All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 17, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:23
November 17, 2005, Thursday, Hour #2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome back to the Rush Limbaugh Program here at the EIB Network, the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.
We continue.
Walter Williams, tomorrow, rush back on Monday.
But today, Democrats out, this is the White House, the White House countering these ridiculous and contradictory Democratic criticisms of Iraq, of the war, the countering now,
the calling out of the fact that Bill Clinton himself identified weapons of mass destruction as nuclear, biological, and chemical in December of 1998 and ordered air attacks in order to try to destroy those facilities on the fact that the Democrats had, at the time the war resolution was debated in the Bush administration, had all the same, the same intelligence that Bush was relying on.
They came to the same conclusion.
People like John Kerry, who voted for, you know, before he voted against, before he voted for, before he voted against, but whatever, voted for the war resolution.
Those same people now saying, oh, Bush lied.
Bush lied about WMD.
Bush lied about this, that, and the other.
Oh, and by the way, Bill Clinton not only made a complete horse's ass out of himself by over in this Arab American university in Dubai in this speech, feeding the insurgency, just cheering on the enemies of America by saying it was a big mistake to invade, and went on and made matters worse by saying, and this is a quote now, when the U.S. kicked out Saddam,
they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure.
Most of the people who were part of that structure were good, decent people who were making the best out of a very bad situation, unquote.
Well, wait a minute.
Saddam's authority structure, the Baathist dictatorship, does he mean by the authority structure, Saddam's two murderous sons, Udai and Kusai?
Does he mean Ali Hassan al-Majid, aka chemical Ali?
Does he mean Barzan al-Takridi, who ran Iraq's brutal intelligence service that bulldozed corpses into mass graves after they killed them?
Does he mean Izat Ibrahim al-Duri, who governed northern Iraq during the chemical weapon attacks on the Kurds?
Does he mean Uda Salih Mahdi Amash, whose name, nickname was Mrs. Anthrax, a member of Saddam's Baathist National Command?
Who exactly is Bill Clinton talking about?
The good and decent people.
That is just outrageous in light of the facts.
Outrageous.
All right.
Calming down, as all professional talk show hosts should.
I now want to present to you Stephen Hayes.
Steve Hayes is the author of a book called The Connection.
Rush interviewed Steve for the Limbaugh Letter when that book came out on these same topics.
He has written more extensively about it as senior writer for Weekly Standard.
That issue of Weekly Standard dated November 21st is on newsstands now.
He joins us here on the EIB Network hotline.
Hi, Steve.
Hey, Roger, how are you?
I'm doing well.
Tell us what you found out about WMD.
Well, I've found out some things, and I'm waiting to find out quite a bit more.
As all we all.
Yeah, exactly.
What I've been doing really for two years almost is looking at what we've found, sort of the treatise of the old Iraqi regime, the paperwork, the videotapes, the computer hard drives, the photographs that we found in post-war Iraq.
And all of this material has been, is sort of constantly being processed and shipped, one to a warehouse or series of warehouses in Doha Qatar.
Some of it makes its way to Washington, D.C.
But all of this information, as it is translated and processed, is then input into a massive computer database called Harmony, which is operated by the Pentagon.
And most of the stuff in Harmony, most of this data, most of the translations of these documents and things like that, is unclassified.
So I've basically been harassing the Pentagon for a couple of years and intensely for, I'd say, the past nine months to give me some of this stuff because these documents have, in many cases, very, very provocative titles.
And I think it would be one way to help explain to the American people what exactly we're doing in Iraq.
Well, what have you found?
It's amazing to me, because what you're saying is in these hundreds of thousands of papers and the hard drive and all the rest of these records of the Baathist regime, there are records of, you think, of weapons of mass destruction.
Well, sure.
Look, everybody has his or her own theory about what happened eventually to the weapons.
And there have been a couple of rather exhaustive studies, David Kaye's study first, then taken over by Charles Delpher, that have given us some indications of what may have happened to these weapons.
But there's a lot we don't know.
And some of these documents, just given their titles, I think would shed additional light on what might have happened to them.
And if not shed light immediately on what happened, certainly raise additional questions.
I mean, you have documents from a year or two before the war talking about chemical gear for the Fed AE in Saddam.
You have in another document that I've seen a talk about an order given for a chemical attack and even specifies the Iraqi Army battalion that received that order.
Now, is it possible some of these documents are inauthentic?
I suppose it is.
They remain in this database.
Certainly has piqued the interest of some people in the U.S. government.
And I think we should really be finding out more and making it available to the public.
Well, that's a key point, isn't it?
Why isn't the Bush administration interested in a full review of these documents to bolster the intelligence which Clinton believed, which all these Democrat senators believed in the 90s when they debated their resolution for regime change?
Well, I think, to be honest, the Bush administration made a strategic mistake.
I mean, during the presidential campaign, President Bush and Vice President Cheney and others were, I think, forced to defend the decision to go to war in Iraq in part because they had a constant opponent, somebody who was always there saying, hey, they misled us.
They fictionalized this account.
And so it required this constant fight.
I think once the election was passed, the administration decided to turn its attention to the insurgency, to the political process, to things like that.
And I'm not unsympathetic with that view, but I think what's happened in the interim is you've gradually seen more and more Democrats, primarily, making these arguments that Bush lied, that this was all based on fabricated evidence, things of that nature.
Totally irresponsible claims, I think, completely without merit.
But when they're let stand without a challenge, people begin to believe them.
They figure if there's an answer to these charges, certainly the administration would be providing it.
And that they haven't provided it.
It means there's probably not an answer.
Weekly Standard is on the newsstands now, and we're with Steve Hayes.
Stephen Hayes has written a book, by the way, his book, The Connection, about Al-Qaeda's collaboration with Saddam Hussein is also an eye-opener.
So shifting for a moment, Steve, from weapons of mass destruction, talk about what you found out with regard to Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda, because as we all know, this whole tie was labeled a myth by every one of the elite media outlets.
What Leslie Stahl, you quote as saying there was no connection, and that is the absolute rock-bottom belief of the liberal left that there was never a connection, that we created al-Qaeda in Iraq, that al-Qaeda is a result of our invasion and not the reason for it or a reason for it.
And you uncovered some stuff about this, too.
I did.
And, you know, one of the things I like about this particular debate, Roger, is that we can move from the realm of speculation and intelligence assessments, things of that nature, the uncertain, the realm of the uncertain, to facts, to documents.
So in post-war Iraq, we've uncovered numerous documents, as I mentioned.
Some of them we have an idea of what these documents have said.
There's one that talks about the liaison between the Iraqi intelligence service and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and talks about the effort to continue cooperation through discussion and agreement in the future.
This was a document from the mid-1990s.
One of the things that document says was it talks about continuing the relationship, quote unquote, in light of bin Laden having had to move from Sudan back to Afghanistan.
And that's one of those things.
When Carl Levin and other senators, Senator Jay Rock, a fellow vice chairman of the intelligence community, running around now saying there was no relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
Carl Levin calls it the non-existent relationship.
Jay Levin says they had nothing to do with one another.
Well, that's simply not the case.
And we have the documentation to prove it.
This is documentation that's been authenticated by the U.S. intelligence community.
It says Carl Levin might think that Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, but the Iraqi intelligence services certainly don't seem to have thought so because they were talking about the relationship in their own internal documents.
Talk about that relationship.
There's some key people that you've uncovered in these documents as well.
There is.
I mean, one of the main go-betweens, I think, over time, and we're learning more, as I say, every day, was someone you mentioned earlier, probably Uday Hussein.
In this document that I was just speaking of, Yudeh Hussein is identified as having had a meeting in 1994 with a senior Sudanese government official in which the Sudanese government approached Iraq on behalf of bin Laden and talked about bin Laden's willingness to meet and sort of develop this existing relationship.
There was another very important person named Farouk Hijazi, who was for a time the director, deputy director of Iraqi intelligence services, later went on to be ambassador to Turkey.
Hijazi was long seen as the main go-between for Iraq and Al-Qaeda and participated in what we now know as a series of meetings between the former Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda.
I would love to get my hands on Hijazi's debriefings and his interrogations.
One assumes that he probably said, well, I didn't have anything to do with al-Qaeda.
We met a couple times, but we were talking about trade or something, because I assume that he would not be likely to admit to fostering this relationship between America's two most dangerous and determined enemies.
On the other hand, maybe he gave something up.
Maybe there's a lot more we can know there.
It would certainly be helpful to round out that picture.
Steve Hayes, so here's information both on WMD and on the issue of the link between al-Qaeda and Saddam before the war, in which the Bush administration, or elements of it, certainly have information and documents, I take it or not classified some of them, that simply haven't been used to make the case.
And it's a mystery to many of us, Steve, why this has not happened.
I agree with you.
I think what needs to happen now is for the Bush administration to call for a massive declassification of virtually everything related to Iraq war intelligence.
I would love to see the American public deserves to see the pre-war intelligence claims, as much of it as can be declassified without jeopardizing sources and methods as possible, because then we can let people see what both Republicans and Democrats were looking at before the war.
But I think as important and perhaps more important is the rapid declassification of these kinds of documents that I'm talking about and that I'm writing about so that people can actually see what the Iraqi regime was up to.
And they can see a lot of this in the connection and the Weekly Standard.
Now, Steve, I want us to stand by on the issue of Niger and the ambassador's trip and all of that when we come back.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Law.
You're listening to Rush Limbaugh on the Excellence in Podcasting Network.
Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush Limbaugh, and we're talking to Steve Hayes, Stephen Hayes from the Weekly Standard, their November 21 issue with a number of these things.
Steve, I'm looking through these titles of the reports again that the Pentagon has so far declined to make public, and they really are bombshell papers.
I just wonder what a paper entitled Formulas and Information About Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents.
What would be the content of that document?
Or denial and deception of WMD and killing of POWs?
Are we going to find out about our pilot from the 91 war?
This is incredible.
Rice in research and improvement.
Chemical agent purchase orders.
I'll tell you what, I'm amazed by this stuff that it hasn't gotten, and the Bush administration has not done more with it.
But tell us what you know about Ambassador Wilson, his trip to Niger and the famous Yellow Cake Uranium, and were Saddam's agents down there trying to pick up a uranium they couldn't get anywhere else to help with nuclear weapons development.
Well, I mean, there's so much that hasn't been reported or I think has been misreported by the mainstream press on this particular trip.
And specifically its origins.
Remember, this all started with intelligence reporting that the U.S. government got in October of 2001 from a foreign intelligence service that had some sketchy details about Iraqis seeking uranium in Niger.
It was followed up in February of 2002 with additional reporting providing additional details.
That was then briefed to the vice president.
The vice president asked a general question, basically said, hey, I'd like to know more about this.
That was taken back to the CIA, the CIA where Joe Wilson's wife was working.
She was involved in the recommendation of her husband to make this trip.
He was asked to come into a meeting at the CIA.
She introduced him at the meeting.
She played, I think, an integral role in Wilson's going on this trip.
And basically, people know where it went from there.
Wilson went to Niger.
In his own words, he says he sipped green tea for eight days and had some meetings with Nigerian officials and basically asked them, hey, were the Iraqis here selling uranium or attempting to buy uranium.
Now, the interesting thing, and I think one of the most interesting things about this entire episode is the fact that the CIA apparently had so few assets of its own that it felt the need to send a retired diplomat rather than call its contacts on the ground in Niger to determine whether these early reports were true or not.
That, to me, is The real scandal in all of this is the CIA tradecraft on this from really from beginning to end.
Then Wilson went to Niger, actually, and then surprisingly, I think, talked to Nigerian officials who said, well, actually, there was this one meeting with Iraqi officials back in 1999, and they asked us about expanding trade relations.
And since we have few products other than uranium, we assumed they were talking about uranium.
So Wilson, in fact, corroborated these earlier intelligence reports, despite what he's been saying for three years since then.
And this is a narrative that you just really don't read in the Washington Post or the New York Times.
They simply omit these massive chunks of this narrative.
Stephen Hayes, you keep up providing it to us.
We'll keep talking about it.
And I appreciate your service to the country, my friend.
Thank you.
Thanks for having me.
Stephen Hayes, senior writer for the Weekly Standard.
Now, again, his last point.
Ask yourself: did you see on CBS, NBS, or ABS, did you see on any of the networks this information?
Did you, in connection with Harry Reed and all the rest of them, standing up and saying Bush lied, there never was any WMD, there never was any blah, Did you ever see any of the facts presented?
Have you, you know, of this kind?
I never have.
Now, when you go back and look at the mainstream media, quite a different picture emerges in the 1990s.
During the Clinton administration, Newsweek magazine, January 11, 99, says, quote, Saddam Hussein, with a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas, assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network.
U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer.
That's what Newsweek was saying in 1999.
ABC was saying in January 15, 1999, quote, intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
And it goes on to detail it.
ABC reporting, a link between Osama and Iraq and Sudan and weapons of mass destruction and naming names.
That's in the 90s.
That's when Clinton's in office.
That's when Clinton is attacking and bombing what he called weapons of mass destruction facilities, what he called Saddam's weapons program.
Stands up to an Arab student audience this week and says it was a mistake.
It didn't happen.
Bush lied.
So we should have saved Saddam's because they were good people, his deputies.
It was all the wrong thing.
That is just insufferable arrogance.
We have a memory.
We know.
Roger Hedgecock in for Rush Limbaugh.
Now, let's take our focus from the war, and we'll take some calls later on on this to get back to it.
But I want to put into the mix a little California news because this always gives you some perspective in other parts of the country.
We have on death row here in California one Stanley Williams.
Tukey, as he's known in the gang world, is now 51.
He was a co-founder of the Cripps gang in Los Angeles.
He was sentenced to death for murdering a convenience store clerk in Whittier, California, and two motel owners and their daughter in L.A. during robberies in 1979.
He was convicted in 1981.
He has had appeals incessantly ever since.
On October 24th, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge set December 13th, finally, as the date for his execution for murders committed 26 years ago.
This has resulted, not since Mumia Abu-Jamal, has there been such an uproar in the left.
This has resulted in a mass rallying of the left.
In fact, there will be a teach-in week called Save the Peacemaker rally for Tukey.
It says, Don't kill Tukey on the fly.
I have the flyer in front of me.
And it's sponsored by Snoop Dogg.
And Snoop Dogg and a number of other luminaries from the left will be in this rally, including Jamie Foxx, the actor, whose portrayal of Ray Charles was just unbelievable, one of the great movies of all time.
But here's Jamie Foxx, who also played Tukey in a television movie.
Actor-activist Mike Farrell, and you know where he's coming from about his lunatic left as it comes, and Snoop.
So the California, in other words, the California elite is turning out to, such as it is, turning out to support Tukey.
Now, Tukey, just a side note, a sidebar story.
Tukey has written a memoir, Blue Rage Black Redemption, indicating that his gangster life ended in 1992, that he has written books since then, the Tukey Protocol for Peace.
He has written books for children.
He has made appearances with regard to video appearances in the schools with regard to telling kids not to get involved in gangs.
This happened right after the last of his appeals were turned down.
He suddenly became Tukey the Peacemaker.
And he is now telling people widely that, well, he's black, so he couldn't get a fair trial.
That's number one.
Of course, that's, you know, boilerplate.
Number two, he's redeemed.
He's renounced the gang life.
He's telling kids to stay off gangs, take it out of gangs and off drugs.
And he is writing books about it.
He is a poster boy for what happens when you turn your life around.
On closer examination, the actual facts, disturbing as they may be to Jamie Foxx and others, are: number one, Williams has refused to formally renounce his gang membership.
He regularly exercises in the same yard with Crips only and has a huge, you know, one of these huge bodybuilding bodies.
I often wondered why did they give prisoners weights?
Just a sidebar.
He has an unusually large prison bank account that he cannot account for.
And his son is a Crips member who's imprisoned for murder.
And has actually, there's another charge on another one of his sons on the charge of rape and finding that he also is a gang member.
So it's kind of a family calling in the Tukey family.
And now he's appealing to Arnold Schwarzenegger for clemency.
As a result of his good work, however, with youth, with the youths of our nation, he has been nominated five separate times for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Now, it was tight between he and Jimmy Carter for that.
It was awful close.
And I think he was in the running that year, too, when they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to the Palestinian terrorist, Mr. Arafat.
So it's interesting that Tukey, in a long line of peacemakers, huh?
In a long line of peacemakers, Tukey now wants to gain clemency.
Ladies and gentlemen, the lunatic left in these kinds of crusades to thwart justice, to stop the co-founder of the Crips gang who felt it was okay to slaughter people wholesale in 1979.
And you know what?
I'm glad he's come around.
I'm glad that he's such a peacemaker.
I'm glad he's written books.
I'm glad he's telling kids not.
That's fine.
But how does that have anything to do with his guilt and the need for him to pay for the crime he committed back in 1979?
Fry him.
Now.
Arnold, don't even think 10 seconds about this one.
That's my opinion.
What's yours?
1-800-282-2882?
Let's get to Hal on a cell phone who's been waiting a long time.
Hi, Hal.
Yeah, how you doing, Roger?
Okay.
Hey, Roger.
You know, my problem with WMD is what capability did Saddam Hussein have to deliver any serious blow to the United States directly.
You know, we've been involved in the Middle East since the end of World War II.
George Bush at one time, in fact, when running for office.
Oh, wait, wait, wait.
What do you mean by the capability?
Because, Hal, forgive me for interrupting.
The Soviet Union disability.
The Soviet Union had massive capability to strike this.
It certainly was a massive threat.
Saddam was.
Hold on.
Have you forgotten 9-11?
What was the capability then?
Oh, I understand that, but that was, you know, that was a relatively small event compared to what the event.
More people died on 9-11 than died in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, a five-megaton bomb from a MIRV missile could kill many times that in a matter of minutes.
My point is that Saddam Hussein had no capability really of attacking the mainland United States in any serious manner.
But why could we not use the same strategy we did against wrong?
You're wrong.
They did attack the United States.
You can minimize it and say, well, it wasn't as many people who died if we had a MRV missile hit L.A. or New York.
Well, that's true, Hal, but we didn't have a MIRV missile.
We had these guys in airplanes kill more people than died in Pearl Harbor, and you're just glossing right over it.
I'm not.
But what could they have done beyond that?
What possibility do they have to harm us any further if we said to them, okay, next step is we bomb your cities with nuclear weapons.
We challenged the Soviet Union for half a century, and they had a capability to destroy this globe seven times.
We never attacked the Soviet Union.
You want to justify a war that was not necessary.
Let me tell you something.
We met in the Middle East end of World War II, deposing the leader of Iran in the early, late 40s, putting in the Shah.
What did that get us?
We gave them a nuclear reactor.
What did that get us?
We backed Saddam Hussein.
We backed bin Laden.
What did that get us?
It got us where we are today in the middle of a war we didn't need.
Okay, and Hal, I appreciate your reciting on the Rush Show all of the lunatic left nonsense that passes for history on your side of the spectrum, which mercifully is not the majority of this country.
Hal, we did not back Hussein.
He got some of our satellite intel during his war with Iran because we did not want Iran to win that war.
That's the sole substance of the quote support, unquote, given, by the way, you know, with the approval of the Democrats in Congress to Saddam Hussein.
When you're talking about meddling in the Middle East, we have been meddling, trying to promote a 20th and now 21st century view in the Arab world.
This is tough going.
I realize it's been a tough slog, but if you would rather just allow them to wallow in their seventh-century fanaticism, then that is your policy choice.
I don't believe that's what most Americans want to do, Hal.
I really don't.
Here's Andy on a cell phone in Austin, Texas.
Andy, welcome.
Roger.
Yeah.
George Bush's campaign against terror is going to go down in history as the most brilliant and successful campaign against that mechanism of hate ever.
Not only has this administration shown great restraint and compassion for those who live in the area who are innocent bystanders of consequence, who just happen to have been born Iraqi, they have shown a real determination to turn the money spigot off that funds these terrorist hate groups around the world and for anyone not to understand the endless bank account that existed under the ground in Iraq that could be funneled for any purpose and distributed to anyone,
particularly these hate groups, to deliver other mechanisms of mass destruction or airplanes or any other cockeyed idea to destroy our way of life, our cultural preferences here, and to continue to foment the hate of Western civilization.
They have just a convoluted understanding of economics and how things happen on this planet.
This is a global market we have.
I appreciate the call.
There's one side and the other.
What do you think when we come back?
Roger Hedcock in for Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network.
And lots more news to cover.
Let's get a call in here.
Scott on a cell phone on the I-5 in Southern California.
Hi there.
Hey, good morning, Roger.
Hi.
So, you know, Tukey, definitely let's fry him, but I think he should be well at the back of the line behind Manson, the Manson Klan, and Sirhan, just to name some of our more state notables that are, you know, up there for execution.
Well, no, they're not up for execution.
You'll recall those folks were tried and found guilty at a time when the death penalty was not legal in the state of California.
They were given life sentences, and it was part of the reason why we had such a big commotion to get the death penalty back in.
The public voted for it in California so that subsequent atrocities like this one would be handled with swift justice.
26 years after the fact, we're waiting for Tukey and we're waiting for justice, and that's far too long a wait.
Then let's light them up.
Light him up.
I agree.
Let's dim those lights in San Francisco as justice is done.
Thanks, Scott.
And I don't mean that in a mean-spirited way because there's not many of these guys I feel this strongly about.
But when you find a guy like this with this phony Nobel Peace Prize thing, he figured if Arafat can get it, he can get it.
You know, I mean, I haven't killed as many people as Arafat.
Give me a break.
That's his logic for getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
So it's time for justice to be done, for common sense to be reaffirmed in some way, shape, or form, for those victims of Tukey Williams and the Cripps gang to know that somewhere, somehow, there's going to be justice.
And by the way, while we're at it, is Mumia still alive?
Good grief.
What's that all about?
All right, here's Rick in Blaine, Washington.
Hi, Rick.
Hey, Roger.
Dittos on Tukey.
I've enjoyed you hosting the show.
I think you're very cogent and well-read and well-spoken and very organized in your arguments.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I have personal experience.
I don't know if you recognize my voice from a former San Diego.
And when it comes to the mainstream media, there is nothing responsible about what they do.
They can report whatever they want, and there is no penalty if they are wrong or if they spin it their way or anything else.
So you completely have my support when you say that we're not getting the straight scoop from the media.
But I think that the entire argument for this has to go back even further.
There are cruel, inhumane despots all over the world, and they are committing atrocities as we speak right now.
But we went into Iraq because there's oil involved.
And that's one of the issues that I take umbrage with Rush on, and that is, you know, we're Americans, and if we want to drive an SUV, we should be able to drive an SUV.
And I disagree with that.
I think that if we're responsible about our use of oil and our resources, it's going to make us more independent and further diminish our need to get involved with situations like this.
Yeah, I just don't know, Rick, how that can be squared with the facts, because before the war, there was a sale of Iraq oil to the world market, not just to the U.S., but to the world market.
The biggest increase in demand for oil, of course, is in China.
And they were getting that oil.
After the war, the oil has been sold in the world market.
We don't get any special break on price.
We didn't get anything out of the war in terms of oil.
I wish we had, to tell you the truth.
I think it would have been only just and right to get about three years of free oil from that country in return for liberating it.
But, you know, that's just me.
What actually happened is we've set up and protected the oil, and the new government of Iraq is going to take that oil, as the government of Alaska does, and share the wealth with its people, something Saddam never did, by the way.
So a huge improvement is going to go on, not only in the oil supply to the world market, but in the justice of where the money goes from that oil.
I mean, ask the Saudis if they're going to follow that line.
So I think, again, I have to tell you, Rick, I think that not only, A, was it not a war for oil, because we were getting oil before, we're getting oil now.
We're buying it on the open market for the outrageous price it's being sold for.
Your second point is about conservation.
And I think people ought to have the choice, frankly, to drive whatever they want to drive and pay whatever they're going to pay as the market bears.
And I don't think you or I have any right to tell people what they should drive.
I'm not saying that we should.
I'm saying that people need to voluntarily be conservative if we want to diminish our dependency on foreign oil.
And I don't disagree with maybe some of the results from this war will help our oil situation or whatever.
I'm just saying that we tend to stick our nose in, and this is a very simplistic view, I realize it, but I see us sticking our nose in when we have economic interest, let's say.
What was the economic interest in Iraq?
what was the economic interest that we got out of iraq as a result of this invasion i feel i think we've i think we've stuck our nose into the middle east uh...
no no no talk about the war in iraq don't don't don't Don't generalize it.
Don't get off point.
Rick, what was the economic benefit to the United States of America by invading Iraq?
I think that we actually thought that we were going to be able to stabilize and control the world oil market better if we had control of Iraq.
Has that worked?
No.
What was your evidence for it being the intent in the first place?
I see atrocities going on all over the world, and we haven't stuck our nose in like we did in Iraq.
You can't answer the question, but I appreciate the attempt, Rick.
I'm going to take a break.
I'm Roger Hedgecock in for Rush back after the Russian Republic.
Roger Hedgecock, in for Rush, having a lot of fun and getting some facts out here.
And I appreciate the calls as well.
1-800-282-2882.
Look, if we want to get back and talk about the pre-Iraq war intelligence and all of that, why is the 9-11 Commission, let's turn the tables on the Demster for just a moment here, why is the 9-11 Commission still not seriously looking at Abel Danger, at the group in the Pentagon that had Mohammed Atta's picture, that had an analysis of,
I don't know how many of the 19 hijackers already identified, and had an appointment with the FBI to brief them on it when it was canceled because of Ms. Gorlick's memo from the Justice Department, which at the time said, oh, no, there's a strict barrier there, like church and state.
We've got to keep a strict barrier between FBI and CIA so that we don't know what one hand is doing and the other hand is doing.
And when they attack us, no one will know and we'll just be pointing fingers at each other, which is exactly what happened.
Jamie Gorlick, of course, winds up on the 9-11 Commission.
Of course they don't want to look at Abel Danger.
Of course they don't want to look at their own culpability in the Clinton administration to the fact that George Bush was handicapped from even knowing what was going on because the Pentagon was forbidden from talking to the FBI.
▲
Export Selection