look.
Take a look at the makeup of the commission, will you?
Richard Benvenista.
Watergate?
What else did Benavista do?
Benveniste, Watergate, what else?
Whitewater, yeah, he was right there defending the Clintons in Whitewater.
He's the Democrats' go-to guy when you're either going to nail a Republican or circle the wagons around a Democrat.
And also on that committee, Jamie Gorellik, architect of the wall.
You know why she was there.
She was there to protect that aspect of whatever the investigation might find because you know they're not going to dump on a commission member.
And the Democrats in the House got to choose the Democrat members on the committee.
Now, look at the Republicans on the committee.
Okay, John Lehman.
Nice guy, Secretary of the Navy, but he's not a Ben Venista, and he's not a Jamie Ghorellik.
I hate to Slate Gordon, a moderate Republican from the state of Washington.
I can't remember any of the others.
I don't want to know.
The point is, I can't remember who they are, but they were nondescript.
They were nondescript.
So we know that one purpose of the commission was to dump as much of this on Bush as possible.
And how can we not be more curious now about Sandy Burglar?
Sandy Burgler going into the National Archives, not just taking stuff out, but what did he put back in when he came back in?
And not just once, but twice while preparing for this testimony.
And he's right there.
He's the national security advisor, folks.
He would be in the loop.
He'd be in the chain if somebody knew of Abel Danger.
And there are people out there now saying that Abel Danger was known by Clinton and known by the White House.
There are people who are saying, of course it was known.
I mean, it would be impossible for it not to have gotten to Clinton.
He didn't meet with the CIA guy, but he did get a presidential daily brief every day.
It'd be absurd to think that he didn't know.
The absurdity would be to think that he would be, yeah, that would be the absurdity.
It made more sense to think he had to know.
He's a president of the United States commander-in-chief.
And he's out there.
He certainly knows that Osama bin Laden was offered by the Sudanese.
And Madeline Albright said, yeah, well, we thought he'd be less danger in Afghanistan.
Why did you think that?
Afghanistan didn't even have a government.
He could go in there, get together with the Taliban, and turn it into what it became, a terrorist training camp.
It wasn't that in the Sudan.
Well, you were fighting it on grand jury grounds, on legal grounds.
We didn't have any evidence to hold it.
No, we had all this Abel Danger stuff.
We had enough information out there for there to be some curiosity.
The second phase of this commission, and I'm convinced of this, the second phase of this committee, the Democrats have two phases.
Two purposes.
And the one phase is to make sure that they dump as much of this on Bush as possible during an election year to hopefully defeat him.
The other purpose of a blue ribbon panel is to insulate the whole Washington political class, the elites in the political class, from taking a hit on this.
And so now they're blaming it on a building.
In a statement last week, Kaine and the vice chairman of the commission, Lee Hamilton, said that Abel Danger, computerized data mining operation run from within the Defense Department's Special Operations Command, quote, did not turn out to be historically significant, set against the larger context of U.S. policy and intelligence efforts.
That's what they said last week.
But Kaine suggested yesterday that the statement would need to be revised if information from officers involved in Abel Danger proved to be true.
Man, they're running for the tall grass.
They're changing their stories every day.
Let's go to the audio tape from this morning.
Fox and Friends, the guest U.S. Air Force retired Lieutenant Colonel and senior military aide to President Clinton, Buzz Peterson.
Now, Buzz Peterson, we must admit, he's the closest thing we've got besides Dick Morris to a whistleblower in the Clinton White House.
He's the author of Derelection of Duty.
Brian Kilmead asked him, Colonel, as we talk more about what went wrong leading up to the 90s, in the 90s to bin Laden, is it correct to say that the administration took its eye off the ball or realized that this threat was real, but just not important enough to make a priority?
Yeah, I think, Brian, if you look at the fact that there were eight separate terrorist attacks under President Clinton's watch in the 1990s, and I could attest personally that my time at the Clinton White House in 96, they were very well aware of bin Laden, and also they were well aware of the possibility that Al-Qaeda might use commercial airliners as a weapon.
You know, I keep harkening back to Tuesday when Clinton puts this story out.
Hey, you know, I took bin Laden far more seriously than Bush did.
If I'd have known what Bush knew about bin Laden, I'd have fired everything we got into Iraq.
I've been in Afghanistan.
It may not have mattered a bunch 9-11, but it might have made some difference.
And lo and behold, the next day, we get the news that he couldn't have been lying more than when he spoke on Tuesday.
Took bin Laden more seriously.
How does he say that anyway?
Because he's Bill Clinton.
He's a social path.
Bill Clinton is a sociopath, sociopath.
And he's pathological.
He's one of these guys that lies and believes the lies that he says.
And so what he says, whatever he says, he thinks in his mind it's the truth.
Another question to Buzz Patterson.
Kelly Wright, Fox and Friends, you talked about the fact that there were so many missed opportunities to get bin Laden.
President Clinton, his entire staff may have known about these attacks or these plots.
So what was the problem?
Were they treating it as a law enforcement issue?
Were they on a war footing against the terrorism issue?
What was it?
That's a great point.
It was always treated as a law enforcement issue, even as the threat grew and grew.
I think President Clinton really failed to grasp the growing threat, number one.
When he treated it, he treated as law enforcement issue, number two.
But I think it's also important to point out the fact that President Clinton met privately with Monica Lewinsky many more times than he met with his CIA director or his FBI director.
In fact, I don't think he ever met with James Woolsey privately a single time.
And only twice with George Tenet.
He's right here.
Patterson's Ray had more private meetings with Monica Lewinsky and more cigars with Monica than he had with these guys.
But, I mean, it's what we've been saying all along.
The Clinton administration treated this as a law enforcement issue, and that's why the wall was constructed.
When you treat it as a law enforcement issue, whatever is learned goes to a grand jury where it gets wrapped up.
It is secret, and nobody's entitled to know what it is.
So whatever one agency learns goes to the grand jury before it goes to another agency.
FBI learns something, goes to the grand jury before the CIA can get it.
And they can't connect the dots.
It's because of the Ghorelik wall.
And that's how Clinton was choosing to fight this.
And we all know that there were other reasons for this wall other than to prevent information being passed from FBI to the CIA and the DIA and other intelligence agencies.
There was another reason.
I don't know what it was.
We can all guess.
But I mean, you don't create this wall because you think it's a great idea unless you think it's a great idea for something you don't want once again to the grand jury to ever get out of there.
One more from Patterson.
This is Brian Killmead again with the question.
Colonel Patterson, what do you think Sandy Berger stuffed in his socks or his pants, his shirt, whatever, really escaped without any jail time for some reason?
What do you think he was worried about?
Obviously incriminating documents that point the finger at what the Clintons administration did.
What documents do you think?
Well, you know, I guess the speculation has been the Millennium Plot, 2000 Millennium Plot, but we don't know because those documents were destroyed by Sandy Berger.
I mean, again, I think the commission really failed to grasp, the 9-11 Commission really failed to grasp just when they knew that the situation and the possible threat and Berger was complicit along with Richard Clark and President Clinton.
They didn't fail anything.
They succeeded.
Ben Vinista succeeded.
Tim Romer succeeded.
Jamie Gorelik succeeded.
That's the whole point.
They didn't fail at anything.
Their job was to keep this away from the Clinton administration.
Their job was to try to steer this as close to Bush as they could.
Hello, Richard Clark, for example.
Remember the delicious detail?
Remember the deal-making going on between Ben Vinista and Romer over who was going to get to interview Condoleezza Rice about that August 6th presidential daily brief?
Oh, boy, folks.
They were rubbing their hands together.
They were salivating.
They just knew that they were going to destroy Condoleezza Rice and at the same time destroy George W. Bush.
And they failed because once again, they're on a mission that was predominantly a lie.
But let's go back.
Let's turn back the hands of time.
September 3rd, 2002.
Larry King alive.
The guest is former President Clinton and former Senator Bob Dole.
And King says to Clinton, you remember what you were thinking, Mr. President.
What would go through the mind of the immediate former president watching this, talking about 9-11 and bin Laden?
I remember exactly what happened.
Bruce Lindsay said to me on the phone, my God, a second plane has hit the tower.
And I said, Bin Laden did this.
That's the first thing I said.
He said, how can you be sure?
I said, because only Bin Laden and the Iranians could set up a network to do this.
And they wouldn't do it because they have a country in targets.
Bin Laden did.
Did you also think at the same time we came pretty close to getting them?
Yeah, I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed and I was full of regret that I didn't get him.
I mean, I immediately thought that he'd done it.
He is sick.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
I thought my virtual obsession with him was well placed.
Can we go back to cut 12 here and listen to Buzz Patterson, who was senior military aide to President Clinton, author of Dere Election of Duty.
Colonel, we talk more about what went wrong leading up in the 90s to bin Laden.
Correct to say the administration took its eye off the ball or realized this was not really a real threat.
Yeah, I think, Brian, if you look at the fact that there were eight separate terrorist attacks under President Clinton's watch in the 1990s, and I could attest personally that my time at the Clinton White House in 96, they were very well aware of bin Laden, and also they were well aware of the possibility that Al-Qaeda might use commercial airliners as a weapon.
I'll tell you what, I thought my virtual obsession to him was well placed, and full of regret that I didn't get him.
I mean, I immediately thought he had done it.
I gave it everything.
I never worked harder in my life again, bin Laden.
And I cared about him more than George Bush ever did.
I knew he's a bigger threat than George Bush ever did.
It's stuff like this, folks.
It makes you live to do this again another day.
Back after this, don't go away.
I still can't stop laughing.
A virtual obsession with Bin Laden.
All right, here's Bill in McKinney, Texas.
Hi, Bill.
Welcome to the EIB News.
Best to talk to you.
We'll go back to the Israel pull-out story, if I may.
Yes.
I had the concern that, and I value your opinion on this subject very much.
I had the concern that this may be the beginning of the end of the Israeli state for two reasons.
One, obviously, this has created tremendous internal turmoil, which I'm afraid is very bad for morale and resolve of the country.
And two, it's clearly a victory for the fanatics, at least to the Eastern and Near Eastern world.
It would appear that way, and they can exploit it rather heavily.
And I'm afraid that the only hope would be if we had to be pulled into support of Israel, and I'm afraid militarily we wouldn't do it.
I'd like your view.
Well, you know, you want me to respond.
A couple things.
I'm not ready to concede that this will lead to the end of Israel.
But I do think a couple of points.
One of the things about the thing is totally ironic.
How many Jewish settlers were in Gaza that are being moved out?
Was it 6,000 or 7,000?
Is it 10,000?
What?
8,000 to 10,000, something like that.
And the number of Palestinians there is in the millions or close to it.
And they can't get along.
Palestinians are going to put up with it.
They've got to go.
Do you know how many Arabs live in Israel proper?
Over a million, and they do it peacefully.
The Israelis, the people that live there, do not hassle the Arabs whatsoever that live in Israel.
And there are over a million of them.
The second thing about this is that you have to understand that Israel has amongst its own people, the same kind of liberal Jews that exist in this country.
And they'll stand around and watch Israel become the size of a dime before they'll speak up.
And then it'll be too late.
They'll bend over backwards, whatever they have to do, to show that they're not like the right-wingers, that they're not like these extremists and so forth.
One of the ongoing theories is that the move out of Gaza will now force the Palestinian Authority to do something there and to set that place up and to demonstrate to the world they can't run it.
They can't collect the garbage like they couldn't under Arafat, that they can't put together a sewage system, that they just can't do it.
And that will illustrate something to the world.
And then when they attack again, If they attack again, then that'll prove who the Palestinians really are.
And that's that I don't understand.
If they attack again, when they attack, when have they stopped?
So you keep giving up land on the premise, all right?
Well, this may make them, this may satisfy them.
But if they attack again, though, boy, we've shown the world that we don't have to put up with anymore.
Well, this has only been going on since 1948.
So I'm at a loss to understand it.
Well, now, if they do that, we'll have the license to strike back.
You're losing that license pretty fast, if you ask me.
Back after this, stay with us.
You see this latest story in the New York Times about the media?
They got a new survey on the media.
Yeah, it's biased.
Yeah, but it doesn't matter.
Biased media doesn't matter anymore because it's not actually affecting the way people vote or act or think.
Biased media is okay.
It's perfectly fine now because it doesn't matter.
They surveyed the American people and they learned that.
Your biased media doesn't.
I'll have the details and a lot of other stuff.
▲
Export Selection