All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:58
October 20, 2005, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right, we are back, and we are hot.
We are sizzling, folks.
I hope you can stand the heat.
We're in the kitchen.
My finger is on the thermostat.
Greetings and welcome back.
Rush Limbaugh, America's Anchorman, your guiding light.
The Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies at 800-282-2882.
Great to have you with us today, folks.
Seriously, we've been talking a little bit about this speech Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell gave at this Lib Think Tank recently, the New America Foundation.
And his whole point was that the America's foreign policy has been has been hijacked by the by the Bush Cheney cabalt.
Would somebody explain to me?
No.
Let me explain to Mr. Wilkerson.
Mr. Wilkerson, you people at the State Department are not elected by anybody to do diddly squat.
You are appointed.
The people who are elected, in this case, Bush and Cheney, are supposed to be in control of U.S. foreign policy.
They are responsible for U.S. foreign policy.
The very idea that a State Department hack can go out and give a speech to a bunch of libs and basically whine and moan about the fact that foreign policy has been hijacked.
Who the heck do they think they are at the State Department?
If that doesn't give you any indication the type people that are over there, nothing else will.
How in the world do the elected president and vice president hijack anything?
Where in the Constitution does it say that American foreign policy is under the express sole control and discretion of the State Department?
Where does it say that?
Well, I'll give you a hint.
It doesn't.
The commander in chief, what more do you need to know about the role of the previous is all academic.
It's it's it's it's sophomoric.
These are a bunch of kids who've had their own way for a whole long period of time, and now the adults have come in and said, you know, you've messed up the sandbox.
We're gonna make you clean up your room here.
So a bunch of adults have walked in and told the kids to shape up or ship out, and the kids are saying, You can't get into me, screw you, Dad.
And they're going everything they can to sabotage dad.
Bunch of malcontent 60s type parents, kids, whatever, who've grown up, despite whatever stellar careers they've had, actually laboring under the illusion that the State Department runs American foreign policy.
And the president is just an innocent bystander.
And when the president tries to assert control over foreign policy, he's hijacking it.
Let's go back to the audio.
Oh, folks, there's something very interesting going on in the Senate right now.
An amendment has been offered by Senator Coburn.
Here is basically what the amendment says.
This amendment will transfer funding from the wasteful pork project, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, to the repair and reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge in Louisiana.
According to published reports, the Alaskan pork project cost $220 million for a 5.9 mile bridge connecting an island, Gravina Island Population 50 to the Alaskan mainland.
The cost of this bridge, 220 million dollars alone, would be enough to buy every resident of Gravina Island his own personal learjet.
So Coburn has offered an amendment.
The amendment says, We're going to transfer funding from the wasteful pork project, Bridge Nowhere, and other things, and spent this is just Coburn's way of making senators take a stand on trying to get a handle on some of the out-of-control spending that has been going on.
And guess what?
A bunch of Democrat senators have taken to the floor, one of them, uh Patty Murray, has threatened to any senator who votes for the Coburn Amendment will have a block placed on any of the projects in his state.
Anyone want to talk about the politics of corruption?
Anyone want to anybody want to discuss here the culture of corruption that might be going on in the U.S. Senate?
This is a great amendment by Tom Coburn, and it's uh as the as our friends at redstate.org say This may be a hill to die on.
I mean, meaning get behind this.
This is the best thing that has come down the pike in a while, aside from what Mike Pence is doing over in the house, uh, to try to call these people out.
I mean, the the very people, the Democrats are sitting around and complaining about all the deficit spending and how Bush is breaking the bank when it comes to their little pork projects.
And remember, the limbaugh plan for repairing and uh fixing New Orleans and Louisiana was to go to this very bill, get all the highway bill, get all the pork projects out of it, and take that money and put it to work down in Louisiana, and therefore we wouldn't be out anything.
Wouldn't need to raise taxes, wouldn't need to cut spending elsewhere.
We could just do that.
But it ain't gonna fly if any of these senators and certain members of the House have anything to say about it.
It's the Coburn Amendment.
And what they're simply trying to do is illustrate the hypocrisy of senators who who who rail against the deficit when it comes time to do something about it won't actually do it.
And uh apparently there's some fireworks going on well, fireworks Patty Murray and and others are standing up to try to threaten any senator who votes for this uh with uh with cuts uh and no deals on any of the future action they want to take place uh in uh in their own states.
Let's go back to the audio sound bites.
I want to get back to Valerie Plame, the CIA leak and uh in this Fitzgerald investigation, because it it is tied in here with a couple phone calls we've received today, and also strangely enough, I believe it's tied in with the whole Larry Wilkerson issue, not his speech and not him personally, but the whole mindset that exists.
There is an apparatus of liberal apparatus in the United States government who have made it their job to take out George W. Bush.
They've made it their objective to destroy his presidency.
And I don't care whether it's Kai's at the State Department or at the Pentagon and the CIA are trying to do it, or whether it's Joe Wilson.
That is what is at stake here.
And the the effort being made by the mainstream press to pile on here and accomplish this while at the same time worrying about whether Saddam Hussein gets a fair trial is just a bit much to take.
So I want you to hear the latest examples of the outrageous and egregious overstepping of bounds that's taking place on cable TV.
Here is how Chris Matthews opened hardball last night.
Tonight on hardball, we try to figure it out again.
If people in the Bush administration crossed the line separating political hardball, tough clean Machiavellian politics and criminality.
What did the president know and when did he know it?
Oh, yeah, Chris, let's go back and try to recreate Watergate.
Let's go back to the glory days.
Exactly what I've told you.
The entirety of the Bush administration, these people is Watergate.
There was a voice of reason that Matthews had on last night, Deborah Orin from the New York Post.
Matthew says, What do you make of this whole thing?
Right up until this conversation, right now.
What do you make of it, Deborah?
I think the important thing to remember is how much we don't know.
And the Washington Post had a really, I thought, interesting editorial.
This is after all the paper that broke Watergate, saying, Whoa, hold on, everybody.
We do not know any laws were broken.
We do know that some hardball politics was played, but that's legal in this town.
And the most important thing we don't know is the original source for the identity of Joe Wilson's wife.
I mean, we don't know who Bob Novak's first source was.
We know Novak has said that it was no partisan gunslinger.
That means it was obviously not Rove, and presumably not Libby either, and presumably not the latest name on the rumor mill John Hanna.
None of them, all of them are partisan.
So I think once you that and that's the central thing.
That is where the original leak to the press came from.
We're all jumping to an awful lot of conclusions.
It has been learned because there are people talking, apparently lawyers for some of the people who have testified.
Uh when Rove went in there for his last time, he was shown testimony of Scooter Libby.
And uh Scooter Libby uh uh was I think if I got this right, uh said that uh he told Rove, or the Rove said he found out about it from Scooter.
Libby a scooter Libby said he heard her from Tim Russert.
Scooter Libby said that he learned Valerie Plame's identity from Tim Russert.
Tim Russers said I didn't know who she was.
So I couldn't have told Scooter Libby who she was because they didn't know who she was.
But Libby told Roe that it was Russert, but but Rove said it was Libby that told him who her identity was.
It's all up, it's it's it's it's the word, it's not moot because it certainly isn't moot, but it's it's it's just ridiculous.
She wasn't even covert.
Victoria Tenzing, who helped write this law, has been all over television trying to get anybody who will listen to to understand the that the law that she helped write has not been violated here because Victoria or Valerie Plain was not covert.
And the people that released her name didn't know she was covert either, and that was part of the law.
So what this thing originally started out as not what it's become.
Now it's who knew and who told who what, and uh Newt Gingrich last night had a had a pretty good point.
He was on Hannity and Combs.
He was trying to explain this to Combs.
He said, Look, I don't know what's going on, and I'm gonna wait to find out, just like we're all saying uh what happened here.
But it's one thing if a hard actual violation of law was taking place.
But Newt said, the problem I have with this is we have an investigation of a crime, and in the process of the investigation, we find there was no crime, but we're gonna find a crime in the process of the investigation.
In other words, we're gonna bring people in for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of testimony.
We're gonna conclude no law was broken, but then we're gonna say they are criminal because they violated some sort of uh or they they they they they changed their testimony or they committed perjury or some other thing, and he said it's a dangerous thing when the process of an investigation leads to guilt when the original crime cannot be proved to have been committed.
Am I making this clear?
Newton said it a little bit better than I did, but you know in other words, folks, no real crime happened here, as far as anybody can tell.
So what everybody's talking about, what crimes occurred in the process of the investigation.
In other words, all these people were brought in.
Did some of them lie?
Did some of them get crossed up?
Did uh did did some people say things that uh turned out to be not to be true?
Does that constitute a cover-up?
That would be one thing if there's a genuine cover-up of something, but with no crime having been committed, what in the world um is it is at stake here?
And that is a dangerous thing when all of a sudden the and that you know, this is this is how they got Martha Stewart uh w when they go and get a conviction on something totally unrelated to what they're looking at that occurs in the process of their investigation.
Once again, it it just it constitutes out-of-control prosecutorial power.
Now, I don't know that that's happened here, but it's what Newt says he's concerned about as he watches all these things unfold before our very eyes.
Quick timeout, we gotta go, but we will be back and continue in just a moment.
Wanak Key, Wisconsin, up next, this is Don.
Hello, sir.
Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.
Nice to have you with us.
Thank you, and a longtime listener since year one.
Thank you, sir.
A point on Joe Wilson uh Rush that I like to make.
Uh there was a 511-page report issued on July 7th of 2004, and it related to the buildup of in the foundation for Bush's case uh to go to war.
It was published by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee, signed by every Republican and Democratic senator.
There was a 48-page section in this 511-page report report that basically blew Wilson out of the water.
Uh, you know, going into immense detail on virtually every statement that he had made publicly from the beginning of his trip till the end, and it was basically uh 99% false.
Now, the interesting part of this is two weeks after this report came out, now I took the time to read it, okay?
The New York Times had a detailed article about uh this this issue, never mentioned one word about this report and all of the uh falsities and lies that Wilson came out with.
I also nailed him on a local radio talk show here when he came to Madison, you know, stomping for Kerry.
Yeah, he couldn't answer either one of my two major points.
And I would like to make one final point.
George Ann Geyer had an interview with Joe Wilson about a Week after his New York Times uh editorial, which was one year before the report came out, uh, July 6th, 2003.
And she said, Well, why did it take you so long to uh, you know, write this article and come out with a fact.
You know what he said?
He said, Well, it was such a minor point compared to all the other major reasons we needed to take the the Saddam uh regime out.
He'd forgotten about it.
And then how could the press make such a mountain of this?
And how could they not point out all of the falsities that was proven in the very exhaustive study by the Senate?
Because it it doesn't fit the template.
It doesn't fit the template, it doesn't fit the game plan, doesn't fit the agenda.
And if nobody else is going to bring it up to them, they think they can get away with it.
I just I just want to say uh uh, and by the way, Don, thanks much for the call.
He's exactly right.
The Investors Business Daily today has a tremendous editorial uh that puts all this in perspective.
It's entitled Myths to a Plame, the case against Carl Rove.
And uh share you some excerpts.
As Patrick Fitzgerald's mandate expires, Carl Rove's only crime may be uh not that he outed Valerie Plame, but that he exposed her husband, Joe Wilson as a liar.
A case involving Rove and who leaked Plame's secret identity as a CIA employee of the press is so convoluted it's easy to forget the whole thing began with President Bush uttering sixteen words in a State of the Union speech.
The words were the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The British intelligence units, by the way, to this day stand by their intelligence.
It was these sixteen words that Wilson spent eight days in Niger investigating on behalf of the CIA, drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people.
That's in quotes, as he put it afterward, writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times, essentially claiming the Bush administration sent U.S. soldiers to Iraq to die for a lie.
Wilson, who later was a foreign affairs advisor to the Kerry campaign, turned out to be a physician in need of healing himself when it comes to truth telling.
As revealed on July 9th, 2004, that was when the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the CIA's pre-war intelligence on Iraq.
That report concluded that Joe Wilson lied when he denied that his wife got him the Niger assignment.
Valerie had nothing to do with the matter, he wrote in his book, adding, she definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.
But the Senate report says interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife suggested his name for the trip.
This included a memo that Plame herself sent to the CIA suggesting her husband.
Big lie.
Says his wife had nothing to do with sending him.
She did.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they cooked this up for the express purpose of undermining the war on Iraq and undermining the Bush presidency.
Joe Wilson, by his own admission, is a child of the 60s.
He's a 60s radical that runs around now in three-piece business suits looking respectable in double-breasted jackets.
Thanks.
And eating and dining and driving in all the right places in Washington with his blonde wife through the run through town with her convertible top down.
But he's a sixties radical that's all cleaned up.
The Senate report also said that Wilson lied when he told the Washington Post that he knew the Niger intelligence had been based on forged documents.
The CIA did not obtain the document said to be a forgery until a full eight months after Wilson's return from Niger.
Wilson told the public that Niger had denied the uranium connection, but the Senate found that Wilson's own report said that the Niger government had confirmed that Iraq had tried to buy uranium.
Well, but why why do we give a rat's rear end about saving this guy or his wife?
This guy goes over there.
He's not sent by anybody but his wife.
He's not sent by Cheney, not sent by Bush.
He goes over there, sits around for eight days, drinking sweet mint tea in his own words, chatting up old friends, comes back and says, nope, nothing to it.
But the Senate committee report says, yeah, the Niger government confirmed Iraq tried to buy uranium.
Joe Wilson came back and lied about that.
So when Carl Rove, in an email sent to Time Magazine's Matt Cooper, July 2003, said Wilson's trip to Niger for the CIA was arranged by Wilson's wife, who apparently works for the agency without providing her actual name.
He wasn't exposing Plame as An agent.
He was exposing her husband as a prevaricator.
In effect, warning Cooper and others not to take his claims seriously.
Rove was saying, don't go down that road.
The guy's a lying skunk.
While Wilson was found to have lied repeatedly, an independent British investigative committee on WMD intelligence found the intelligence was credible.
Bush's statement was well founded.
The Bush mistake was retracting those 16 words after they gave the speech to try to appease the left again.
Every time you try to do that, folks, it is just it's disastrous.
And making the complex understandable, El Rushball, America's anchor man talent on loan from God.
Washington Post has a little story today on radio ratings just released in Washington, D.C. Let me read to you the last paragraph of their story.
The liberal talk radio network carried on WWRC went from bad to non existent.
After the station recorded a mere fraction of a rating point in the spring with syndicated shows from the Liberal Talk Radio Network, Arbitron couldn't detect a measurable listenership for the station this time around.
In radio parlance, ladies and gentlemen, what this means is that in the summer book, the liberal radio network gets an asterisk.
They didn't even get a 0.1 rating.
One tenth of a point.
If you can't get that, you don't get listed.
They got an asterisk.
In uh the nation's capital.
Yeah, you would know it's like a sushi restaurant failing in Tokyo, folks.
I mean, this is this is not uh a good harbinger as it as it were.
Uh Marty in Springfield, Utah.
Hi, you're next on the EIB network.
Welcome.
Hey, Rush.
It's an honor to talk to you.
Thank you, sir.
My point is that the uh J. Rockefeller memo uh two two or three years ago that uh the Republicans uh accidentally ran across bears out exactly what you're talking about.
This is the Democrat strategy.
Uh throw up enough garbage, eventually some of it will stick, leading to try to impeach George Bush over this.
Uh and by the way, something I predicted before the election.
I said if Bush wins, there will be attempts to impeach him.
Well, you know, it's uh Marty, it's incredible that you call about this because I happen to have in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers that very Jay Rockefeller memo.
Right there.
It is dated November 6, 2003.
I say actually you can we'll link to it, by the way, you can read it too.
It's uh uh on the Hill newspaper site.
Here's the full text of the memo from the office of Senator J. Rockefeller on setting a strategy for pursuing an independent investigation of pre-war White House intelligence dealings on Iraq.
We've carefully reviewed our options under the rules, and we believe that we have identified the best approach.
Our plan is as follows.
One, pull the majority, the Republicans, pull them along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials.
We are having some success in that regard.
For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman, Pat Roberts, has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our request for information is helpful.
We don't know what we'll find, but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority.
Assiduously prepared Democrat Democratic additional views to attach to any interim or final reports.
Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear that we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with a majority.
We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence at any time, but we can only do so once.
So the memo says, let's make it look like we're bringing a majority along to Republicans, and at some point they will f they will they will obviously cease cooperating with us.
And at that point, well, since they've stopped, we have to proceed on our own.
We've exhausted every chance to work with these Republicans.
They refuse to work with us.
We're going to do an independent investigation on our own.
The best time to do This will probably be next year.
After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public.
Once we identify solid leads, the majority doesn't want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
The summary here is this.
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq.
Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
Thank you.
That many Democrats voted for they just couldn't let go of it.
So the the point here is that the Democrats have had this strategy laid out since 2003.
November of 2003.
And note that is exactly one year prior to the 2004 election.
So it was an electoral strategy, and it was uh it was designed to keep the White House off guard, keep charging it with lying, and you'll note how quickly the uh the left wing extreme well, hell not just the extremist, the whole Democratic Party is convinced that Bush lies uh constantly and uh and all the time.
Let's uh let's see.
Yeah, uh no no, you're right.
Deanna in Leesburg, Florida, you're next on the program.
Great to have you with us.
Hi there.
Hi, Rush.
Good to be here.
Uh long time listener.
I have one question to ask, and I haven't heard it asked by anyone, and that is who is the only person in the entire country who had anything to gain from Valerie Plain being quote unquote outed.
And that would be her husband.
He has a book to come out, and nobody had ever heard of him.
They were on a magazine cover, what, two weeks later, something like that?
Well, you know, along those lines, let me let me read to you one more paragraph here from the uh Investors Business Daily editorial I quoted from quite extensively earlier.
Because it gets right to your point.
Rove is said to have blown a CIA operative's cover, but didn't Joe Wilson, who was hired as a consultant by the CIA and presumably signed the routine CIA confidentiality agreement.
Didn't he blow his own cover by afterwards writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times?
And in the process of doing that, didn't he blow his wife's cover?
So th you you know what where what is the source of this?
Who we her her identity.
Somebody had to be the first to know it somewhere in this whole sordid trail of people and bodies.
I think our husband is the source.
I think he's the one that somehow got it to be leaked through someone.
I don't know how, but I don't know either.
Um had anything to gain from this.
Uh is he not?
How did Bush gain from this?
No, I did the well, so I don't think it's even makes sense to this Bush gained from this, because in my opinion, the Bush administration wasn't trying to exact any kind of revenge here.
I mean, that the the the what they were trying to do was uh apparently uh keep these reporters from believing the lies Joe Wilson was saying.
It appears it appears that the big hearted lugs in the White House were trying to help journalists maintain their reputations by not believing the words of a liar.
When will they learn?
You can't.
I don't know.
You know, it's easy to sit here outside the beltway and criticize what goes on there, but uh I just can't if put myself in in their shoes, I can't see.
I can't envision behaving as they do.
No, I can't either, but it's known enemies.
First of all, she wasn't outed, she was already.
Well, that's just you know, I can't I can't cite you the uh the places I've seen this because I've been done doing this.
It's two years old.
Yeah.
This is two years old.
And and I I've read so much in these two years, but I I can I can recall reading numerous times that who she was was known in social Washington.
Right.
These people are not hermits.
You know, they're very social people.
They wrote when they go to restaurants, they eat Outside so people driving by can see them there.
You know, they're they're they're they're they're not they're not the kind of people that try to kept themselves under cover.
No.
Uh in fact, after all this blew up, there was a I don't know if it was the cover, but there was a big picture inside, double truck picture of Joe Wilson and his wife.
She had sunglasses on.
They're driving around and they're hot rod convertible.
That was on the cover of some, I think.
It was van it was Vanity Fair.
It was Vanity Fair.
I don't know if the cover, no, okay.
It was the cover, it's Vanity Fair.
So, I mean, I guess they weren't too concerned that she was outed.
No, I don't I don't have been that she was in a very sensitive position.
If she was outed, it would it this whole thing is such a uh uh uh it's become a misunderstanding.
It's based on his lies.
I don't know, I'm talking about the whole press coverage of it.
I don't know what Patrick Fitzgerald is doing, and I'm not gonna join the chorus of those uh prejudging it.
But I appreciate the call, Deanna.
Thanks very much.
Uh Joanne in Nope nope nope, sorry.
We'll go I I misread the line.
Josh in uh in St. George, Utah.
Hello, sir.
It's great to have you with us.
How are you doing?
I'm fine, thank you.
Yeah, I just wanted to get your thoughts on the uh Kurt Weldon speech last night that I haven't heard anybody else talk about.
Able danger.
Well, uh you know, the one of the reasons I took your call here, and the reason you've been on the hole for a while is because I was planning to get to it here in this half hour because I have audio sound bites of Weldon on the floor of the house last night, uh, talking very much about this able danger business.
We've we've talked to to Kurt Weldon uh for the limbaugh letter.
Uh he is fit to be tied.
Uh people constantly say, Rush, how come you stop talking about able danger?
We haven't stopped talking about able danger.
Nothing ever leaves the table here.
When it comes back, we're on it.
We're on it, it's back.
The uh uh Weldon is convinced that the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon is doing everything they can to destroy the career of this whistleblower.
He's been told that they destroyed all the evidence of able danger.
He's learned now that there is another packet of evidence.
Let's listen to the first soundbite, a portion of his uh uh speech last night, and he's talking about the uh the new able danger officer, somebody else that nobody knows who can verify all this.
Mr. Speaker, I met with another able danger official.
I was not aware of the fitness official's knowledge because he doesn't live in the beltway.
This official, Mr. Speaker, has impeccable credentials.
I can't reveal his name today.
I will to any member of this body, any of our colleagues that want to come to me, I'll tell you privately who this official is.
And you will agree with me when I tell you his name.
He has impeccable credentials.
This official yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in a meeting in my office, told me he has never been talked to by the Pentagon.
He's never been talked to by the Defense Intelligence Agency in their supposed investigation.
He's never been talked to by the 9-11 Commission staff in their investigation.
Yet this official had a leadership position in Abel Danger.
This official told me that there's a separate cache of information collected from over 20 federal agencies in 99 and 2000 and earlier on able danger that still may exist.
Now the Pentagon has told us all this material was destroyed.
And in this new packet of information is evidence, apparently, that Mohammed Atta's identity once again can be proved to have been known one full year prior to 9-11.
We have more with two more sound bites from Congressman Weldon, and we'll get to them right after this.
Okay, two more Kurt Weldon bites from his uh speech last night on the floor of the house.
This one features him pounding on the podium as he gets really worked up.
Wolf Pritzer on CNN told my staff that a defense department employee told him that Lieutenant Colonel Schaefer was having an affair with one of my employees.
How low can we go to the Alvis Defense Department to try to ruin the reputation and the personal life of a lieutenant colonel with a bronze star?
He doesn't even know my staff to accuse him of stealing pins when he was fifteen to take away his health care benefits for his two kids.
Because he's telling the truth.
What do we stand for, Mr. Speaker, if not the truth?
Is it more important that we be politically correct?
But I don't want to be here.
I'll leave.
I'll leave my post.
But I'm not going to do it until we get justice for this man and for these people who the 9-11 Commission called historically insignificant.
There's something wrong inside the beltway.
There's something desperately wrong when a military officer risks his life in Afghanistan time and again embedded with our troops under an assumed name with a false beard and a false identity.
Four deployed with our troops, gets castigated, gets ridiculed, gets some low life scum at the Pentagon, spreading malicious lies about this individual.
Congressman, that's how it works.
He's got some uh he's got some it put some pressure on somebody's turf.
Somebody who just you know wanted to sit there and go along with life and not upset any apple carts.
He's talking about Lieutenant uh, I think it's uh Tony Schaeffer, is who he's talking about here.
Uh well I spoke to him for the interview in the Limbaugh Letter, he was this agitated, and you can tell he's not gonna let this go.
And I, you know, for all this talk about the Democrats and their culture of corruption, let me tell you a word the culture of corruption is in these career positions in places like the CIA and like the Pentagon and like the State Department.
It is obvious there's more to 9-11 than we want uh than is uh that they want us to know.
It's it's obvious that the people who conducted the investigation into it had as their primary objective to protect people's positions of power and cast blame somewhere.
You'll note that no heads have rolled, nobody's been fired.
And now this guy, Tony Schaefer, and this new unnamed official, who apparently everybody would know and immediately would believe is credible, also can validate what the others of this unit are saying.
And the 911 staff, the Pentagon, the DIA not interested.
The simple reason why they're not interested, it upsets the Apple cart.
They thought they had this handled.
And some people are so outraged and upset by it that they're coming forth and they are risking everything.
Here's more pounding on the podium.
Our final bite from Congressman Weldon.
This is not about the DIA, it's not about the CIA, it's about CYA.
It's about CYA by bureaucrats and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and possibly some political operatives that don't want the facts to come out about able danger and the information that the Able Danger team put together.
And in the process, they're going to destroy a man.
A man who has been recognized by his country, who has a family, and who simply wants to do the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, what's happening here is unacceptable.
It's unimaginable.
It's un American.
And it will not go away.
Weldon, I guarantee you, will not let this go away.
One quick note before the break here uh Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat Washington, has suggested giving the president the power to set retail gasoline prices.
Senator Byron Helmut Head Dorgan complains that companies are profiting in an extraordinary way at the expense of the American consumer.
Do you know, by the way, how much the American oil companies have spent on compliance alone in the last ten years?
Over the last decade, the oil industry has invested 47 billion dollars to comply with new environmental controls rather than construct new capacity, according to the American Petroleum Institute.
Compliance with sulfur standards alone cost about 20 billion dollars over four years.
Rules involving the additive MTBE, including potential liability for water contamination, raise costs as well.
Forty seven billion dollars on compliance alone.
And Sir Maria Cantwell suggests giving the president the power to set retail gas prices.
They make that back in a day.
I don't care if they make it back in the day, but the point is.
Oh, never mind.
Just being a broken record.
House of Representatives says that if you supersize your fries on your waistline, don't blame the food sellers.
By a vote of 307 to 119, it easily approved a measure, neat nicknamed a cheeseburger bill to prevent people from suing restaurants and food sellers for obesity related problems.
Hubbahubba.
It's about time for some common sense.
It's a shame we have to use Congress for this, but whatever it takes, we'll do it.
Back in just a second.
That's it, folks.
It's over.
I know you want more, and you shall have it.
Twenty one hours from now when we see each other again on Open Line Friday.
I will look forward to it.
▲
Export Selection