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

Time Text
Okay, it's back by popular demand, the ditto cam back up and running.
And for those of you who uh are subscribers at Rushlimba.com, it's available, will be available for the remainder of the program if you want to watch it.
The um phone number if you want to call the program's 800-282-2882.
And about that, there are a lot of you on hold, and I I'm gonna get to you as soon as possible, so please, if you have the time, stay there.
I'm gonna uh run through as much of this next as I can as quickly as I can because it is a rehash.
Some of it is a rehash from things we did last week.
But don't let that say oh, I heard this, I can go do something else.
It's it's uh uh it's uh just important to have all this at your beck and call.
It'll be up on the website again so you can immediately re uh retrieve it if you need to do so.
We'll start with audio sound bites, a couple of them that I want you to hear.
First off on Hardball last night, Andrea Mitchell.
And this is uh d just another little indication that the media is not crazy about what the Democrats did yesterday.
They know that it's phony, they know that it was a trumped up stunt, and they're beginning to understand that even the these Democrats getting harder and harder to sell, harder and harder to promote, harder and harder to uh to ally with.
I mean, they're gonna keep doing it, but it's getting harder and harder because at some point you know you when you are allying with people who refuse to accept reality and they are living a lie, daily immersing themselves in a lie.
You don't want to go in that lie with them, even though you're their best friend.
You try to talk them out of it and and steer them out of it.
And that's, I think uh in large part where some of the mainstream media finds itself.
Matthews asks Andrew Mitchell, is there a legitimate case to be made by the minority Democrats that hey, back when we voted to give the president the authority to go to war, we thought certain things were true.
In other words, that Saddam Hussein had a nuclear potential.
He was working on a nuclear weapons program.
Subsequently, we found out he didn't.
More recently, we've discovered the person who put out that story was a man who's now charged with lying under oath, as though Scooter Libby was the only guy that put the story out.
But don't let the question worry you be folks.
The same things that George W. Bush was saying leading up to the uh Iraq war in 2002, 2000, whenever it's when did it start?
2003.
Whenever it started, the run-up to it, Bush said those things.
Well, they were identical things said by Bill Clinton and Democrats, and I've got a list of these things, and I'm gonna regale them uh in or you with them in just a second.
But here's Andrew Mitchell's answer to that question.
I think that's disingenuous because they are members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, they're members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Um aside from Joe Biden and Dick Luger, how many of them really looked intensively at it?
I think that they didn't want to look under that rock because they didn't want to vote against uh a war at a time when we had been hit by 9-11.
A tougher assessment than my own.
Thank you, Andrew.
I think you're right.
Yes, see she doesn't want to join them in this alternative reality.
She knows the truth.
She was covering Clinton back in 98-99.
She was covering Sandy Burger, the National Security Council back then.
She knows what they were saying.
She knows what she reported back then.
So this idea that all of a sudden this in this intel was trumped up, manipulated, and lied about uh by Scooter Libby or anybody else, is folks.
It it I can't I I'm at a loss for words to to describe this to you.
It is it is stunning to me they are even making this play.
And and Andrea Mitchell's reluctance to go along with this is a great indication of just how much trouble they're gonna have bringing their mainstream allies in the press in unison along with them on this ride.
This morning on CNN's American morning, Solidette O'Brien was talking to Pat Roberts, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and this is what he said.
Well now the issue is back up again.
I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
What's up?
There are a lot of public statements by members of Congress on the Democrat side that are more declarative and more aggressive than anything anybody ever said on the administration side.
We're gonna make those public statements public.
Amen, amen, amen.
It's about time.
Instead of running around out there, they hurt eye feeling.
I can't believe it.
They wouldn't cons.
We're gonna throw it right back in your face.
And I have what he's talking about right here in my formerly Nicotine Stan's fingers.
And what he said when he he's right, when he said these Democrats made more declarative and more aggressive statements than anything anybody ever said on the administration side, he's right because you have to remember the context.
The context with 2002, the upcoming elections, the midterms.
The people of this country were solidly behind going to war and wiping out terrorism because of 9-11.
The Democrats had already broken with the president on that.
The Democrats thought they could seize an opportunity to distance themselves from that, and when they saw the public polling and they saw the eagerness of the American people, and they heard the president go through all the presentations to the intelligence or the Security Council of the United Nations.
They demanded a second resolution.
People forget this.
They forget this, but I don't.
Shortly after 9 11 happened, the United States Congress gave the president a resolution that in effect was a blank check.
He could he could launch military action at any time at any place on any basis that he found necessary to protect this country.
Well, they demanded another debate and another resolution so that they could show the American people that they as Democrats were not war wimps.
That they were tough, that they were a bunch of Rambos too, and terrorists were not going to get away with killing us.
They demanded it.
They demanded that debate in the middle of the 2002 midterm campaign.
And I remember saying to you people at that time, this is a great rope of dope because now they're not talking about what they think are their kitchen table issues.
Their back pocket issues, health care, education, uh gas price, whatever the hell it was back then.
No, they had to sound tough as nails in the war too, and that's what Roberts means.
They made more powerful statements about Saddam Hussein's danger than the administration was making.
You want to hear some of them?
John Kerry, January twenty-third, two thousand three.
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime.
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.
John Carey, January twenty-third, two thousand three.
Here's another statement.
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.
Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998.
We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
Madeleine Albright, February 1, 1998.
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983.
Sandy Burglar, Clinton National Security Advisor, February 18, 1998.
We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.
That from a letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Dashel, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998.
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998.
Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, November 10th, 1999.
We begin with a common belief that Salmon Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region.
He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat Michigan, September 19, 2002.
We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002.
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002.
Shall I continue?
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002.
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.
Robert Byrd, Democrat West Virginia, October 3rd, 2002.
This is just but a spa, small sampling, ladies and gentlemen, of words uttered by Democrats from 1998 through 2003 about the dangers posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Many of these people, the National Security Council, Secretary of State, the President, the Vice President of the United States, all citing intelligence.
Now, would somebody explain to me, and this is why I say the Democrats of 2005 have lost it mentally.
They have they have become pathological.
There is a psychological, deep psychological problem here.
Would somebody tell me, when this is known, when this is on the record, when this can be found, when anybody can look this up, when there is audio and video of most of these statements.
How in the world do you make a case in 2005 that you need to be re-elected because the president of the United States in 2002 lied to you?
When you yourself, four years prior, three years prior to George Bush uttering a syllable about this, we're saying the same things yourself.
Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi.
These are all the card-carrying leaders of the left's anti-war brigade today.
Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction.
Intelligence was manipulated.
We were tricked.
How do you explain your consistency on this issue for five years prior to Bush?
Three years prior to him even assuming office.
So why I say, folks, that this is this isn't gonna fly.
The Democrats must still believe that they are alive and well 40 years ago when people like me didn't exist to go back and look at what they had said.
People like me didn't exist and there wasn't the ability to go find what they had said because of the mainstream media shut down a bit of research or if didn't conduct it themselves into prior statements made years earlier that would contradict current statements.
They could get away with whatever they wanted to.
They still think they can get away with it, but they can't.
This is some serious psychological problem.
They think they can sell this.
They do.
No, no, they do.
They really think they can sell it.
They think this is gonna launch them back to power in 06.
They were hoping from indictment from Pat Fitzgerald would document all of this, making their job easier so they can launch impeachment proceedings.
But ask yourself this question.
Let's just play a hypothetical game.
Suppose, for the fun of it, that they're right.
Suppose Bush lied about everything.
Suppose that there was no intelligence suggesting Iraq and Saddam were looking for weapons of mass destruction or ever had them.
Okay, so the Democrats let's say they win this.
What then?
Has anybody heard a plan from them as to what to do next?
If we get the world to admit, okay, Bush lied, then what?
Well, you impeach Bush, but then what?
Well, there's nothing because they have no plan.
They don't dare have a plan.
They don't even know what their plan is.
Their plan is one thing: getting rid of Bush and getting back in power.
They don't have any other plan.
They don't have any leadership ideas, they don't have any substance, they don't dare debate on substance.
It's just get rid of Bush.
It's get their government back.
They had it for 40 years.
It's not right, it's not fair.
It was stolen from us.
They cheated us out of the election in 2000 and 2004.
Voting machines, and people who are registered, they're probably even mad that their illegally registered voters don't get to vote anymore.
They're mad the dead in Chicago don't get to count anymore.
The deck is stacked against them.
They used to run this.
It was theirs by birthright.
It was theirs by entitlement.
And it's been stolen.
It's been taken away.
And the last thing they're going to do is look at themselves and say, maybe maybe we're not appealing to people on the basis of who we are, what we believe.
Nope, can't possibly be their fault.
They're too arrogant.
And they're living in their false reality.
But you tell me with these statements on tape, on video, in print.
How they hope to gain an inch beyond me.
Ain't gonna happen, folks.
They don't have a prayer.
Back in a moment.
So I just check an email, but so Rush, what's your source for all that?
You just said all those Democrat quotes.
Let me hold it up for you for those of you watching on the Diddle Camp.
See that?
That's the Limbaugh letter.
And the date from which I am reading in the limbaughetter is July of 2003.
Two summers ago.
The cover story was the power of trust.
You want to hear some more from our little uh display of Democrat comments?
Try this.
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Bob Graham, Democrat Florida, December 2002.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, his nuclear program.
He has also given aid comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al-Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Senator Hillary Clinton.
October 10th of 2002.
Now, Bush had barely begun talking about things in October of 2002.
Bush hadn't had time to make up a bunch of stuff and lie.
October 2002 is about when Bush shared all the intelligence with these people, and you note that Hillary starts talking here about intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
He has given aid comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.
Hillary Clinton in October of 2002.
Let her try to reverse field on this, folks.
She's their presumptive nominee.
She isn't going to get away with it.
That none of them are going to get away with this.
It is stunning.
It's like last week when I had the details of media coverage.
Judy Miller was being blamed as the sole reason we went to war because the New York Times bought everything that she was saying.
And she was lying for the administration because she was doing whatever was Scooter Libby.
Well, we went back, Robert Kagan did a piece.
He went back and looked at all the media coverage from the same years that these Democrats are talking.
98, 99, 2000, 2001, 2002.
The media was saying the same things these people are saying that I just quoted for you.
So if Bush lied, Clinton had to lie.
If Clinton was lying, the media had to know it was lies.
If only Bush was lying, nobody else was lying beforehand, but everybody was saying the same thing.
Do you understand why to me this is this is a this this is not a brilliant stratagem.
This is not a brilliant technique.
This is not the Democrats at their best.
This is not the Democrats changing the news cycle.
This is the Democrats imploding.
This this is the Democrats truly cracking up.
You want to hear more?
All right.
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Senator J. Rockefeller, October 10th, 2002.
Now, what do you notice here?
Hillary 2002, Henry Waxman 2002, Bob Graham, 2002, John Kerry, 2003.
Carrie's running for president.
2002 was the year the Democrats demanded that a new resolution be debated so they could be personally seen as on the record as being really, really hawkish.
Because the polling data showed that Americans did not trust them and looked at them as linguini-spined little lily livered, you know what.
So they had to show they were tough guys, so they go out and make all these statements.
Now all of a sudden they want to pretend they never made the statements.
Oh no, they want to have to admit they made a Bush lied.
Bush lied.
Right.
And here's Kerry again.
I will be voting to give the President of the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Senator John Kerry, October 9th, 2002.
We're dealing with a real mental illness here.
We'll be back in just a second.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
All right.
Let's go to the phones.
I promised you people that I would go to the phones in a short a period of time as possible, and making that happen.
We'll start Las Vegas with Annie.
I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rush.
How are you?
Fine.
Thank you.
Good.
Listen, talking about contradictions and contradictory behavior, uh I want to know why it's okay for the Washington Post out.
A hundred prison secret prison facilities.
And who knows how many CIA agents around the world, but it's criminal behavior to out one woman who apparently already outed woman, CIA agent Valerie Plaint.
That was uh that was disgraceful, abominable, and affront to the security and well being of agents everywhere in the middle of all of this criminal behavior.
The Washington Post front pages, a hundred secret facilities.
What?
Yes, and is it isn't it interesting?
I guess that the media's love affair with the CIA is over.
Uh you you have a good point here, but you know the answer to your question, do you not?
No.
I don't.
I'm I'm so I'm so upset that Well, let me explain let me let me explain it to you.
When you can when you can defend the CIA and an outed agent and blame it on the Bush administration and try to get him thrown out of office for it, it's perfectly okay to do it.
But when you can but but but when you can out a CIA agent or a CIA operation for the same purpose of getting rid of Bush, then to hell with the CIA.
You don't care about who you're endangering at the CIA at that point because the point is get Bush, get Bush, get Bush.
Now, what she's what what she's talking about, Annie, hang on here.
There's a front page Washington Post story today.
CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons.
Debate is growing within agency about legality and morality of overseas systems set up after 911.
What we have here is another CIA leak.
Somebody's leaking from the CIA, and it wasn't that long ago.
It was it's been months.
The New York Times ran a story about a super secret CIA air charter operation that was run out of Virginia or somewhere that was using chartered jets to uh fly prisoners to no doubt these secret prisons.
That was in the New York Times.
Now, sources for the story in the Times, the Washington Post, rather, are identified as senior and mid-level CIA officers.
So for those of you who thought that maybe this whole Joe Wilson Valerie Plain scenario was a CIA plan, an attempted coup d'etat of sorts to undermine the war in Iraq, the war on terror, and the Bush administration.
You may have to give double notion to the theory because it appears the same thing is continuing to happen here.
Let me give you some details.
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important Al-Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan, and several democracies in eastern Europe, as well as a small center at Club Git Mall in Cuba.
According to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism.
It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services And on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public.
Aha, one of those famous black ops off budget.
No written record of this, so it had to be leaked.
The existence and locations of the facilities, referred to as black sites in classified White House CIA, Justice Department, and Congressional documents, are known to only a handful of officials in the U.S. and usually only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.
Dana Priest is the uh writer of the story.
Dana, who told you this?
We need an investigation.
This is leaking from the CIA.
This is exposing a CIA operation.
This is exposing countless employees of the CIA.
This is putting them at risk.
We need an investigation.
We need an independent council.
We need to look deep into this and find out who's leaking this to the press.
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program have dis dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.
Folks, the if you print this out on your computer, you get six to eight pages, depending on your font size.
Six to eight pages of how evil the United States is.
How evil George W. Bush is.
The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program at the request of senior U.S. officials.
They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.
Oh, so now the Post wants all this credit for patriotism.
After blowing the cover after leaking the story, now they want credit for being patriotic by not mentioning the names of the Eastern comp European countries involved in this.
Another little excerpt.
It is illegal for the government to hold prisoners in such isolation in secret prisons in the United States, which is why the CIA placed them overseas, according to several former and current intelligence officials and other U.S. government officials.
Legal experts and intelligence officials said the CIA's internment practices also would be considered illegal under the laws of several host countries where detainees have rights to have a lawyer or to mount a defense against allegations of wrongdoing.
I frankly like here Do you realize the speech making at Rosa Park's funeral is still going on?
Three hours that's a th it's a three-hour three-hour funeral.
Are you listening to it in there?
I'm wondering if it's it doesn't look like it's the Wellstone Memorial, but I'm just in fact I think this whole stunt yesterday was just like the Wellstone Memorial, but John Kerry's up there speaking now.
At any rate, after reading this paragraph, I was kind of want to go, yeah, yeah, yeah, finally a CIA getting some guts here.
We're fighting a war on terror and hell with it.
We got to do what it takes.
And then they go into torture, such as water boarding and uh and all of that.
So Annie in Las Vegas, are you still with me?
I am.
All right, now, again, explain to me your outrage over this.
Well, you know, uh there's we're talking about one person that apparently by her own hand out at herself, and now you have how many employees at a hundred different agencies or secret facilities around the world who are now in jeopardy.
Because now that now that that that these facilities have been brought to light, people who want to find those CI agents will start to look.
They didn't even have a place to start before.
Now they do.
And I don't understand why why it's okay for a person to discuss.
A person who has, by the way, the security clearance to discuss an unemployee the government.
It's uh I'm telling it's it's it really it's not complicated.
This is all about undermining our war effort.
Pure and simple.
The people that are responsible for leaking and talking and printing this are attempting to undermine the war effort.
The war on terror.
This didn't even have to do with Iraq.
This is now the war on terror.
And and which I think that they're linked, but but when I say it has nothing to do with Iraq, this is this does not fit the template that the left is using on Iraq.
Um so it's it's it's it's all about destroying the CIA.
it's destroying our ability to conduct a war against terrorists.
It's all about getting Bush.
And so you had a heroine in Valerie Plame and a hero in Joe Wilson because they were trying to get Bush.
And the administration leaked her name and destroyed her life, ruined her life, and all of her friends that she worked with are now suspected by our enemies and are at grave grave risk.
And oh, we were wringing our hands, and oh how horrible.
But now that we've done this tenfold or twenty-fold, they deserve it.
These are people breaking the law.
This is the CIA, and our love affair with the CIA is ended.
All I can tell you is, uh uh, Annie, you are not alone.
The vast majority of people who hear about this story, read this kind of stuff, detest the media.
They detest the people, as I can hear it in your voice, you do.
You sense hypocrisy.
You sense a bunch of disingenuousness.
So do millions of people.
If the Democrats, if the press think this is going to help them, it isn't.
They can't let go of this.
This is Abu Grab.
This is Club Gitmo.
They can't let go of it.
By the way, we got some new Club Gitmo stuff.
We got Club Gitmo staff t-shirts now.
And uh and we've got the go go to the EIB store at Rushlimbaugh.com.
You can see the new line that we've added to our Club Gitmo line of merchandise and and uh official clothing uh in white and black in terms of uh of t-shirt colors.
They just keep the story alive.
They cannot let go of it.
It's all oriented toward getting Bush.
And you would think by now that never mind.
I'm I'm I'm applying rationalism, uh rationality to them, and they don't have any.
I gotta take a quick timeout.
Thanks for the call out there, Annie.
We'll be back and continue in a minute.
By the way, uh Annie out of Las Vegas, you have to also keep in mind reporters cannot be held criminally liable for their role in these kinds of things.
So uh if you if you're wondering why is there no uh demand for the Washington Post to be held criminally account like there was administration officials, they can't be.
Uh it's uh a shield and a number of they they got they don't even have to reveal their sources unless special prosecutor sends them to jail, and no special prosecutor's gonna send them to jail on this one.
Uh so this is obvious what this is all about.
Uh Ray in Cumberland, Maryland.
I'm glad you waited, sir.
You're next on the EIB network.
Rush?
Yes, sir.
Oh, Megadeth's from the euphoric city of Cumberland, Maryland.
Thank you, sir.
Um, you want to keep the pace up here.
We're on a roll.
Absolutely.
Oh yeah, Russ, I just wanted to say, um I just I just thought it was awfully suspicious when Harry Reaped through his little temper tantrum yesterday.
It was when you were going off the air.
Oh, yeah, that doesn't surprise me.
Did it surprise you?
Not at all.
Yeah, Harry Reid pulls the stunt.
Uh it was around 245, 250.
We we commented on it, but they were in closed session for two hours.
There wasn't a whole lot to say.
There's no, there's no question about that timing.
No question whatsoever.
They'd love to delay my response to this whole thing by twenty-four hours or twenty-one hours is it uh as it were, but that doesn't matter to me.
They can't escape me.
They they can't they can't relegate me to irrelevance.
They can try, but that it doesn't fly.
Uh they these these stunts, uh they're well known for the timing of these kinds of stunts.
You will note, folks, that important things from the Democrat side never happened between noon and three.
When I have a direct shot at them, they always time these things for much earlier in the morning or later in the day.
Amy in Louisville, Kentucky, thank you for calling and welcome to the program.
Thanks for taking my car, Rush.
Uh you bet.
I just wanted to say, as a military staff, I'm really upset with the Democrats because I feel they're using our troops to further their agenda of getting Bush out of office.
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
You don't think that you don't believe them when they say they support the troops?
Oh, absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
They say they're they're wanting this investigation for our troops to find out why they're there.
Let me tell you, Rush, my husband was in Iraq for a year, and they know why they're there.
Um they've seen the enemy firsthand, and they don't forget that 3,000 of our citizens were killed.
Well, she, you know, I tell you you make a you make a great point, Amy, because if you read some of the undertones of what Democrats said yesterday, you know, we've been there two years, we're spending two billion dollars a day, 20,000 uh 2,025 of our soldiers who died.
The American people are beginning to ask for what?
Well, if you listen to the soldiers who are there talking about it, they know what they're there for freedom.
I mean, it it it is it is I I'm telling you, folks, I I can't recall these people ever demonstrating themselves so woefully ineptly out of touch with the mainstream of this country.
Speaking of which, speaking of which, I have a great piece in the uh uh saw great piece of the American thinker.com.
It's one of our favorite blogs here.
And I forget who wrote it.
You know how Schumer and these guys, any time a uh a conservative judge is nominated uh to the circuit court, federal p federal court or the uh uh Supreme Court.
Uh always say that uh uh this uh nominee is out of the mainstream, uh, is a right wing extremist.
Have you noticed nobody is ever asked them what do you what is right wing extremist?
They need to be asked this question the next time Chuck Schumer anybody says that the nominee is a right wing extremist, somebody needs to ask him.
Well, what is a right wing extreme extreme?
Make him define the term and then make him define mainstream.
I don't expect that to happen on the part of the liberal media, but at some point it's gonna be a question that will be put to him.
Um by the way, uh you Democrats, you have to understand something.
Not all the soldiers serving in Iraq are Republicans, they're not all Rambo's, they're not all conservatives.
Uh some people would have you believe that there's no such thing as a Democrat soldier.
Some would have you believe there's no such thing as a Democrat warrior.
Uh and and uh there are.
And I have met them in Afghanistan.
Uh and I'm I'm just I'm I'm I'm telling you that that the Democrats are just they're they're way out on the edge here when when they try to make the assumption that uh that they're not offending the troops uh or that they're not upsetting them with these comments because they are.
Seth in uh Del High, Louisiana.
You're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi.
Hi.
Um I was wondering why you thought Skid or Scooter Libby didn't just plead the Fifth Amendment and uh give them no case.
Especially since the FBI, by policy, doesn't record uh interviews.
Uh well that doesn't matter.
You the the they don't have to record them if if uh if if they can just allege it.
Uh I I don't know.
I mean, I haven't I haven't heard his legal strategy.
Well, I've heard some allusion to the uh to the uh legal strategy, but I I I my my thinking is that uh on this, and this is just a wild guess, but Bush told him to cooperate uh all the way through the White House.
There wasn't going to be any pleading the fifth.
And I don't think Scooter thought he did any wrong.
I I don't think these people thought that there was anything that they really needed to be all that concerned about.
This whole thing is it's it's ridiculous.
Uh and and Scooter was was was right.
I mean, the original charge, there's nothing to it.
The original investigation found no evidence that any crime had been committed.
So the people of the White House knew that this the whole purpose of the investigation was was pointless.
There wasn't any crime.
They had not participated in one.
So what's to hide?
So now you get into these uh I'm gonna folks, I'm gonna tell you something.
I I'm seething about something here, and and I'm sure a lot of you are too.
If you look at Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger, knowingly, there were witnesses, took papers out of the National Archives, and we know what they were.
They were papers that incriminated the Clinton administration on that millennium project.
The Clinton administration out there saying that they had a great policy and they intercepted this guy, the LA airport, the Seattle Airport, wherever it was, is going to blow up the LA airport.
And what the truth was, the Clinton administration had nothing to do with it.
It was a customs agent that was on the ball.
The Clinton policy had no effect in stopping this attack, and Berger went in there to get that out of there because it was embarrassing to the Clinton administration.
They were all trying to run their smoke and mirrors of the 9-11 Commission during testimony.
Berger knowingly taking documents out, taking them back in, who knows what, stuffing them in his shirt, stuffing them in his socks, gets a slap on the wrist, a $10,000 fine, and so forth, and we look at what Libby might get 30 years.
Now, there's something out of whack here.
Don't tell me that justice is blind.
We'll be back in just a second.
Still lots to come on the award winning Rush Limbaugh program.
I am America's anchor man doing the news play by play each day.
We've got one hour to go.
We'll get to it right after this top of the hour break.
Some liberal news coming up, but don't sweat it, folks.
Whatever they say, we will uh we'll countermand and deal with as soon as we get back here.
▲
Export Selection