All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 19, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:00
October 19, 2005, Wednesday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what I teased you with at the conclusion of the previous hour is in fact true.
Mother Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan, has said that Hillary Clinton sounds just like me when discussing the war in Iraq.
Greetings, and welcome back.
Rush Limboy here on the cutting edge of societal evolution.
I am America's anchor man, America's play-by-play man of the news, America's truth detector, general, all round good guy, uh harmless, lovable fuzzball.
Our telephone numbers 800 282-2882 and the email address rush at EIBNet.com, and something I told you was going to happen.
Something I warned you people about.
Well, I didn't warn you about this, but I I I I keyed you to it.
Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is urging fellow Democrats not to support pro-war Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she sounds too much, like conservative radio titan Rush Limbaugh in her support for U.S. efforts in Iraq.
In an open letter posted to Michael Moore's website, sheehan blasts Hillary for backing the Iraq invasion, saying, I think she is a political animal who believes that she has to be a war hawk to keep up with the big boys.
Yeah, this is upsetting to him on the left.
This whole notion that a female presidential candidate has to be Hawk, has to be a big talker on the military to prove that she's qualified to wield power with the men.
Sheehan says that unless Hillary shows us the wisdom it takes to be a truly great leader and backs a pull-out from Iraq.
She will resist her candidacy with every bit of her power and strength.
I will not make the mistake of supporting another pro-war Democrat for president again, vowed Mother Sheehan.
Sheehein said that she thought her meeting with a New York Democrat earlier this month had gone well until she found out that Mrs. Clinton had dismissed her advice afterwards.
Citing Hillary's comments to the village voice that a pull-out would mean U.S. troops had died in vain.
Sheehan said, Well, that sounds like Rush Limbaugh to me.
That doesn't sound like an opposition party leader speaking to me.
What Senator Clinton said after our meeting sounds exactly like the Republican Party.
Talking points that I heard from Senators Dole and McCain.
So I told you folks to be as uh trouble in paradise out there on the far left extreme, which has become the Democrat base.
This is the this this is this is well, uh you know, this that's a good point.
Mr. Sturdley says this is twice that she's gone face to face with Hillary.
And she did sort of get smacked down the last time.
You know, you don't do this, folks.
You don't publicly, as a Democrat disavow a Clinton and uh uh live to do it again.
Well, uh you just don't do it again and again without something happening.
And so she's one gutsy lady or stupid.
Uh one of the two, but something's gonna happen to this woman.
Something something's gonna silence her.
Something somebody's gonna call her from the Clinton campaign.
So you really want to keep talking like this, Mother Sheehan.
Uh the name Andrew Cuomo mean anything to you, Bob Torcelli.
Uh any number of examples could be cited.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have uh we have set stage for you how the uh the left-wing media, particularly cable TV, has rove indicted and in jail.
Cheney redided, indicted and resigned.
Uh this reaches all the way to the top.
This is not even about leaks.
Everybody knows that Washington has leaks, not about that.
This is about the criminality of the whole Iraq War.
Patrick Fitzgerald, he's gonna get to the bottom of this and is gonna upset this White House, and Bush is gonna be running this White House all by himself.
We can't wait to nail Bush.
We hate Bush, we don't like Bush whatsoever.
We're gonna get all these people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, also today, the Saddam Hussein trial started.
And it's amazing to contrast the media coverage of the Saddam Trail, who is a mass murderer, a man who's used poison gas and weapons of mass destruction on his own population, a man who had rape rooms and torture rooms, did not allow women any kinds of human rights or civil rights.
Very few men had them in Iraq either.
And yet, when you listen to the coverage of his trial today, you would think that this guy is unjustly accused.
You would think that he's brave and courageous.
Let's give you some samples.
Christian Amin Poor during live coverage of Saddam Hussein's trial, a portion of her report this morning.
And it was an extraordinary moment of of him and his fellow defendants greeting each other.
He was smiling, he looked quite jovial.
Uh, The defense attorneys crowded round, some of them lifting their hand in sort of a uh a greeting come salute.
Um one of the defendants, who in fact we had seen shuffle in, extremely old looking and tired and handcuffed, 90 years old, suddenly seemed to draw new life and was waving his hands around and looked like he was making some kind of supportive speech to Saddam or some kind of denouncement of this trial.
We couldn't tell, but we could see the body language.
Saddam smiling and and pointing to somebody, sort of making a uh a gesture that this somebody had grown a moustache.
All right, there's a great report uh uh on uh on a break in the action at the Saddam trial.
It's all backslapping and saluting for Saddam and his thugs.
Uh it's like a high school reunion, is all you guys all getting back together again.
These are mass murderers.
Uh here is Christian's report on the scuffle that occur.
You know, Saddam got into a little scuffle there as they're dragging him out of the courtroom, and she portrays this as a big win uh for Saddam in court today.
Then Saddam wants to leave the courtroom, and as he was trying to leave, he had to be unlocked from that row of of chairs that he's uh surrounded in.
You know, there's white metal like a cage around it.
He was unlocked from that, allowed out, and then two or three of the Iraqi guards tried to grab his arms and walk him out.
Well, for a period of about 30 seconds, he essentially stared them down.
He pulled back his arm and basically said you could see his body language in his hands, telling them to back off.
It wasn't violent, it wasn't loud, it wasn't noisy, and it wasn't with much gesticulation.
But he stared them down, and he walked out with them on either side rather than them handling him.
So Saddam asserted himself like the man that he is, and he refused to let these Iraqi thug guards man handle him.
And then Christian prattles on about how poor old Saddam is reuniting with old friends, his old butchers and mass murderers.
No, I think the both are true.
He did come in looking fairly, I think, slower, more shuffly than when I saw him come into his initial hearing in the summer of 2004.
He looks more tired, he looks slightly more bent, um and and slightly more shuffly.
Uh he is a he's an elderly man, not that old, but he looks older than his years.
But the the the smiling in that in that off-camera moment was more uh reuniting with old allies and friends, and we believe that he may not have seen them up until now.
When we we believe, um, we're trying to get that confirmed that he has not had the opportunity to intermingle with other uh others on the most wanted list who've been arrested or other of his co-defendants.
Uh unbelievable.
All this sympathy for Saddam Hussein, all this understanding, what a wonderful day for Saddam on trial, and yet he's reunited with his old butchers and thought uh allies.
And it's such a wonderful day in the neighborhood, and it was so wonderful to see Saddam looking so well and uh acting so brave.
Contrast this uh with with uh with who Saddam is and and how the uh members of the Bush administration who've testified before the grand jury in this CIA case uh are being treated by the mainstream press.
But here is the PS there as these things.
Elizabeth Vargas, ABC's World News Tonight, last night, reporting on the trial of Saddam Hussein.
Now keep in mind, the media has already convicted Carl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney, along with Tom Delay.
Here's Vargas's report.
Saddam Hussein will go on trial for the first time tomorrow, twenty-two months after he was dragged from an underground bunker.
Many Iraqis are eager to see him in the docks, finally held accountable for atrocities committed by his regime.
But already human rights groups are worried about the fairness of the trial.
Oh, yes, and so are we at ABC, and so are we at CNN, and so are we at NBC, and so are we at CBS.
Will Saddam get a fair trial?
Seems to be the overriding question.
Will Saddam butcher a murderer, a thug get a fair trial?
And yet, when are we gonna get Cheney in jail?
And when are we gonna get Rove indicted?
Where do these indictments coming out?
What are we gonna prove that this war was a bunch of lies?
What are we gonna prove that this whole thing is a criminal conspiracy?
This whole war.
The side-by-side comparison striking, is it not?
A quick timeout, we'll be back, and I prompt we're gonna do the Louis Free stuff next.
Again, I've been promising for two days it's next.
Stay with us.
Okay, now on to Louis Free.
Uh uh fulfilling a commitment made to you on Monday.
There's a uh review of his book, My FBI Bringing Down the Mafia, investigating Bill Clinton and Fighting the War on Terror in the Washington Times today by uh uh Joseph Goulden.
And the interesting uh passage from the uh from uh this review.
Let me give you the first paragraph and go to the interesting passage.
Okay, let's cut right to the chase.
Your primary interest in my FBI, the memoir by uh FBI director during the Clinton administration is not drug smuggling cases, however, it's interesting.
Um, or even the inspiring story of how a kid from New Jersey became a star FBI street agent, a federal prosecutor, federal district judge, and finally an FBI director.
So just go directly to page 245, Bill and Me, which recounts Louis Free's side of the most interesting feud I've seen in Washington since LBJ squared off with Bobby Kennedy in the 1960s.
Mr. Free made the first of several moves to keep his distance from Bill Clinton.
He declined to come to a White House movie viewing and meet actor Tom Hanks, Mrs. Free a Hanks fan was upset about it.
Even more infuriating to the president, he refused a personal White House pass.
Because Free says I wanted every visit I made to be part of some public record.
This refusal, he heard offended Bill Clinton mightily, but worse was to come.
In November 1997, Mr. Free sent the Attorney General Janet Reno a 27-page memo about allegations of illicit fundraising during the 96 campaign.
Much soft money came into the Clinton Gore camp from alarming sources, including the People's Republic of China.
Miss Reno refused Mr. Free's recommendation that an independent counsel run the case.
Then the president made a mistake.
In an offhand remark to the press, he claimed that had the FBI briefed the White House, he would have ensured that there was no undue influence involved.
But as Mr. Free writes, two FBI agents had briefed Rand Beers, a senior National Security Council staff member.
To Mr. Free, it was inconceivable that such explosive material would not have reached the president.
He writes, It it's not in my character to lose my temper, so he vetted his anger by helping to draft a press statement that said, in effect, the White House was lying.
He had sent uh the this 27-page memo to Janet Reno.
Hey, you know, it's some funny money coming into this campaign.
We need to look at it.
Reno said, No, I got it handled here.
Uh in my office.
And then Clinton said, We didn't know anything about this.
Nobody warned us about this, Randyers had been told.
Uh I still maintain that when we get way into the out years and this current generation of media sycophants who love Bill Clinton, have retired or passed from the scene.
We're gonna learn shocking details about what went on in the eight years of this administration and this free book, uh book by Louis Free.
It's just opening the book and starting on the first few pages.
We got lots of pages and chapters, I am sure yet to be written.
Let's go to meet the press.
On Sunday, Tim Russert talking to Louis Free.
The question.
Before the September 11th attacks, FBI agents were still using old 386 and 486 computers, had no internet access or FBI email after the attacks.
FBI headquarters staff had to send photographs of the 19 hijackers to the 56 field offices by FedEx because they lack scanners.
Top managers, including Louis Free, didn't use computers and weren't chagrined about it, says the Justice Department's inspector general.
Ron Kessler in his book, The Bureau, said that you had the computer removed from your office.
What about it, Free?
Oh, that's ridiculous.
First of all, he was never in my office.
The computer was behind my desk.
We had an abysmal information technology system, and I take a lot of responsibility for that.
But it wasn't just the technology.
Let's look at the attorney general guidelines before September 11.
If on September 10th, uh Bin Laden was going to hold a rally in the sheet meadow of Central Park, an FBI agent couldn't go and stand in the crowd and listen to him.
Because Attorney General Guidelines, which were put in place actually Appropriately many years ago because the FBI did illegal things that it shouldn't have done, those guidelines would have prevented an FBI agent, Louis Free, from standing there and listening to a fatwa about killing Americans anywhere.
The reality of it is we've treated terrorism like a crime before September 11th.
And when in Cobar, we didn't prosecute that case.
We didn't vigorously prosecute that case.
The reason I think that's so important is that this wasn't uh this wasn't a Hezbollah group.
This was the Iranian government that did this.
And we reached a point where the Iranians knew that we knew they had murdered those young men, and we did nothing.
Yeah, we did nothing, and we've showed our weakness.
And again, here's this reference to the way the Clinton administration fought terrorism and fought it legally.
Uh, we're gonna indict, we're gonna send it a grand jury, they're gonna make what they say uh off the record in private, can't be shared with any other intelligence agency.
The uh next question, Mr. Berger uh said that they did in fact act on information, and that you later acknowledged that you withheld indicting Iranians until President Clinton left office that you slow rolled the investigation, and that was not responsible.
Well, that's nonsense.
We presented the case uh to the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, who, by the way, had never prosecuted a criminal case.
And she looked at it and she said, Louis, I don't think you have a case here.
I said, With all due respect, I used to do this for a living.
We have a case.
And James Comey, when he was appointed as a prosecutor uh by John Ashcraft, he indicted the case in eight weeks with the same evidence.
Now, to your other point, uh, we prosecuted this case very hard.
We couldn't get an indictment uh during the Clinton administration.
And in terms of Sandy Berger's work, let me tell you what he did.
Talk about ineptness and compromising investigation.
Uh he writes a letter.
The President of the United States writes a letter to the Iranian president in 1999, a letter that says, We think you may be involved in the murder of our 19 Americans at Cobar.
Uh please help us, or uh you won't get better trade assistance or foreign relations by the United States.
They never told me they were writing that letter, Tim.
The President of the United States never told the Attorney General and the chief investigator that they were writing that letter.
To make it worse, and to show the ineptness, the letter was supposed to be delivered to President Hatame.
Uh they gave it to the Omanis to deliver it.
It was misdelivered.
It was delivered to the spiritual leader who went berserk.
It compromised the Saudis because it was clear from the letter that the Saudis had told us about the Iranians.
The Saudis were never told about the letter.
This is how they prosecute the case.
It would be the equivalent of the Attorney General writing John Gotti a letter and saying, uh, Mr. Gaudi, we know a couple of your capos are involved in major racketeering cases.
Could you please cooperate with us, but not telling the U.S. attorney in the FBI that was investigating the case that such a letter was being sent?
Would you be willing to debate Sandy Berger about this issue?
Absolutely.
On this program.
Absolutely.
Well, I would love to hear that.
But let's go back to this letter for a second.
Okay, so we know that the Iranians blew up our guys at the Cobar Towers, right?
So we send this letter.
Here's the tough on terrorism Bill Clinton.
You better help us or else.
You better help us because if you don't, if you don't, why we're gonna we're not gonna give you favorable trade status.
You know, why does Sandy Burglar have any credibility at all?
Why does Madeline Albright have any credibility at all?
These people, you talk about inept and incompetent and botched things up, especially burglar.
Burglar now with this uh you know purloining of documents and his underwear and socks and pants from the National Archives.
But that's uh that's Louis Free, and he is not backing down at all.
And it sounds like he has got the goods, and he is eager to get the word out.
Michael in Wilmington, Delaware, as we go back to the phones, you're next, and welcome to the program, sir.
Thank you, Rush, and it's an honor to speak with you.
Thank you.
My concern is that with us looking at this Carl Rove and the Lay and Frisk, that we're losing focus and we're losing point.
And I don't think Chris Matthews and his group are as dumb as what we think they are.
I think they know nobody said they're dumb.
No, no, no.
I I think they know it's nothing, Rush.
But they're taking our agenda and they're destroying it.
They're getting people like yourself, our leader, To spend too much time on this.
It's nonsense.
And we have tax reform that we must look at.
And we have Social Security reform, which has to be done.
And we have immigration problems.
And we have very important problems in this country.
And if we look backwards, we're going to keep tripping.
And they're trying to set us up for the sixth election and the eight election and say, you see, it's a scandal.
It's the they're they're a crazy White House.
The Republicans can't get anything done.
They had the Congress.
They had the Senate.
And what do they do with it?
Did they give you tax reform?
Did they give you Social Security form?
No.
And Hillary is going to run into this or whatever other person.
Someone's going to get it.
Okay.
Okay, I got I got the gist of it.
I'll come back after the uh break and address this yet again.
Okay, I I must admit getting calls uh such as the most recent call from Michael in Wilmington, Delaware depresses me.
Uh my my first reaction to Michael is trust your leader.
Me, Michael.
I have not been taken off my agenda here.
We talk about it all.
I was the first to inform you of what's happening with this so-called tax reform commission.
I was the first to tell you yesterday of the administration's shift on illegal immigration.
Why do you think this is happening?
Because people are applying pressure.
I was the first to inform you about the union busting deal that the union agreed to with General Motors that is nothing more than a harbinger of what's to come on Social Security, which takes a long time to change.
We did give it a shot.
It was missold.
It was sold as a security as as a as an ownership issue rather than a security issue, but it can be retaken to the American people and it will.
This program is devoted to the advancement of the conservative agenda.
And everybody listening to it knows it.
But we also do a lot more on this program.
We do media analysis.
And we point out how the left is baseless and they are empty and they have no agenda of their own.
I am not a pessimist.
I am not going to sit here.
I don't subscribe to the theory that a lot of people do that the media is smarter than we are, and that the media is distracting us and they're taking us off our game, and they're destroying our ability to lead, and they're just and they're and they're certainly not destroying mine.
I can't speak for the White House on this.
But the the the bottom the bottom line here is that the White House has advanced tax cuts.
The White House has not wavered on the war.
The White House has done some things that we all wish they hadn't done on spending and this sort of thing.
But the uh the fact that the media knows what they're doing here and they're setting up this big election where the Republicans had control and didn't do anything, and so we get it back to the Democrats in 06 and 08.
We can combat that with facts.
We can combat this with facts.
Now there are some, you don't get everything you want all the time.
And we all know that even those who we elect, and we're very proud of, or we're very excited about.
They go to Washington and a lot of times they wimp out.
We talk about that.
We try to buck them up.
Buck them up with a B. We do everything we can to keep people focused.
There's this notion here that we're being sidetracked by all this.
This stuff deserves to be commented upon.
Like this Louis Free business.
You probably think that's a distraction, too.
It is not.
What we are doing is demonstrating the absolute vacancy of ideas of the left.
We are demonstrating they have no agenda about which they can be honest.
They are giving nobody any reason to vote for them other than throw the other guys out.
Well, that's old hat.
And the other guys who apparently have done nothing are going to be able to say they've done some things.
There is this Myers nomination.
I keep getting back to this.
The Harriet Myers nomination is going to make it tougher to carry this agenda forward for some supporters of the president who are just going to want to bail on this, but I'm not among them when it comes to the conservative agenda.
And I'm not I'm not of that of that stripe.
So here again, a reminder, President Bush said yesterday, via Chertoff, that his goal is eventually to expel every single illegal alien from the U.S. As his administration pressed Congress to pass a guest worker program.
Why do you think this happened?
Might be because of the Myers nomination.
I submit to you, it's because people are focused on the agenda.
And people are trying to keep their leaders focused on what is important.
Then we have another story.
I was the first to tell you about the Bush Commission on reforming the tax code.
Here's the latest news on that.
This work is being done.
Some of the ideas this commission has are flat out loony.
We want to eliminate the whole mortgage deduction.
Well, you know, in the real world, I guess that's okay, but I mean that's that's that first thing they came out with is not going to fly.
It's not going to go anywhere.
Here's the latest.
The panel staff said the first proposal outlined yesterday would simplify the income tax code by reducing the current six bracket structure to four brackets, rates of 15, 25, 30, and 33%.
75% of Americans would pay the 15% rate.
The highest rate paid of the current six bracket system is 35%.
The proposal, according to the staff of this commission, uh would also eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which is really what a lot of people are focused on, because this thing was focused purposely alternative minimum tax was to nail the so-called rich who weren't paying a dime.
The alternative minimum tax is now ensnaring practically everybody or has a chance to, and that doesn't bode well for any politician.
So they're making a proposal to get away, uh do away with that.
This it dates back to 1969, by the way.
And the whole reason, as I say for the alternative minimum tax, was there were a few hundred families who were considered wealthy at the time who didn't pay anything in taxes.
So we came up with the uh the AMT, we're gonna nail them, even though they had followed the letter of the law in the tax code.
Somehow that's not right.
We're gonna close these loopholes with the AMT.
Uh in addition, uh, ladies and gentlemen, uh, they want to eliminate the deduction of state and local taxes.
Now, this is that that that will be extremely interesting to watch how that plays out.
Because when you eliminate the deduction for state and local income taxes, uh, you know, this this provides a perverse incentive for high-tax states to preserve inflated income tax rates subsidized at the federal level by those states able to provide services with lower taxes.
Observers yesterday pointed out that the elimination of the state and local tax deduction would be required to offset the revenue lost by the abolition of the AMT.
And so they're still hung up on this whole notion of you know, we gotta offset the revenue.
We can't do with less revenue, we just gotta come up with new tricks uh of getting it.
So if they reduce or get rid of the AMT, uh oh, we're losing money.
Can't have that happen, so how are we gonna get it back?
We'll eliminate the deduction of state and local taxes.
Now, the states are not going to be happy about that.
This is also convoluted.
It is also irre but it, and by the way, this is not what I don't think this is the real intent the president had when he appointed this commission.
He was really looking at the the pure simplification of the tax code with either a fair tax or just a flat tax.
You know, reducing the actual size of the tax code and and whittling it down to where you don't need, you know, batteries of lawyers working around the clock year-round in order to figure out what your taxes are.
But to say that the agenda is not moving forward and that work is not being done on it is uh uh is incorrect.
So I I think the thing that that I don't know, offends me or bothers me most is this continuing assumption here that we are being played for fools by a smarter than the world left-wing media, who's saying all these things they know aren't true.
In other words, Chris Matthews' real agenda is not to get Rove in jail and Cheney in jail and so forth.
It's to distract the conservatives from accomplishing their agenda, and he's playing us like a fiddle and a violin.
And I'm sorry I don't have that view of these beyond.
I don't have that view of the Democrats.
So many of you have been around a long time, and you think the Democrats always do everything perfectly.
Every strategy they come up with is perfectly brilliantly executed, flawlessly designed, and it's it we always ensnares us because we don't have the ability to look ahead to see what they're really doing, what their objectives are, and I'm telling you, they're not that organized.
They're the ones in the midst of a crackup.
Now, in terms of 2006 and 2008, I can only do, and those of us who do what I do can only do so much, we're not running for office out there.
And let me let me go on the other side of this.
Let me share with you a story that infuriates me.
It's in the New York Times, so uh until I can confirm this as true, we'll have to just go on the assumption that it's true because it's in the New York Times.
Here's the headline.
Senate panel drops plan to cut back food program.
We talked about this last week.
They wanted to cut some $500 billion or $500 million from the food stamp program from other programs because the money wasn't being used anyway.
They're advertising for the food stamp program.
And it was it it wasn't a cut anyway.
It's just a cut in how much more money was going to be spent.
Well, here's the story.
And again, they say this is from the New York Times.
Fearing a backlash over spending reductions that could be portrayed as singling out the poor.
A Senate panel on Tuesday dropped plans to cut the food stamp program by more than 500 million dollars as Congress embarked on a contentious round of budget cuts.
Kent Williams or Keith Williams, a spokesman for the Agriculture Committee, said the action came at the request of several committee members who had reservations about an effort that could have cut off food stamps to an estimated 300,000 people who aren't using them anyway.
So we can't even cut 500 million.
Do you know that is not even a measurable percentage of the 2.6 trillion dollars we're spending?
We can't even cut 500 million that's not even being used.
We at our story last week pointed out how $2 billion wasn't being used.
And they were trying to sign more people up for the food stamp program.
We weren't even trying to eliminate the total amount of money not being used, just 25% of it.
And lo and behold, here comes some critics.
You are being cold hearted to the poor.
So I read a story like this and I say, if it's true, where's the backbone?
Why can't these people in the Senate, the Republicans, stand up and say, no, this has nothing to do with the poor.
It has to do with the saving money.
We keep hearing you every day talking about all the size of the deficit and how much waste there is and how much spending there's going on.
We're trying to trim some back.
We're trying to pay for Hurricane Katrina.
We're trying to pay for Hurricane Rita.
We may have Hurricane Wilma to pay for.
We're trying to cut a little bit.
And then we cut, well, we can't cut here because it's going to affect the poor.
We can't cut there because it's going to affect women.
Can't cut there because it's going to affect animals.
Can't cut there because it's going to affect the environment.
If I had my way, these guys would stand up and tell these these unknown critics where to go.
It's $500 million.
It's not $500 million less than what was going to be spent.
It's $500 million, or the what was spent, $500 million lopped off of an already sizable increase.
This is the same Senate that voted to increase spending on college.
We can't cut, but boy, we can spend more.
And this, see, folks, this is the dirty rotten shame about all this.
It is spending that buys votes.
It's spending that secures power.
It's spending that does all of this.
So, I mean, not everything happening out there makes me feel like it's hunky dory to bowl of cherries.
But uh the idea that the the uh that some people not advancing the agenda because they're being distracted by what the media is doing with this Valerie Plame investigation.
Let me tell you something, folks.
If you don't think it's important that the left who can't win at the ballot box are trying to criminalize the things that we believe, then you have got your priorities wrong, and we're trying to straighten them out for you.
Quick timeout will be back.
Stay with us.
Thank you, folks.
Great to have you with us.
Rushlin bought talent on loan from God.
Okay, so the mainstream press is distracting us.
We are falling for another one of their brilliant tricks, eh?
Try this headline from CBS Market Watch.
New York Times profits drop fifty-two percent.
New York Times company on Wednesday reported a 52% decline in third quarter profit because of expenses related to job cuts announced earlier this year and ongoing weakness at its New England media properties.
The New York Times said that it took a pre-tax charge of twelve point four million related to a plan announced in May to eliminate two hundred nonessential positions.
On an after-tax basis, the charge was seven and a half million or five cents a share.
Advertising revenue rose four percent to five hundred and eighteen million dollars, Excluding about.com, the online information provider, the New York Times recently acquired ad revenue was up only one point three percent in the newspaper of record.
The Times Company said a pattern of stronger ad growth in its smaller newspapers and its large markets continued in the third quarter.
Ad revenue with the New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe, declined 3%.
Circulation revenue fell 6%.
Lower ad sales reflected continuing softness in the Boston economy.
The company's TV stations revenue fell 5.4% due to the absence of political and Olympic related advertising that lifted results a year earlier.
The New York Times expects 2005 ad revenue to be up by a low single digit percentage over 2004, while circulation revenue is seen being flat to down slightly.
Why don't we think that they are distracted?
You think they don't think they've got their own problems.
They can't sell ads, they can't sell newspapers.
More and more people are deciding not to read them.
It just keeps unfolding right before our very eyes.
Tom and Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, home of the Book of the Month Club.
Welcome to the EIB network, sir.
Hello.
Hey, Rush, thank you.
I love you, man.
I saw you on Hannity last night.
You looked great.
It was good to see you back on TV.
Thank you, sir.
I'm thinking uh, in terms, I'm going back to uh Cindy Sheehan.
And I recall that uh Hill Billy's husband uh did a sister soldier thing when he was campaigning to distance himself from the left.
And I'm thinking this Cindy Sheehan is maybe a coordinated reverse sister soldier to make remake Hillary, make her remake more credible.
Well, see, I understand that people think this.
Uh and and it it it it sort of dovetails with uh what I was just describing.
Some people think that the left conceives brilliant strategies, they're always a step or two ahead of us, and that Cindy Sheehan is just a pawn, a willing pawn to make Hillary Clinton look more uh attractive to moderate mainstream voters and so forth.
Now I I I I can't disagree with this any more than I do already.
Cindy Sheehan is the darling of the Democrat Party base.
The Democratic Party, you're gonna trust me on this, folks.
Uh you I if you if you don't spend the time I do reading these people and exposing yourself to who they are and what they think and where they this is George Soros.
This is Michael Moore, this is MoveOn.org.
This is all these blogs on the left.
They have become the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
They're the biggest financial contributors.
They're the ones that determine what Democrats say.
And I'm telling you what, the number one agenda to them is this war.
They think it's they think it's unjust, ignoble, it's criminal, they want us out of there.
They think it's horrible, they don't want us to win this war, and they are upset.
They are genuinely upset, and I predicted long ago that the standard bearer of this party, whoever it is in 2008, if this person's not an anti-war candidate, there is going to be there gonna be friction within the Democratic Party.
I don't expect the mainstream press to report this honestly or frequently, but it's true.
The idea that that somebody's got Cindy Sheehan out there saying Hillary sounds like me, uh, i i i i uh is an effort to make her more attractive.
People on our side are too sophisticated and knowledgeable now to understand to believe that Hillary Clinton's actually morphing into a conservative when it comes to the war or anything else.
So I am I'm uh I'm as convinced as I ever was that Cindy Sheehan is honest.
She's got her cadre of supporters who are being honest.
Uh, and and they're if if they're being used as tools, they are not aware of it.
They're not part of any kind of strategy in which they are participating.
And I uh I do think that mainstream Democrats in Washington, if to the extent that they exist, don't like that Cindy Sheehan and her crowd are the leading voices of the party, and there may be some resistance to them, and that may be what this is, and it's driving these left wingers nuts out there.
It's all something to watch.
But this idea they're a well-oiled machine, smooth operating, brilliantly executed, flawlessly conceived strategies, it's not who they are anymore, folks.
Okay, we got some more Harriet Myers coming up.
▲
Export Selection