All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 25, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:16
August 25, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Where is it?
Ah, there we go.
Now I'm ready to go.
Okay.
And oh, Brian, turn on the uh turn on the ditto cam.
I meant to tell you at the top of the hour.
I want the final two hours of the program Ditto Cam today.
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
It is the one and only Excellence and Broadcasting Network, the Rush Limbaugh program meeting and surpassing all audience expectations on a daily basis.
Couldn't be happier to be with you today.
Telephone number 800-282-2882, the email address rush at EIB net.com.
We are on Hurricane Watch here at the EIB Southern Command.
The uh looks like a tightly forming eye of the hurricane seems to be uh on track, as the forecast path all morning has suggested, just north of Fort Lauderdale.
Uh of course, the worst quadrant to be in a hurricane is a northeastern quadrant, which places Boca, uh, which is 30 miles south of where we are, Boca Baton and uh one of the danger spots if the track maintains uh its uh well maintains its current position.
Uh uh the um it's not yet a hurricane, it's tropical storm.
Uh we may we're we're rolling the dice here on being able to get here tomorrow.
I will be able to get here because the the the I live on the island that we uh broadcast from, but the staff may not be able to cross the bridge.
They've closed the bridges at noon today to inbound traffic to the island.
You can leave, but uh you can't get back.
Voluntary evacuations in our area.
I am volunteering to stay among other reasons, so I could be with my little cat.
Can't take the cat with me, cat would panic.
Travel doesn't work.
Uh don't want to leave the cat alone, so I'm gonna be here with a cat.
Plus, I want to be here tomorrow, uh, but it'll all hinge on whether or not the staff can get across the bridge tomorrow.
We got our fingers crossed on that.
But if that doesn't happen, Roger Hedgecock will be here hosting Open Line Friday tomorrow.
Uh Mr. Snerdley just said to me, you know, I've been watching, I've been watching a weather channel and I've been watching CNN and I, but I haven't seen anything on the profound effect this storm could have on the sea turtles.
Well, I said, You missed it.
I forget which one it was.
I guess the weather channel actually did a a long little for them, a long little piece on the dangers the sea turtle nests uh are face with the oncoming storm.
The sea turtle nests on the beach, buried under the sand.
Yeah, they had some cameraman out there walking and showing little stakes in the ground where the sea turtle nests are.
And everybody's worried about this.
And I I think Snerdley's right.
We need to do something to stop this hurricane.
Enough is enough.
We cannot continue to expose these sea turtles who are already at risk to even further special damage.
Of course, reality is we can't stop the hurricane.
But we can stop global warming, but we can't stop this hurricane.
We can't we can't do anything for this hurricane except run away from it.
All we can do is go out and you know spend three bucks a gallon to put gas in a car and flee the scene and then hope and pray that there's something to come back to.
When the all clear is given.
There's the latest on the Iraq Constitution.
The Iraqi government said that a final draft And isn't this funny too?
The media breathlessly, happily, always reporting when any trouble erupts with the uh the Iraqi constitution.
It's just predictable.
Anything that looks like it's bad news over there, they jump on it, they're breathlessly excited about it, and they happily report it.
Well, the latest is the Iraqi government said that a final draft of a constitution would be adopted by Parliament today, despite its rejection by minority Sunni Arabs in clashes between rival factions among the Shiite majority.
Sounds like democracy to me.
By the end of the day, we will have a final version of the draft, so the government spokesman.
It will be approved.
A National Assembly will in rubber stamp it.
Uh governments prepare to take the risk of it being rejected at an October referendum.
That's a result that would usher in another year of uh provisional rule.
So the bottom line is that the Constitution Committee is basically says, okay, enough's enough.
Let the people vote on it.
And uh we'll we'll have the vote in October and and we'll we'll deal with the outcome.
Now the Sunnis uh and and by the way, the rival factions here in the Sunnis so forth.
Let's muktar al-Sutter.
Muki for short.
Uh the Sunnis and MUKI are going to mobilize a no vote to stop federalism.
That's what this Constitution is all about.
Federalism.
Now, and that's good.
Uh, you know, a central government for Iraq that would have provincial governments, just like we have here.
Uh This is what the Al-Qaeda groups and the terrorists are terribly afraid of, and MUKI and the Sunnis don't dig this at all.
They're not happy about it in any way, shape, manner, or forms.
They're going to be going out there and trying to mobilize the no vote to stop federalism.
They are mobilizing to secure a blocking two-thirds no vote in three of Iraq's 18 provinces.
They also threatened on Thursday to mount a legal challenge to the way the draft was accepted.
Some Shiites, notably the young and influential cleric Moktada al-Sadr, known as Muki, have joined them in condemning the charter.
Uh it's what my question, what is this guy still doing alive?
When you talk about anti-war attitudes in America and the problems with the uh American people not being so you know, that we've talked about this all over the place the last couple of days.
We have the polls that show of uh a lot of Americans are unhappy what's going on in the work and in the war, and the media interprets this as, ooh, look at how big the anti-war movement's getting.
But that's not what's happening.
There are plenty of Americans who are not excited or happy about the slow pace.
They know full well that we are capable of achieving victory here, so why don't we just go do it?
We know that the insurgents are coming from Syria.
Let's bomb the Syrian camps.
We know some are coming from Iran, let's do something about it.
We're the United States of America.
Why are we not doing this?
Political correctness or whatever.
Well, Moktana Al-Sadr, if he'd forgotten who he is, he led the resistance in Fallujah.
Well, we finally cleaned up in Fallujah, but we it took us longer than it would have if we would.
Najaf, I'm sorry, as it was Najaf, and but we cleaned him out of Najaf, but it took a lot longer than it would have had we fought this war the way we have fought others.
Uh and if we had fought this war as others have been fought, Muki would be pushing up daisies.
You know, Muki would be breathing dirt.
Because he would have been, he would have been taken out.
Uh, but he's still around to create trouble.
But still, that's what this is all about.
They're having this argument.
They're gonna put it up to a vote of the people.
There are people that are gonna be campaigning for it left and right.
And I talked to people, how can we let this happen?
Why they're going to establish an Islamic government and they're gonna do this.
What did we do?
What do we go there to do?
We went there to establish free will for these people.
Give them freedom to set up the government that they wish.
Can you imagine what would be said if we were forcing representative republicanism on them?
You imagine what because you've heard all these critics, you can't impose democracy on people.
You can't impose freedom on people.
If we were trying to strong arm an American-type government on these people, can you imagine what the criticism of that would be?
You can't make the critics happy.
There are people that just don't want this to work regardless.
And it's uh and they've been around the whole time, and yet every deadline has been met, and uh every uh every objective, pretty much every goal in the in in the terms of sovereignty and the free elections and the establishment of the provinces, it's it's all it's all taken place according to timetable.
And that's just one of the elements of good news that's overlooked.
Every time there's good news, the media says, well, yeah, that happened, but what's next?
What's next?
Yeah, the elections are remember before the elections, those elections can't happen on time.
Why you have some of these people who say they're not even gonna vote?
Blah, blah, blah.
John Kerry during the presidential campaign.
And then after the elections took place, well, yeah, they might have taken place, but that's we still have the constitution.
That's not gonna be easy.
We're way we gotta we've bitten off more than we can chew here.
And it always amazes me that people want to listen to the fatalists, the doom and gloomers, and the we can't do it people.
What is so inspiring about the fatalists and the doom and gloomers?
They don't inspire anybody.
There's the if you left it up to them, nothing would ever get done.
But that's who's running the opposition here, and they still have it come to grips with the fact that it's creating more harm for themselves than it is for their opposition.
A quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a second as we continue.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Rush Limbaugh, the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I mentioned in the laughed out last hour that the left is just unloading today on Judge John Roberts.
Virtually every fringe lib group that you've heard of, and some that you haven't heard of, are issuing press releases and faxes, and the American media is dutifully bending over forwards and backwards to give them the credibility that none of them have earned and deserve.
Making them all sound bigger and more powerful and relevant than they are.
Before we get to details of that, there's this today from the Los Angeles Times on high court vote, centrist Democrats caught in middle.
Anybody tell me, Mr. Sterdley, what's wrong with that headline?
On high court vote, centrist Democrats caught in middle.
That's exactly right.
What centrist Democrat?
Somebody name for me a centrist Democrat.
And if you are a centrist, don't you want to be in the middle?
How in the world is it a bad thing if centrist Democrats are caught in the middle?
Already we have found the major flaws in this story.
A headline alone makes no sense.
Centrist Democrats caught in the middle.
Where else would you expect to find a centrist?
Thank you.
If you can find one of the Democratic parts, one of the biggest myths around, they're all liberals.
They all march in lockstep.
They don't deviate.
There are no Hegels.
There are no Susan Collins'.
There are no Olympia Snows.
There are no McCain's.
There aren't any Democrats that bolt from the leadership and go out as mavericks.
You ever heard a Democrat called a maverick?
They don't bolt the leadership, head for the TV cameras, and say things at odds and at variance with their leadership.
What is this centrist Democrat BS?
The story written by Mara Reynolds, the outcome appears all but certain, but the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court's still likely to be a nail biter for the Senate's centrist Democrats.
On the one hand, they would like to reward President Bush for consulting with them in advance and picking a nominee who appears legally better qualified and ideologically more temperate than many had expected.
Just, you know, the dripping superior attitude in this just grates on me.
You know, I get so sick and tired of a bunch of people who are out on the fringe talking about somebody not being in the American mainstream.
They wouldn't know the American mainstream if they found themselves in the middle of the Mississippi River.
And this sentence, they would like to reward President Bush for consulting with them in advance and picking a nominee who appears legally better qualified and ideologically more temperate than many had expected.
Yeah, we thought we were going to get some Nazi-like wacko that wanted to send women back to the caves.
Who are you people?
What gives you the right to assume you represent the majority of thinking you don't even win elections anymore?
You're losing elections by ever larger margins.
Your party is fracturing with this kook bunch anti-war crowd down there that should be embarrassing all of you and should be scaring the daylights out of you.
In terms of your political fortunes and the reputation of your party at large.
You know, isn't it interesting when Bill Clinton nominates a hard left ACLU lawyer like Ruth Ginsburg?
We never hear about having to examine this person's views and having to make sure that they're in the mainstream of America.
We don't do anything.
We don't have groups that come up, we don't do anything like this when Clinton or the Democrats nominate a judge when a Republican nominates a judge, well, we've got to start examining whether that judge is human.
Is that judge even breathe air?
That judge breathe oxygen.
It's just the double standard here is striking.
And it's this arrogance and this superior attitude.
I'm telling you, it grates on me.
I just greats on it.
The headline here bugs me and the opening two sentences bug me.
The third sentence or third paragraph of this piece is, on the other hand, more than Roberts's fate hangs in this balance.
For many Senate Democrats, a debate over Roberts is increasingly a battle over the nature and the direction of the court and the president's efforts to narrow or overturn some of its controversial.
Yeah.
How come we only hear about drastic changes to the court when a Republican nominates a judge?
But we never ever hear about drastic changes in direction in the court when an ACLU lawyer like Ruth Vader Ginsburg, a screaming leftist, is nominated.
We never hear about that.
Now here comes this is this is the next joke in this piece.
One of those centrists that caught in the middle is California's Diane Feinstein, the only woman on the Judiciary Committee.
In a speech on Wednesday to the LA County Bar Association, she said that her vote would take into account concerns about the direction of the court.
Well now, see, this is a big myth, too.
They pump out Senator Feinstein as a centrist to create a reputation and an image for her, but she's just as liberal as any of these other people are.
She's just as liberal.
I mean, the idea that Diane Feinstein from San Francisco is somehow a centrist?
That's like saying Barbara Boxer is a centrist.
Take a look at the votes forget what they say.
Yeah, they do have some people go out there and speak moderately.
But take a look at the votes.
Many Senate Democrats, especially those known as liberals, are expected to vote against Roberts to go on record against his political conservatism.
Especially those known as liberals.
Many Senate Democrats is why do you need the modifier, especially those known as liberals?
Many Senate Democrats.
Many many Senate liberals.
I mean, you know, it's Democrat, liberal, it's the same thing.
In her speech, Feinstein emphasized the historic nature of the decision to confirm a Supreme Court justice who enjoys lifetime tenure, because you all know it's all about abortion.
All right.
Now get this.
This is the Washington Times today.
Liberals expand scope of attack on Roberts.
Liberals have broadened their attack on John Roberts beyond just his position on abortion, to include accusations of more general hostility toward women and privacy.
More alarming to uh John, or Ralph Nees, rather, and people for the American way, is that Judge Roberts' views are sharply at odds with those of the justice he has been nominated to succeed, Sandra Day O'Connor.
Broadly speaking, liberals say the Judge Roberts wants to limit reproductive freedom for women who uh undo women's right to privacy and discard remedies aimed at gender equity, knees said at the National Press Club.
And this, of course, carries forth uh another fallacy, which is that the court has to be balanced, that even if you are a Republican president, and a liberal judge retires, you've got to put a liberal judge in the court to keep the balance.
How come when a liberal uh when a liberal president, Democrat president, appoints judges to the court, nobody ever says you gotta you gotta maintain the balance?
Democrat presidents are always allowed and in fact required to shift the balance.
Democrat presidents are supposed to make the court more leftist.
They're supposed to turn it left.
Republican presidents are supposed to maintain that leftist balance so that the liberals who cannot win elections to save their lives still get to control the court.
What the more I think about this, the more I think about it, and I've been thinking about it a lot, it just infuriates me.
The arrogance and the condescension and the presumptuousness of a bunch of losers.
Talk about imposing a way of life on people.
Are you sick and tired like I am of being having liberalism imposed on you everywhere you go, be it how whatever name you give your college team, to what you can say wherever you go, to what you can do wherever you go?
Frankly, I think the imposition of liberalism's gone far enough and it's time to roll it back, which is what this program's been all about for over 17 years.
So these guys are they're they're worried about John Roberts is gonna, he's gonna send women back to the dark ages right out of the playbook, right out of the same old playbook, the same old page.
They've got nothing new.
They can't find any dirt on this guy, so let's go to the themes that beat Bork that almost beat Clarence Thomas, let's just keep regurgitating these themes.
And as they do, they're not winning any converts.
You know, that said that the American people are getting fed up with hearing about Cindy Sheehan every day.
And they're getting fed up hearing about Natalie Holloway every day.
They even feel fed up hearing about the war every day.
Well, you know what else they're getting fed up with?
They're getting fed up with hearing about the liberal Democrats and their problems every day, how unfair life is for them, and how we ought to go out of our way to give them their power back.
They're fed up.
And there's a big backlash going on, and it's the mainstream press for putting forth all these things.
Mark my words, folks.
Just to give you an idea.
Do you remember which justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was named to replace?
You don't.
I will tell you, that was Justice Byron White.
Byron White was strongly pro-life.
He voted against Roe vs.
Wade on the court.
He was appointed by FDR.
That's how long ago he was he served.
Or how long ago he was nominated, but he voted against Roe v.
Wade.
He was pro-life.
That's who Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced.
There was no call for balance.
There was no demand.
The Republicans nor the media did not say to Bill Clinton, yeah, you you better put a pro-lifer on there.
We've got to protect the balance of the court.
There was no such thing.
Only when Republicans make these nominations are these are these arrogant and superiorist claims and demands made.
You know, for the longest, uh for the longest time in my life, liberalism was dominant.
Conservatism was the stepchild.
And there is a subtle shift taking place.
Liberalism is no longer dominant in this country, not in electoral politics, not legislatively.
It may be attitudinally on college camp high, and it may be dominant attitudinally in the anti-war movement and in the shreds of the Democratic Party.
Nationwide, go look at how people live their lives, and they don't live their lives as liberals would have them live them.
If they did, liberals would be winning elections, and they're not.
I'm talking about nationwide elections.
They would have won the House of Representatives back and they'd have never lost it.
If people in this country live their lives as liberals demand they lead them, then there wouldn't even be a contest, but that's not the case.
Liberalism is not the dominant way people live.
It's not the dominant way they think.
But the people that shape opinion in the mainstream press, it is the way they think, and so this superiorist, this is what's normal attitude is constantly broadcast.
This is a long battle that's been underway to change this and to reverse it, and it's still underway.
It's still taking place.
This is no time to go wobbly.
More on the Supreme Court from the Washington Post.
Democrats seeking release of withheld Roberts documents.
Another story that says Democrats say that Roberts will pass, but the liberal group still want more dirt.
After the release of about 60,000 documents detailing the work of John Roberts, Democratic senators are setting their sights on what was not in the huge cache of papers.
More than 2100 memos and letters that have been withheld by government archivists working in concert with the White House.
With Senate hearings two weeks away, Democrats privately say the documents that have come to light about Robert's White House work from 81 through 86 probably do not contain disclosures that would threaten his confirmation.
The utter audacity, the assumption that they would offend me.
Hell's bells, who do you people on the left think you are?
You've got 60,000 pages of documents.
You don't have 2100 pages.
You know there's something in there a little disqualify.
On the basis of what?
The only way you can come up with a way to disqualify this guy is to say he's conservative.
Why don't you just admit it?
Why don't you stop beating around a bush?
Why don't you say we don't like this guy?
He's a conservative, and we don't like conservatives, and we don't like conservatism.
Just say that.
Instead of running around and doing all this fan dancing about trying to find something that portrays this guy as some sort of Neanderthal.
It's reason they don't do this because they'd rather destroy the man.
They'd rather destroy them with innuendo because conservatism would not destroy him.
Conservatism is what has made him.
His ideological and religious beliefs are what have made John Roberts.
That's who he is.
That's how he is defined, and that's what they can't stand.
And make no mistake about this.
The fact that he is Catholic is going to be subtly referenced time and again on this committee.
They'll never use that word, and they'll never use the word religion, but they will talk about deeply held personal beliefs.
Or some such other phrase.
That will be a code.
Democrats privately say the documents that have come to light about Roberts probably don't contain disclosures that would threaten his country.
What kind of disclosures?
What do you think is in there?
Some Democratic senators working with liberal special interest groups opposed to Roberts, consider the other documents potentially relevant and are pressuring archivists of the White House to release them before the public hearings begin.
To get an accurate picture of this, imagine when Ruth Bader Ginsburg came up.
Imagine Republican senators working openly with concerned women for America, the National Rifle Association, and any and Pat Robertson.
To try to find dirt to disqualify Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Can you imagine the outcry there would have been?
And I thought Pat Leahy said these special interest groups don't matter he'll the beans, didn't he?
He said he wishes they'd shut up because whatever they say doesn't affect him one way or the other.
I'll bet he's one of the people meeting with them.
I'll bet he's one of the people taking their phone calls.
I'll bet he's one of the people reading their emails.
Oh, no, no, no.
These people don't matter, those interest groups, we kind of wish they'd shut up.
You have a symbiotic relationship with those groups.
The liberal Democrats do, and they are partners.
And it's the groups that do the dirty work for the senators.
We've just only scratched the surface here, folks.
Then we have this.
For immediate release.
The human rights campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays.
One, two, three, four groups, put out a united statement today to announce opposition to John Roberts.
Joe Salbanese, the president of the human rights campaign, said Judge Roberts has such a narrow view of what the courts can and should do.
It's a wonder he wants the job at all.
Ultimately, this is about an individual's right to privacy.
From women's rights to religious freedoms to civil rights, there is powerful evidence that Judge Roberts would rule against equality.
There is no such evidence.
If anybody's trying to stamp out religious rights, it's you people.
You and your pals at the ACLU.
For his entire adult life, John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all, including lesbian gay, bisexual, and transgender people, said Matt Foreman.
Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
He has denigrated the nature and scope of the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection, and dupe.
He's been unanimously confirmed twice by the very people you prop up.
He has been passed, he has been voted on, he has faced hearings twice.
Not once did any of this ever come up.
Of course, the mainstream press will not tell you that.
But here's another one.
The New York City-based progressive organization, the New Democrat Majority, Jones' growing list of progressives opposing Roberts nomination.
New Democrat majority joins People for the American Way and other progressive organizations across the country in opposing the nomination of John Roberts.
Scott Powell, the executive director of the national New Democrat majority said to give Bush a free pass on the nomination of John Roberts Supreme Court would fly in the face of America's sentiment towards the president.
Powell was citing a recent survey conducted by the American Research Group that indicated only 36% of Americans and 21% of independents approved of the way Bush is handling his job.
So nobody he nominates should go to the court because his approval numbers are not sufficient.
Two more things.
Teddy Kennedy, let me find this very quickly.
Ted Kennedy has brought back to the fold an old fighter that is designed to dig up dirt on Roberts.
This guy's been gone from Kennedy's side for a number of years.
It's a Robert Novak column, and I'm on the verge of finding it.
I thought I'd picked everything out of this stack that I had, but I hadn't.
Bear with me here, folks.
There's that one and one more.
Yep.
Here it is.
An alert this week from backers of John Roberts cautions not to take seriously Democratic complaints that they can't stop his confirmation.
A three-page memo sent to thousands of conservatives across the country warns that the assault on President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee is even yet to come.
A major reason cited for this belief is the man back at Senator Edward Kennedy's side on the Judiciary Committee, James Flug.
It's hard to fathom Mr. Flug coming back to Capitol Hill after 30 years of private practice for anything other than a bitterly tough confirmation fight, says the memo.
The arguments based on Flug's 38-year intermittent history is Teddy Kennedy's gunslinger.
Not contained in the memo is Flug's candestine activity since his return investigating at least one Bush judicial nominee, appellate judge William Pryor.
He was a stealth investigator digging up dirt on Bill Pryor, the Kennedy Flug partnership blocking confirmation of Republican judges, dates back to the defeat of Nixon Supreme Court nominee G. Harold Carswell and Clement Hainsworth.
As Kennedy's rhetoric intensifies, the atmosphere leading up to next month's Roberts hearings feels like the eve of battle.
I had known Flug while he was a Kennedy aide in the 60s and in a Kennedy 1980 campaign for president.
He returned my call last week, and I asked why Flugg, now 66, would return to a job normally filled by somebody 30 years younger.
When he learned what I was after, Flugg broke off the conversation, said he would resume the next day if he could, but he never did.
After my brief conversation with Flugg, Kennedy's press office said the aide was too busy to talk to me.
As to why he returned to Kennedy's staff, the Senator's press aide referred me to a flattering profile of Flugg in the August 19th, 2003 edition of the Hill Newspaper.
It was an extraordinary opportunity to maybe repeat history.
Flug was quoted as saying.
Flug, you might remember, hired investigator Terry Lenzner to research Mitt Romney, an arrangement that was kept off official campaign records.
So make no mistake, this is all a bunch of bogus BS that they're standing aside thinking they can't stop Roberts.
They're bringing back the big guns.
Why does this matter?
Just the latest example.
From San Francisco.
The federal judge here said environmental groups and four U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on allegations the overseas projects they financially back contribute to global warming.
The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is the first to say that groups alleging global warming had a right to sue.
This is the first decision in the country to say that climate change causes sufficient injury to give plaintiffs standing to open the courthouse door, said Ronald Shems, a Vermont attorney representing Friends of the Earth.
Exactly right.
The bottom line is that there is no scientific conclusive evidence of man-made global warming, and yet a bunch of wacko groups have been given standing by this judge to sue.
That's why the judiciary is out of control.
And that's why nominations like John Roberts and all the other appellate judges that Bush has put forward are crucial.
It is also why the left is in sheer panic and will stop at nothing to defeat every Bush nominee.
And don't for a minute believe they won't bring back the filibuster.
We keep hearing the filibuster's dead because you've got 70 votes.
Don't believe that for a moment, folks.
They will stop at nothing.
We'll be back after this.
Stay with us.
We're going to get to your phone calls in an El Jiffel, ladies and gentlemen.
A little Spanish lingo there as we gear up for the Mexico presidential race, which will kick off in Los Angeles next month.
I still get a big chuckle out of that.
But all you can do about it is laugh.
Couple little things here on Able Danger.
Uh Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector plans to hold a hearing on the able danger allegations and the larger issue of information sharing between the Pentagon and the FBI.
Fox News has confirmed this.
Uh Abel Danger, the code name for a military intelligence unit that apparently learned a year before September 11th, 2001.
Terror attacks that lead hijacker, hijacker Mohammed Ottawa and other terrorists were already in the uh United States.
So uh looks like Jamie Garelic may have found her way back into the news.
Senate and House hearings apparently will take place here on all this.
I don't want to jump the gun here.
I'm not gonna get all excited about this.
I I don't want to jump the gun, but if this does happen, it will signal that Republicans may actually think they are the majority.
It may signal the Republicans may think they actually can act like winners.
And look into this.
Kurt Weldon.
I I spoke to Kurt Weldon on Tuesday afternoon in an interview for the upcoming issue of the Limbaugh Letter.
Folks, I have never had an interview like this.
At some point, uh, we're gonna make some of this available.
You I have never talked to anybody in any of these interviews who was as fired up and passionate and angry as I have heard Kurt Weldon.
It's I'm afraid it's one of these interviews that the printed word, while powerful, is not going to do this justice.
But we do have some audio soundbites here from his appearance on Fox News this morning with Edie Hill.
He uh uh she said it was in your book, Countdown to Terror that you brought up first the information about this organization.
You surprised the Pentagon came out so quickly and said can't find anything to back this up.
I actually talked to the Pentagon spokesman yesterday, Larry DeRita, and he was backpedaling left and right and said, Congressman, that's not what I said.
Uh I was uh misquoted by the media uh and uh and we are continuing.
I said, Larry, don't ever go on national TV again and say what you said when I know the Steve Cambone is right now going through four boxes of materials.
You said there was no information.
You have four boxes of materials that were marked subpoena.
Edie, there's something very sinister going on here that really troubles me.
Multiply that by two, and you'll get an idea how he sounded during his conversation with me.
And that's pretty fired up there.
So um uh Edie Hill said, Well, what why do they want to keep it secret at the Pentagon?
The 9-11 Commission is trying to spin this because they're embarrassed at what's coming out.
In two weeks with two staffers, I've uncovered more in this regard than they did with 80 staffers and 15 million dollars of taxpayers' money.
This information will ultimately end up in a in a hearing.
Uh Senator Spector's preparing a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.
I talked to Speaker Hastert yesterday on the House side.
We will bring people in under oath, and they will swear and they will answer the questions.
And eating when this is over.
The 9-11 Commission is going to have egg all over their face.
Amen.
And we will be back.
Don't go away.
Grab a uh quick phone call here.
Uh Livermore, California.
Hi, Ray.
I'm glad you called.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Thank you for the continuing education, Rush.
I love it.
Thanks for the show.
Ninety percent of the Washington press corps are self-proclaimed liberals, yet they state that that doesn't interfere with their objective opinions.
Now, how come John Roberts' beliefs are are going to in affect his opinions when it doesn't affect the Washington press corps.
Well, you know, another great illustration of the double standard that exists.
The Washington, that's a great point.
90% of them are liberal, but uh, won't affect the way we do the news.
John Roberts says, I'm going to apply myself to the law.
Yeah, but you're a conservative, and we know what that really means.
It means you're going to tear up Rovers' way and you're going to send women back to the back alleys, and then you're going to get rid of blacks, and you're going to send them all back to Africa.
And then we know you're going to get rid of the gays, and you're going to make this country all white, and you're going to demand a mixture becomes Christian.
We know what you're going to do.
We know who you are.
You're just a dirty, rotten, stinking conservative Christian, and we hate you.
You can't be objective because you're a dirty, rotten, stinking white Christian.
That's the mainstream press and the Liberal Democrat summation, folks.
That's pretty good.
▲
Export Selection