All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 10, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:27
November 10, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The views expressed by the hosts on this program, rooted in a daily and relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
Great to have you with us.
America's anchor man, Rush Limboss seated, ready to go.
The EIB network in the second hour now officially underway.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program is uh 800-282-2882, and the email address is rush at EIB net.com.
All right, uh, we're gonna keep going with this.
I mentioned earlier in the previous hour that uh even last night in the media that the uh the template on this attack, Al Qaeda attack in Jordan, the template is it's Bush's fault.
Bush caused this.
Bush is responsible.
So we played Connect the Dots in the uh in the first hour of the program.
Just to just to review that, when you connect the dots, what do you get?
You have Jordan, you have three suicide bombers, you've got fifty-seven people dead so far, over three hundred people wounded, you have terrorists, you have the culture of death, the express desire to end Western civilization.
Any normal person, rational person connecting these dots concludes.
We got a serious global war on terror, and we have to win it or else.
That's what I get when I connect the dots.
But when liberal democrats and the American left connect the dots, they see a campaign issue.
The very same people who have been demoralizing the U.S. troops, saying, Oh, we support the troops, but then undermining the commander-in-chief, undermining the mission, trying to say the mission is unjust, the mission is unnecessary, all of this is a pure fabrication, Bush lied, all of these lies.
Uh and now all of a sudden they care that we're not fighting the war on terror correctly, when they can't point to very many instances of themselves actually being for it when they mean it.
So to the media last night, let's go to Hardball with Chris Massie.
Chris Matthews talking to Michael Scheuer, uh former covert CIA officer about the bombings in Jordan.
This I was referring to this the other day, too.
Used to never see this.
But I guess you can write books now if you're an ex-CIA covert officer, uh, if your books are going to attack the administration.
So Matthews says, Well, what what's this attack in Jordan?
Tell us about where we stand in the world, the war in Iraq, its relevance to this, it's out of room.
By invading Iraq, we've basically signed the death warrant of Jordan and much of the Levant.
Uh it's it's another example of no one reading what bin Laden said.
Bin Laden prizes contiguity above all things.
An area where he can operate from safe haven into another country.
And he didn't.
Well, now his safe haven is word torn Iraq.
Exactly right, sir.
We created his bastion to get to an area he's never been able to work against, which is the Levant, uh, Israel, Egypt.
Uh he now has safe haven to operate from there.
Well, well, what's so again?
What we have here, uh Iraq caused the bombing as if there were no bombings anywhere before Iraq.
There were no terrorist actions against Arabs anywhere else, never happened before until we went into Iraq.
What this business about we gave Osama a safe haven in Iraq.
Uh I know I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but has anybody ever alluded to the fact that Bin Laden is there?
No, then Zarkawi is there, and he's a Bin Laden agent, I suppose.
Well, should we then not have gone into Afghanistan and routed him out of there?
You know, bin Laden's MO has been to go take over countries that have no governments.
They're basically stateless.
That was what he was doing in Sudan.
That's why it went to Afghanistan.
The best intel now is that he's in the Afghan-Pakistan border or someplace even in Iran.
Some people even think that.
But I mean, it no matter where the guy goes, he's the winner in these people's minds.
No matter where he goes, we forced him there.
And we can't capture him, so he's still running a show.
He's running a safe haven.
We're creating all these problems.
It's Bush's fault.
Another soundbite, same show.
Uh just brace yourself for this one because the same former CIA agent says that in the final analysis, we'd all be better off.
Jordan would be better off, everybody better off if Saddam were still running Iraq.
Question from Matthews.
Just to think outside the box here.
Would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running tyrannically that country if Iraq right next door to uh to Jordan?
Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?
No doubt about it, sir.
No doubt there'd be many more dead, many fewer dead Americans, and we would have had many more um resources available to annihilate Al Qaeda, which is what we have to do.
Without a doubt, uh in the war against Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.
Okay.
Uh uh So who are we fighting in Iraq?
We're fighting well, that's the point.
We're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but the we wouldn't have been if we wouldn't have been fighting them there if we hadn't gone there.
We could have fought fought them wherever they were.
Problem is they're everywhere.
We now know they're in France.
We now know they're in Australia.
We now know that they're in Jordan.
Well, they and then they're they're in uh they're in Malaysia, they're in Singapore, they're in the Philippines.
Uh militant Islamists are in Chechnya.
They're all over the place.
I mean, the 70 countries that there are Al-Qaeda cells working and operating out of 70 different countries.
That's what we were told back in 2001.
Now all of a sudden they're all in Iraq, and this is somehow a bad move.
Saddam Hussein was our best ally, one of our best allies in the uh war against Al Qaeda.
This is the major spin going on.
Now let's go to C-SPAN this morning.
Washington Journal, Susan Swain is the host.
She's talking to David Cole.
David calls a Georgetown University law school professor.
Caller calls in.
Caller says over 50% of the people in that region, according to ABC, CBS, NBC polls, over 50% of the people in that region believe that bin Laden's a good man, over 50%.
They support him in what he's doing.
Those are huge numbers.
Those statistics have gone up significantly since September 12th, 2001.
People didn't support Osama bin Laden when he attacked us.
People supported us when he attacked us.
But because of the way that we've responded, our numbers have gone, have plummeted downward, and his numbers have plummeted upward.
That's the point.
these kind of tactics only undermine our security by strengthening their side.
That what a terrorist wants more than anything else is to goad the country that it attacks into acting in ways that undermine that country's image and undermine its strength in the world.
And that's exactly what we've done.
We have played into their hands.
I this is this is unbelievable.
The rewriting of history here taking place is just amazing.
Being done by professors, media people, people who have a responsibility to get things right, to impart information to other people in a factual manner.
And so now bin Laden was we were loved when we didn't do anything about it.
We were loved when we sat there and took it.
We were loved when 3,000 Americans were killed, and we were loved when we just sat around and didn't do anything about it for about three weeks, but then when we attacked them, we defended ourselves all of a sudden they started hating us.
Well, what kind of silly ass logic is this?
Does that mean to be loved?
We're supposed to sit around and just continue to be attacked every now and then and not do anything about it.
We're not supposed to be able to defend ourselves.
We defend ourselves and oh, that's going to gin up world hate.
Does this not sound like the democratic campaign of 2004?
Does this not sound like exactly what Rockefeller and Kennedy et al.
have been saying for the last three years?
It's our fault.
We did this.
Had we had we come up with a different way of responding.
What would that be?
Go to the UN and ask for a resolution?
What other way of responding would there be after all of this?
But there you have it, my friends, the liberal take on this.
I I have a vague memory, and I this why I can't claim this to be factual, but I've got a vague memory.
Uh I think Zarkawi is Jordanian.
Well, I know that.
Uh Zarkawi's Jordanian, but I think that he once tried to attack that country and failed.
Does that Okay, he okay, then my memory is factual on.
He did.
This could just be an attempt to do what he failed to do the first time.
But he knows these guys are not idiots.
They know that their enemy is gonna get blamed for this.
They I think these guys, wherever they are in their caves or in their mosques, have to just be sitting back and laughing themselves to death every time Kennedy or some elitist professor from Georgetown like this guy, or David Rockefeller opens his mouth.
Here these guys attacked, they blow up innocent people, and they know that the American left is going to blame America.
They know that their enemy is gonna get blamed for this in the worldwide media.
Quick timeout, back after this with we continue.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the excellence in podcasting network.
Go back to cut six and seven.
I I gotta hear this CIA guy again, uh, folks, uh, because uh some things have uh popped into my head.
This is from uh Hardball last night with Chris Matthews, and he asks uh the guy's name is uh Michael Shore Shire Shoyer, it's S-Ch E U E R. Uh the question is what's this tell us about where we stand in the world, the war in Iraq, its relevance to this, et cetera.
This guy's a Former covert CIA agent, keep in mind, as you listen to all this, who's now writing books and going on television talking about U.S. foreign policy.
By invading Iraq, we basically signed the death warrant of Jordan and much of the Levant.
Stop right there.
That's that's one because my memory is true.
Zarkawi is Jordan.
In fact, uh Debbie Schlossel tells me that uh Zarkawi is Jordanian Palestinian.
He Jordanian Palestinian, one of the 70% of the population that the Rockefeller's so concerned about.
So one of the 70% blew up his own country, so to speak.
But if he did try to attack Jordan back in the 90s, that's long before we had done anything to Saddam Hussein, uh uh w well, we left him in power.
Saddam was still in power and running his country.
So the idea that linking this to what we did in Iraq is just absolute BS.
Now let's go to the next bite because it gets even better.
Question from Matthews, just to think outside the box, would we be better off with Saddam Hussein still running that country uh right next door to Jordan?
Would Jordan be more secure in that environment?
No doubt about it, sir.
No doubt.
There'd be many more dead, many fewer dead Americans, and we would have had many more um resources available to annihilate Al Qaeda, which is what we have to do.
Without a doubt, uh in the war against Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein was one of our best allies.
Okay, who is this guy, folks?
He's CIA agent, former covert CIA agent.
So he just got through saying that by invading Iraq we signed the death warrant of Jordan and much of Levant, and sounds to me like he was opposed to invading Iraq.
Doesn't this tell us what's going on at the CIA?
This guy's a former covert agent, he's out now.
Starting to put some more dots together here, connect some more dots.
This kind of also tells us how out of it the CIA was, does it not?
If this guy is representing CIA thought and think on this, does it not indicate just how off the mark the CIA has been on all this from the get-go?
Better off with Saddam in power.
He was one of our allies against Al Qaeda.
This is a former CIA covert agent saying this.
The guy should have stayed undercover because he's he's is he's lifting the um he's lifting the veil of secrecy on the kind of thinking going on.
I don't know if we worked with Valerie Plame or not.
She had a desktop.
Speaking of which, speaking of which, thanks to the church committee, we have no more human intel.
We can't go out and hire reprobates and human debris to infiltrate other groups of human debris.
We replace those people with Valerie Plame.
We replace those people with desk jockeys.
Thank you, Frank Church.
And now we bring the whole U.S. government to a stop because Valerie Plain's name's out.
Yet here's a former covert agent out there writing books about the CIA's operations and thoughts.
And he's celebrated as a big time hero because he's obviously anti-Bush.
Uh Debbie Schlossel just sent me a note.
This soundbite we played from uh George, I'm sorry, David Cole, the Georgetown University law professor, in which he said, basically, it's the way we responded to 9-11 that made the world hate us.
Debbie Schlossel tells me that this man was once Sammy Al Arian's attorney.
The name of Sammy Al Arian ring a bell.
They just had closing arguments in his trial yesterday in Tampa.
This was a computer professor at uh at a Florida University who was uh undercover working as a fundraiser and leader in this country of the Islamic jihad.
So it's interesting when you start connecting these dots, what you actually get, and how does it differ from those in the mainstream press in the Democratic Party?
Julie in uh Winnetka, California, I'm glad you waited.
Welcome to the program.
Hi, Rash Megaditas.
My father will be so jealous to hear that I'm speaking to you today.
Thank you for calling.
Um, I would like to know what is the proper way or the best way to oppose a war without demeaning your president or your country.
Uh that's interesting question.
Let me ask you, are you one who opposes the war?
No, not at all.
You're not a republican.
I voted for Bush, and I'm I'm a big supportive of him.
He's uh he's my president, and I'm proud to say that.
Okay, so I'm that that's fine.
I don't disbelieve you.
I'm just what is your question rooted in then?
You must know people, or you're just interested in this as a as a thought piece.
Well, I'm just interested.
The only one I've ever been through, I'm 32.
I went through the Gulf War, the first one, which is, you know, obviously very quick, and I'm just wondering how you go about protesting something you don't agree with without making your country look really bad, which I know is what the Democrats are doing.
And what is the best way to do it so if they do want to get their voices heard if they actually are opposing the war and not just Bush, how can they do that without demeaning him?
Well, you know, that's that's a real toughie because in this instance, in this instance, the anti-war left actually seeks defeat.
In this instance, the anti-war left wants the defeat of the United States and the U.S. military.
They have a different set of values.
They believe that the U.S. is responsible for most of the evil in the world because of our superpower status.
They believe that our environmental policies and usurping 25% of the world's resources while only being two percent of the population is unfair.
They think that it's our uh wealth and prosperity that's responsible for the uh the misery and suffering in the third world.
They think that we create a lot of the inequalities that exist political and economic in the world, and so they want us punished, and they want us cut down to size.
They want us to lose.
The I mean, there's no other way to look at that.
That's the purpose.
Cindy Sheehan, look at what she says.
Look what her what her gang of marauders says.
Pull out, get out, lose.
There's only one thing getting out this way means.
It means give up.
It means surrender.
So I frankly, you know, to think about uh what could an anti-war protester do to uh not impugn the war effort uh is something I've never really thought about because I'm not anti-war.
Uh I happen I happen to be a student of history, and I I know that it's uh, you know, doctors and nurses and clean water do not bring peace.
And I know that uh wars generally are not uh are not fought over peace anyway.
That's a word that's bandied about.
Uh I know what the purpose of armies is is to kill people and break things.
It's not a social experiment.
It's not meals on wheels like the Clinton administration turned it into.
Uh it's uh it's deadly serious, they're highly trained and very professional, and they've got a they've got a specific mission, and has been watered down and diluted by uh by much of the political correctness that's infiltrated our system.
I guess I guess you could go out and and say uh that an anti-war person would you get this over quick, would you go win this quick and bring our boys home?
We don't like all this death and suffering.
Go win the war quick.
If an anti-war protester was just interested in victory, then I would uh I I'd be a lot less concerned about them.
But I don't ever hear anti-war people talking about winning anything.
I don't hear anti-war people talking about triumph.
I don't hear anti-war people talk about goodness.
All I hear from them is blame and hatred for their own country.
I I I think they're they they've got a tremendous self-loathing problem.
I I don't I I think you know, anti-war people tell us people tell us more about them than they do about the war effort or us or our country.
Uh but we we they're they're trying to to say that they have the moral high ground here, uh, and that wars uh in in in general is ignoble and unjust, and uh no war should ever be fought.
And that with that belief uh then if no war should ever be fought, uh fought, then whoever gets involved in one ought to lose it.
Uh and they look at us as having started this war, by the way.
I mean, I I think their their argument is just Swiss cheese.
It's and it's it's easily pierceable because of that.
Uh I just I I and I think they know it because they come up with the defense mechanism.
Well, you know, don't we support the troops, we just don't support the mission.
Well, you can't split it that way.
You can't split the baby.
The troops and the mission are intertwined.
We have troops because of the missions.
And well, we support the troops, we'll bring the troops on.
There's nothing they do that indicates support of the troops.
Not when they're trying to undermine the whole effort, not when they're trying to impugn the commander in chief.
Uh you if you look at this latest round of uh a group of war protesters and think that you're seeing people who want a U.S. victory, then uh I'll I'll um be glad to change my mind, but you can't find it.
I don't think anybody can.
You can't convince me that Cindy Sheehan or any of these people anti-war are for our victory.
It's just the opposite.
And listen to what they say.
They're not just anti-war.
They're anti-Bush, they're anti-tax cut, they're anti-this, they're they're libs.
The anti-war movement is just an extreme bunch of libs.
It's become the mainstream of the Democratic Party.
And then clearly the mainstream of the Democratic Party is not interested in victory anywhere here.
Because victory anywhere here would redound to a victory for Bush.
They don't want that.
This is all about this is all about defeat.
Defeat for Bush, defeat of the United States.
That's why it's so enraging.
And this is why, you know, the word patriotism gets bandied, but don't challenge my patriotism.
Well, the usual rejoinder to that is we're not challenging your patriotism.
We're challenging your uh your judgment.
But uh that's getting close to where their patriotism is going to be is a matter of question.
Uh but to them, you know, they think they are patriotic.
American defeat is is that's the patriotic thing to them.
They've got a whole different definition of these things.
Patriotism's criticizing the president to them.
And that, by the way, is Hillary's new definition.
We'll be back.
Stay with us.
And to Destin, Florida, Eric, you're next on the EIB network.
Nice to have you with us, sir.
Hello.
Big Wall Diddle's Rush.
Thank you.
I just want to say that uh now that the media polls are showing that the American public or the majority of American public does not support the war, according to the questions that they're asking.
Yes, it's an NBC Wall Street Journal poll, it's all over the place, too.
The Dems, but now the Dems are have dropped that qualifier on their statements of we support the troops, but to me that just means it was a pretense to begin with.
And now that they don't have to say it because their polls tell them that they don't have to say it, they're not going to do it anymore.
You don't hear Rockefeller Kennedy making any type of statement like that anymore.
No, excuse me, and I'll tell you not only that, this is what they've been aiming for.
This ever since the Iraq war started, this has been this is the the one of the express purposes has been to gin up enough anti-war support uh to uh imperil the president and the Republican Party.
It's it's just a replay of Vietnam, as I've said over and over again, just a replay of Vietnam, uh replay of Watergate, trying to relive their old glory days.
And it's uh uh I think it's tragedy.
I think it's a genuine tragedy to that this became a political policy the moment the war in Iraq started.
Uh I uh it it to me it it uh just illustrates, you know, we got obstacles around the world, we got obstacles in this country.
We always have had.
But when the um when the primary opposition party uh becomes one of the primary obstacles to American victory, uh it's it's it's it's it's it's a it's a problem.
I it it's it other than Vietnam, it really hasn't happened in my uh in my lifetime, and Vietnam's not even that similar a circumstance.
It took the Vietnam war years and years and years for the anti-war movement to gin up.
It was Democrats started that war.
Essentially, it was John Kennedy and then LBJ is the guy who ballooned that war to the size that it was.
Uh and it was uh after JFK left and Nixon got in all hell broke loose.
It started to break loose during the last couple years of the Johnson administration, it's why he didn't seek re-election '68.
Uh but after all, this this thing started in the 50s.
It took a while to get there.
This started this way.
This started as a political opportunity.
I will never forget this story.
We struggled to try to figure this out.
A story came out that said battlefield fatalities were at an all-time low in in in world in in American war history.
We were losing more soldiers or losing fewer soldiers on the battlefield than ever before.
And the story was a Reuters story, and it they had people in there who were who were saying this is bad news.
And we were looking at this.
They couldn't not figure this out.
Bad news.
How can this be bad news?
They were talking about, well, the only reason this is happening because doctors who are needed elsewhere are on the front lines, and they're saving lives that really ought not be saved because these people are losing arms and legs, and who wants to live that way?
I kid you not about this story.
They were all concerned about it.
We said, what what in the world?
I mean, this is so foreign to us.
Good news is bad news.
How in the world is this figure?
And then it all came to us.
They were worried about this.
They were trying to gin up anti-war support.
They wanted more battlefield deaths.
Look at this sickening body count of our troops that the media has been engaged in ever since we were just below 1,000.
Now we've been counting up to 2,000.
And it's some sort of a milestone.
And every time we hit a new thousand delineator, the uh nightline people replay this uh show where they do the pictures of each soldier dead.
The New York Times does this full page or two page spread on it.
There's only one reason for this, and they want us to believe they're honoring these people, but I don't think that's it.
I think they're trying to gin up anti war support.
Now we have an attack in Amon Jordan.
Senators Rockefeller and Kelly Kennedy hit the TV screen, the cameras, and make it plain as day that they think this is Bush's fault, that we don't have the uh intelligence, we don't have the military, we're not accomplishing anything.
Rockefeller said it last night, Kennedy today.
These are the people who have been standing in the way all along.
These are the people that want to treat terrorists as U.S. citizens, give them access to the U.S. court system, and that's another thing.
I would like to know for the Democrats just how the hell you're gonna find bin Laden when all you wanted to do was treat it as a legal case.
I want to remind you, Democrats, that we had two, maybe three chances to have bin Laden in prison in this country when your boy Bill Clinton was president.
But your boy Bill Clinton had no desire to put his hands on that hot potato because he was all concerned about his approval numbers.
I didn't think that we had a legal mechanism to hold him.
I thought we don't want him, so send him away.
So he left Sudan, and that's how he ends up in Afghanistan, folks.
Bill Clinton, the the um the Sudanese offered these uh bin Laden twice.
Twice?
These are the people that their party turned him down, didn't want to deal with it.
Now we can't find him.
Well, what was their way of dealing with it all along?
The war on terror was a legal matter.
They were fighting it in the U.S. court system.
Bill Clinton never engaged these terrorists at all, ever.
He was never serious about it after attacks on this country or anywhere else.
I know Scheuer at the uh CIA ran the bin Laden unit between 98 and 99.
What does that tell you?
96 through 99, so what does that tell you?
This guy Shawyer, this former covert agent, now out there writing all these books and appearing on television about how we don't know what we're doing, we're screwing everything up, bin Laden's he ran the bin Laden desk.
He ran the bin Laden desk at the CIA, the unit from ninety-six to ninety-nine.
I'll tell you, it's it's uh to me what this all boils down to is Bush has been too effective.
Bush has been too effective in trying to clean out the CIA, too effective in trying to clean out the State Department and all these bureaucracies.
Make no mistake there are ideological enemies of this administration throughout this government, ideological enemies.
And they will do whatever they can to protect their turf, even if it means taking out a U.S. president in any way they can while making it look like it's just a series of political events that are taking uh place.
Speaking of that, I can't let this day go by without mentioning this.
The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence told Senate leaders yesterday that Congress should hold off on a probe of the disclosure of classified information on secret prisons to the Washington Post until the Justice Department completes its inquiry.
Senator Pat Roberts, a Republican of Kansas, said that he will respectfully request that Majority Leader Bill Frist back off a strongly worded request that a bicameral investigation into the disclosure be convened immediately.
By the way, a little little sidestep here about that.
Remember I read that letter from Frist and Hastert to you.
That that this whole policy, this this uh request for a bicameral investigation, itself was leaked.
Somebody in the Senate leaked that before Hastert and Frist had even signed the letter and sent it out to anyone.
Frash uh uh Frist and Haster did not want to go through with this at the time.
They had just prepared the letter as a contingency, but somebody leaked it, and it shows up on the media starting at 11.30.
I guess this was uh Tuesday morning.
Shows up at 11.30 Tuesday morning by afternoon, 1210, 1230, it's all over the place.
And there were people then that were urging Hastert and Frisk to go ahead and uh and sign it and be done with it since it was already out there.
That itself was leaked.
So somebody in the U.S. Senate's trying to undermine the U.S. Senate, and now Senator Roberts wants to hold off on this investigation.
Now here we go with the stall tactics.
Has anything ever stopped these people from holding hearings before?
We had Abu Grab hearings at the Wazoo.
While an investigation was pending, the Army, the military, the Pentagon was investigating that, but that didn't stop them from investigating that.
Same thing with Enron.
We had hearings and investigations on Enron while the Justice Department was engaged at that.
That didn't stop them.
They're holding hearings on Jack Abramov, despite a criminal investigation going on there.
And of course, we bring the baseball players in.
And we have hearings on steroids.
Well, we got time to do all that, but now all of a sudden, we uh we have we get the stall tactics when the leaker may be a senator or a staffer.
No, we need to put on the brakes.
We uh we need to be more responsible about this.
We need to wait for the Justice Department to figure it's referral and figure out what it's gonna do.
This looks to me like a good old-fashioned cover-up going on in the U.S. Senate.
Somebody in the Senate leaks news, especially today, of these prison sites, private secret prison sites where we're housing Al-Qaeda type terrorists trying to get intel on them.
We have the explosion in Amon Jordan.
We have Kennedy and Rockefeller head out the TV talking about how we can't do anything right, our intel's rotten.
Who is it that wants to let all the prisoners out of jail?
Who is it that wants to impugn the people run Abu Grab and Club Gitmo?
Who is it that wants to give these people representation under the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. court system?
And now somebody in the Senate has leaked the existence of these prisons.
And then these guys dare go on television two days later and say we can't fight the war because our president's doing it wrong.
We have lousy intelligence, and who is it that's leaking all this?
Who is it that actually, whether they know it or not, is undermining this whole effort.
And so now we've got this leak from the Senate on this black operation with the uh the these secret prison sites.
And oh no, no, no, no, no, no.
We're gonna we're gonna slow this down.
We gotta stop this investigation.
We gotta wait for the Justice Department to finish off.
Circling the wagons, just what I said yesterday, circling the wagons around themselves.
If one of themselves is implicated, doesn't matter what party.
Uh-uh- uh- uh- uh got a hold off here.
They investigate steroids, they investigate language on the radio, they investigate the placement of cereal and grocery shelves for crying out like they have actors and actresses testify about nothing.
They have actresses who play farm wives, come up and testify about agriculture problems in the U.S. They investigate oil companies this week.
They investigate everything and anything but now.
Because one of them, one of their staffers might have leaked secret classified information and harmed our ability to detain and interrogate the enemy, they get reluctant.
They get reluctant.
I mean, who are these what's Lott doing?
Lot's out there basically undermining this in the first place by saying that this is a Senate leak, and then says, hey, we get all kinds of information passing through us up here.
We'd have to be doing nothing but investigations all day if it did this.
I like Pat Roberts.
I have always liked Pat Roberts.
But it seems to me the Republicans in the Senate will only investigate when Harry Reed tells them to.
Harry Reed wants an investigation.
By God would bend over, grab the ankles, and we do it.
I wish Senator Roberts would get control over this in his committee with Rockefeller running wild and trying to stop it.
I wish I don't care who did this.
I don't care who leaked this.
It's time to find out who it is.
I mean, this is a possible Senate scandal, the likes of which we haven't seen in years.
Frist and Hastert are dead on right about this.
Folks, if a U.S. Senator or a Senate staffer leaked this information to the media, what happened?
It undermined our war on terrorism.
They need to be exposed and they may be removed from office and punished.
They're undermining the war on terrorism, and the very day we have Rockefeller and Kennedy coming out and piling on.
These are the people, the Democrats, primarily some senators, these are the people that are doing everything they can the last three years to undermine our effort, constantly criticizing it.
The president's a liar.
He can't be trusted.
None of this is legitimate.
It's all unjust.
Undermine the effort?
Can't win?
We're not competent.
We're not qualified.
Who is it that's giving that impression?
It's the the American left and the Senate Democrats.
I gotta go.
Quick timeout.
We'll be back in just a second.
Stay with me.
Back we are, executing assigned host duties flawlessly, zero mistakes.
The plot thickens, ladies and gentlemen.
This is uh from the Washington Prowler.
This is from the blog at the American Spectator.
I'm just gonna read to you what it says.
Somebody needs to check on Senator Trent Lott's medication, or perhaps he's spending too much time hurting all those cats that he wrote about.
Either way, his comments regarding the black sight scandal leaks, that a Republican senator was the source because the GOP Senate caucus had discussed the prisons during their weekly closed door lunch, are just goofy.
First of all, Senator McCain says no such discussion took place.
Well, now this thickens the plot.
The Republican caucus has its weekly closed door lunch.
Lott says they talked about this black site business.
Next day it shows up in the Washington Post.
Now McCain says they didn't discuss it.
Second point from the American Spectator blog.
The luncheon was on a Tuesday.
The Washington Post story ran the next day.
No slight to Dana Priest, but given that she's the writer, but given the content and context of the story she reported, there was no way she turned it around on an eight-hour deadline.
Dana Priest had clearly been working and coordinating efforts with human rights watch for some time in digging up the story.
If a Republican did do the leaking after all this, so what?
Regardless of party, whomever leaked deserves to take the heat.
It's about our nation's safety and security.
I'm glad somebody else agrees with me.
I don't care who it is.
If somebody leaked and if it's a Republican, best we find out about it.
But the plot now thickens.
Here's McCain saying, no, we didn't even discuss this.
Lot says we did discuss it, and that's probably where the leak came from.
I mean, if you ask me, this just is more evidence that we need an investigation.
Something about this just doesn't pass the smell test.
Uh let me go to Sugar Grove, Illinois.
Dan, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Thanks for the rush 24-7.
I love the Ditto Cam.
It's a great uh it's a great investment for those who want to learn more.
Thank you, sir.
Um, I wanted to ask you about Judith Miller and what you thought of uh her exiting the New York Times.
You know, uh I I f I I have to tell you, I frankly couldn't care less, to be quite honest with you.
I really I mean I have some thoughts on it.
I I remember when this was about to happen, uh Drudge sent me a little uh little email.
Judy Miller's negotiating her, I'm posting this here pretty soon.
Judy Miller's leaving her pose.
So what?
Who cares?
Papers losing subscription circulation.
Who?
I I just I think this whole sordid tale, I mean, you you can number things you could say.
Well, uh so much for standing behind the reporters.
Uh I don't know.
This is the the comings and goings of these places, really with everything else going out there.
I'm not trying to minimize if you care about it, that's fine.
I'm not trying to suggest nobody should care about it.
I just don't.
So she was there 28 years, so she's gone.
I'm more interested in the fact her husband went ahead and went on this great Mediterranean cruise with a bunch of elitist upscale libs while she sat rotting in jail.
I'm more interested in a cat fight going on between her and Maureen Down.
I'd like to see him on a WWE one night.
But as for what it means, or I mean they walked her out of there.
She looked like she was going to prison when she was walking out of the place.
I did see some video of that.
Uh, but I just I just think the New York Times is Jason Blair.
It's uh Frank Rich.
It's these these guys that don't know what they're saying half the time.
Uh to me, it's they're just a poster child for don't trust what you read in the newspaper.
And the fact that she's on her way out, I have no doubt that the reason is that uh she supported the Bush administration and uh embarrassed liberals.
Plus, as in turtle stuff, like there isn't any office.
She was somebody's pet.
She used to date Pinch way back in the old days, back in the eighties.
She and Pinch had a little bit of a history.
And uh, and so there was some favoritism that was thought to go around.
But basically a big media soap opera.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep.
If I'm out of touch on this, it's final choose to be back after this.
Okay, we come back at the top of the next hour.
I will have an announcement on the details of the Adopt a Soldier program.
It is now assembled, and I'll have the it's not it's it's not up and running yet, and it won't be until Monday, but I will be able to announce it to you and give you the procedures under which it will take place.
I'll do that the first thing, top of the next hour.
And I can't wait to tell you what the Sacramento Kings did on opening night Tuesday night when the Detroit Pistons showed up for their home opener out in Sacramento.
▲
Export Selection