All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:43
November 24, 2005, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
All right, folks, I just got the news.
The Rush on Broadway DVD is now available in the EIB store.
Normally, I get my complimentary copies of these things before they go on sale, but I have not received my comp copies yet.
But I know that it was good because I did it.
So the Rush on Broadway DVD and all the net proceeds, it's 1995.
It's over two hours, this DVD, and all of the net proceeds go to the American Red Cross for hurricane relief.
You can check it out at www.rushlimbaugh.com.
And you don't need to be a member, of course, to get into the store and avail yourself of the wondrous stuff that is there, including an ever-expanding Club Gitmo line.
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
Great to have you.
Hope you had a great weekend.
I did.
I remember of it.
The telephone number here is 802.
Well, it was just long, and it was a lot.
There was a lot going on.
802-822882 is the phone number.
If you'd like to be on the program, the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
Lots of stuff over the weekend to take a swat at here.
I mean, I've been thinking about something.
Ever since Friday night, Saturday, been thinking about this.
And I don't know where the germination of the idea came from, but wherever it came from, it's a good one.
If I were Saddam Hussein, I would demand that my trial be postponed on this basis.
The honorable Senate Democrats in the United States are doing an honorable investigation to find out exactly what happened to cause me to lose my country.
And until these honorable Senate Democrats in the United States get every one of their questions answered about the manipulation and the distortion of the intelligence, and of course, all of the lies about my having weapons of mass destruction, all this before my country was invaded, I can't get a fair trial until all these questions are answered by the Senate Democrats.
And after these Senate Democrats get the answers that we all know are out there, I, Saddam Hussein, would argue that I never had any weapons of mass destruction.
And whatever bad intelligence was generated by a cowboy, frat boy president and his indicted staff who have poisoned world opinion about me and my government.
And as such, I can't get a fair trial anywhere.
And I want my country back.
I'm going to make this trial about George W. Bush, and I'm going to be calling as witnesses people like Dick Turbin and Ted Kennedy.
I'm going to call Chuck Schumer.
I would call Senator Jay Rockefeller as witnesses.
If I were Saddam Hussein, I'm serious, folks, and I wouldn't be surprised if his defense lawyers pick up on this at some point.
If I were Saddam Hussein, I would never, ever get off the line of attack of the Senate Democrats.
I would want answers.
I would accuse the lying President Bush of manufacturing evidence and spreading propaganda, a bunch of gullible reporters like Judith Miller of the New York Times and who knows who all at NBC and say that there exists a massive conspiracy, just like Hillary Clinton said, a massive right-wing conspiracy to prop up a failed presidency and to distract the world from the damage the Bush White House has done to the world's environment, the world's workers, the world's unions, the world's teachers, and most of all, the world's children.
If I were Saddam Hussein, I would be making this case, and I would say I'm following the lead of these great honorable Senate Democrats in the United States Senate who have the guts and the courage to have the temerity to get to the bottom of all of this.
I would follow them down the path they're on.
I, Saddam Hussein, would say that the Senate Democrats are on the way to proving that President Bush has led a false war, permanently screwed up children all over the world as to how you solve problems.
My country is Muslim.
We are very different from Western countries, and that scares stupid evangelical cowboys like George Bush.
Why, Prince Charles even had to go tell Bush you misunderstand Islam the other day.
I'd call Prince Charles as a witness.
So what does this cowboy Bush do when his oil-barren buddies can't have my oil for themselves?
Well, they start a war on false pretenses because everybody knows that this war was about nothing but oil.
And that's why all the intelligence was trumped up.
And that's why all of the lies were told.
And that's why everybody was told and agreed that I had weapons of mass destruction is because the world wants my oil led by the cowboy Bush.
And I thank God, I thank Allah daily for the Senate Democrats, the Democrats of the United States Senate who are leading this courageous effort to prove what a liar and a disaster on the world stage George W. Bush has been.
I can't get a fair trial.
And until I get a fair trial, which is not possible, I demand my country back.
All of this that has happened has been based on lies.
The world can't sleep at night.
If the world can do this to me, a man with nothing but benevolence and love in his heart for his people, what will they do next?
Who will they do it to next?
The cowboy Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove, they must be stopped.
And it's the Senate Democrats in that great institution, the United States Senate, who are leading the way.
If I were Saddam Hussein, I would say, I have no hope for a fair trial.
What I'm saying is being said by elected members of the United States Senate.
As I listen to the elected senators, Democrats in the United States Senate as they pursue this honorable investigation of George W. Bush, I say to myself, this is what I said to the UN.
This is what I said to the weapons inspectors.
This is what I said to the world when I was confronted with what everybody now knows, thanks to the Senate Democrats, are bogus, fake, and trumped-up charges.
Bush is a liar.
He lied about the reasons for and the need to invade my country, and I want it back.
He hires liars.
It is George Bush who should be impeached and convicted in his own country and then tried at The Hague in my place, not me.
I had nothing to do with 9-11, yet I'm the one paying the price.
You may not like me.
I am Saddam Hussein.
You may not agree with the ways of Muslim leaders in the Middle East, but does that give you the right to invade my country?
No.
And the United States Senate Democrats obviously agree with me.
They are honorable people.
The world should align behind the Democrats of the United States Senate who are trying to wrong one of the most terrible injustices in the history of the world.
It is George W. Bush who must be brought to justice by the brave and honorable members of the Democratic Party in the United States Senate.
Because leaders of the world and people of the world, I, Saddam Hussein, say to you that it is the senators, the Democrat senators in the United States Senate are all that stand between peace and bloodthirsty imperialism by the United States.
May Allah bless the good and decent truth tellers in the Senate who will not let George Bush continue his lies to his country and to the world.
George Bush hides behind his faith, but he's a liar, just like these Senate Democrats are saying.
I, Saddam Hussein, from the bottom of my sizable heart, thank the Democrat senators in the United States and all of the websites that support them and all of the Hollywood Democrats who are asking the Senate Democrats to continue this investigation.
I thank all of the American media because I think the American media is one of the last bastions of honesty and trustworthiness, second only to the Democrats of the United States Senate.
So I want to thank the mainstream media of the United States.
I want to further point out that if my trial is not postponed, if I can't get a postponement, and if I can't get a dismissal of the charges, and if I don't get my country back, if there is a trial, I demand that I be brought to the U.S. for trial in a United States civilian court.
I can't get a fair trial in Iraq because it's Bush cronies.
I can only get a fair trial in the United States where liberal Democrats run the court system.
And they're the ones doing the great work, the work of Allah, in order to maintain the lies of Bush and the distortions of the war.
I want my country back.
The United States does not recognize, U.S. court system doesn't recognize the Geneva Conventions.
They don't recognize the due process rights of illegal combatants like me or those held at Guantanamo Bay.
John McCain of the Democrats wanted them tried under our justice system.
And if illegal combatants are to be afforded with such treatment, if you're going to give real terrorists the opportunity to be tried in your court system, I, Saddam Hussein, demand to be tried in your court system because I am covered under the Geneva Conventions and I should receive better treatment.
And by the way, I wish to point out, and I know many people in the American ACLU will agree with me on this, I, Saddam Hussein, was not mirandized by the soldiers who captured me.
I was denied a speedy trial as compelled by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
The charges ought to be dismissed.
They did nothing but point weapons at me in that foxhole.
They didn't tell me my rights.
They didn't tell me I had to shut up.
They didn't tell me anything I said could be used against me.
I was lied to, not only by Bush, but by the whole U.S. military, by Rumsfeld.
I was lied to by Condoleezza Rice.
I can't even count on Colin Powell anymore because he was part of the original cowboy cabal that kicked me out of my country.
If I get my trial in the United States of America, as I so rightly deserve, I, Saddam Hussein, would like to call Dick Durbin as a witness because he would be able to testify that our troops are like Nazi stormtroopers.
He would be able to testify that U.S. troops are no different than the murdering thugs of Pol Pot and the gulags of Stalin.
I would next call Senator Kennedy, who would be able to testify that our troops, U.S. troops, are no better than Hussein's thugs, my thugs.
I would call Michael Issakoff of Newsweek magazine.
He would be able to testify how U.S. troops mistreat prisoners by flushing their Korans down the toilet at Gitmo.
And I would do my best to get rid of Rush Limbaugh for turning Club Gitmo into Club Gitmo.
It's not a joke what's happening there, and it's not a joke what's happening to me.
I would also call Ambassador Joe Wilson, of course.
He would be my star witness because Joe Wilson would testify that I was not a bad guy.
I was not somebody that posed a danger.
I never once sought uranium from anywhere because I didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.
And Joe Wilson knows it, and his wife Valerie Playman knows it.
And so, my friends, I, Saddam Hussein, throw in with the Democrats in the United States Senate.
They are my allies.
And until they finish their great and glorious work for Allah in uncovering the truth about the lies and the distortions of the cowboy Bush, I demand these trials of me be postponed and the charges dismissed and I get my country back.
The views expressed by the host on this program make more sense than anything anybody else out there happens to be saying because the views expressed by the host on this program are rooted in a daily relentless, unstoppable pursuit of the truth.
It's a thrill to have you with us.
We will have the ditto cam on at some point this afternoon at rushlimbaugh.com.
800-282-2882.
Ladies and gentlemen, something troubling out there today.
Well, that's the wrong thing to say.
There's a lot of things troubling every day.
But as you know, the Democrats on whom Saddam Hussein is basing his entire case for innocence and acquittal and for getting his country back are demanding because they care so deeply about the presidency and because they care so deeply for and about George W. Bush that he fire Karl Rove and just clean house, get some new people in there.
It's harming everybody.
And of course, this is laughable on its face, but there have been some people who have decided to respond to the Democrats, thereby letting the Democrats set the agenda.
Now, of course, it's quite proper to say, shut up, Democrats.
You've got no right to tell Bush who he ought to hire and who he ought to fire and this sort of stuff.
And don't try to kid us into making us think you care about the Bush presidency when you'd just as soon destroy it.
But the whole notion of even responding to this in the process of letting the Democrats set the terms shows we still have a ways to go in certain quarters of our movement.
I mean, the correct attitude here ought to be, if anybody could start talking this way, maybe it's time that Harry Reid leave the leadership of the Senate Democrats.
Maybe it's time that Ted Kennedy and the rest of that old lion Jurassic Park crowd from the Democrats and the Senate take a hike and retire.
You know, rather than get into debates about whether it's the Democrats' call on whether Rove should stay or not, let's turn it around and return fire on them rather than try to offer erudite elite responses to why this Democrat pursuit is so ridiculous.
You know me, offense, offense, offense.
The minute you start responding, when idiots make arguments and you respond, it's often difficult for the people listening to distinguish who's the idiot.
When an idiot sets the terms of the debate, when an idiot sets the agenda and you join it, you are joining an idiot and you will sound like an idiot along with the idiot and it'll be tough to know who's the idiot.
Now, the way to respond to this kind of thing is not obviously the response defending Rove.
That goes without saying.
The proper response is, oh, get really serious.
If you really want to improve the U.S. government, you really want to improve things, then get rid of Harry Reid.
The Democrats ought to be embarrassed at the current leadership they have.
They ought to not be able to hide their or show their faces in public with the things they're doing.
My open here, folks, I'm dead serious about it.
I know some of you think it's a joke, but you tell me what the Democrats are saying, Harry Reid on down, about this Intel, pre-war Intel, weapons of mass destruction.
You tell me how anything they're saying wouldn't help Saddam.
All Saddam's lawyers have to do is listen to what the Democrats are saying and make the case that he has been unjustly removed, that his removal was all based on lies on a cowboy Bush out of control for oil and so forth.
I mean, Saddam's got his case being made for him by the Democrats in the United States Senate.
Now, who do you think is acting more responsibly or irresponsibly in terms of the United States and its prestige around the world?
Do we really want Saddam Hussein echoing the things said by Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin?
Because it will happen.
If his lawyers have half a brain, it'll happen.
Let's go to the audio soundbites.
Here's the president.
This is this morning in Panama City.
Went down there to see the Panama Canal, and he took a couple questions, and the questions were on the leak case was one of them, and I forget two questions.
Here's the question on the leak case.
An American Infobabe reporter at said, back in October of 2000, Mr. President, this is what you said.
We will ask not only what is legal, but what is right.
Not what the lawyers allow, but what the public deserves.
So in the CIA leak case, has your administration lived up to this campaign pummet?
I said the other day to the press corps that was assembled in Argentina that there's still an ongoing investigation.
We take this investigation very seriously, and we'll continue to cooperate during the investigation.
Again, contrast this to the way the Clinton administration dealt with Ken Starr, and there's absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
Meet the Press, Tim Russert, yesterday, Senator Kennedy bloviating.
Russert said, you think there ought to be changes in the White House senior staff.
Clearly, there has to be a cleaning of the White House.
The American people are not going to have their confidence restored in their government when we have basically a democracy in disarray.
We have a damaged presidency and a tarnished White House.
The West Wing has really been taken over by the right wing at a time when America should be reflecting its vision of both where we want to stand in the world, what we want to do here at home.
I'm just, I can't wait for the day when Saddam Hussein picks up the very arguments that people like Ted Kennedy are making for his own defense for getting his country back.
I can't wait for it.
Then we can talk about who is damaging the country, who it is that is reflecting the vision of both where we want to stand and what we want to do here at home, because I'll tell you it's not with the Democrats.
Russert then said, Iraq, big debate now about whether or not the data intelligence misleading and manipulated in order to encourage public opinion or support for the war.
Let me give you a statement that was talked about during the war.
Quote, we know Iraq's developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
All U.S. intelligence experts agree they're seeking nuclear weapons.
There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region?
Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
Are those statements that you're concerned about?
Well, I am concerned about it, and that's why I believe that the actions that were taken by Harry Reid in the Senate last week, when effectively he said that we are going to get to the bottom of this investigation.
This had been kicked along by the Intelligence Committee, by Pat Roberts, for over two years.
And Harry Reid did more in two hours than that intelligence committee has done in two years.
And the American people are going to get this information, and it's important that they get this information about how intelligence was misused because of the current situation.
All right.
We don't have time for it till after the break, but when Ted Kennedy found out who it was that made that statement about nuclear weapons and how dangerous Saddam was, he was surprised.
He acts like he didn't even know it.
But those statements that I just read to you that Russert just read to Ted Kennedy, those were not statements that came from anybody in the Bush White House.
They were statements that came from John Kerry, Kennedy's chosen presidential candidate last year.
Kennedy's reply coming up.
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.
Here again is the statement that Tim Russert read to Ted Kennedy yesterday on Meet the Press.
Iraq, big debate now about whether or not the data, the intelligence, was misleading.
Let me give you a statement that was talked about during the war.
Quote, we know Iraq is developing unmanned vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
We know that.
All U.S. intelligence experts agree they are seeking nuclear weapons.
There's little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.
In the wake of September 11th, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that those weapons might not be used against our troops, against allies in the region?
Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
Are those the statements that you're concerned about?
And Kennedy said, Yeah, I'm concerned about it, and that's why I think that Harry Reid did the right thing shutting down the Senate.
So Russard comes back with, Senator, Democrats stood on the floor of the Senate in 2002.
John Kerry, your candidate for president, he was the one talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein.
That was his statement I read to you.
Hillary Clinton voted for the war.
John Edwards, Joel Lieberman, John Kerry, Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein.
You yourself, senator, said, quote, Saddam is dangerous.
He's got dangerous weapons, unquote.
It wasn't just the Bush White House, Senator.
I voted against the war because every military, I'm in the Armed Services Committee, and every military leader, highly decorated military leader, said that it was foolish to have a military intervention at that.
General Hoare, with the Marine, General Hoare, who has more silver stars than you can possibly count, said if we go into Baghdad, it'll look like the last five minutes of Private Ryan.
So we know we had enough information to vote against it, I believe.
But the point about this is we have the 9-11 that talked about the intelligence agencies, the failure of the FBI to talk to the CIA and the rest of it.
But they also recommended that we find out how intelligence was manipulated.
They just totally ignored it.
100% just totally ignored it.
I think that's somewhere that these elected officials go to school, learn how to do that.
Because they all just excel at it, just totally ignored it.
Well, I've never heard of General Hoare either.
I don't know who it is.
But, you know, we walked into Baghdad.
They gave us Baghdad.
Baghdad was surrendered, basically.
We took over.
But the only thing standing in our way in Baghdad was Baghdad Bob, who was on television telling the world we weren't there and that Saddam was, you know, that's a very fond memory.
But so Ted Kennedy ignores the statement by John Kerry, ignores his own statement and says it was enough information to vote against the war.
Well, then why didn't everybody in the Democratic Party go along with him and vote against the war?
Also, sticking with Russert on Sunday during the roundtable, they had David Gregory, Ronald Brownstein, and Nina Totenberg.
Now, that's a hell of a roundtable, is it not?
I mean, I can't find the conservative on that roundtable.
There wasn't a, but there's something else that was funny.
Ted Kennedy in this show was talking about ethics in government, and we need to clean the White House out because all these ethics things and so forth.
And our friend James Taranto at opinionjournal.com, best of the web today, anytime Ted Kennedy starts talking about ethics, Taranto's line is Mary Joan Kopeckny was unavailable for comment today.
I mean, it's just, this is what I mean.
And this is who the Democrats are showing the world that we are.
And this is who Saddam, no doubt if his lawyers have any sense, will glom onto and start praising their work and encouraging them, the Democrats and the Senate, to get to the bottom of it so we can get his country back.
Anyway, during this roundtable, Russert says, Patrick Fitzgerald in the indictment, the press conference, said that this is not a trial about the Iraq war, and yet Lewis Libby's lawyer said very openly that this is a national security case.
They're going to seek national security clearance.
Will there be an attempt to put the war on trial in the Libby case?
And here's Nina Totenberg.
I think the prosecutors will try very hard not to, and that the Libby defense may even use classified information as a reason to try to limit what kinds of things can be introduced as evidence at the trial.
But in the end, Lewis Libby told a long story that's underlined in that indictment.
Usually in an indictment, you see a couple of phrases underlined as lie, alleged lies.
In this one, it's a whole tale, so to speak.
And so I think it's harder.
Five government officials and three journalists, including yours truly included in that.
Russert knows what's headed his way, I think.
I think before this is all over, the media is going to be on trial.
There are too many instances.
People have found the transcripts of Andrea Mitchell saying, everybody knew in our area here that Valerie Playham was CIA.
Everybody knew it.
She said this on a CNBC show.
There's a whole stack now of transcripts of various NBC shows where various NBC reporters and anchors have shown up on these shows saying things as far back as 2002, 2003, that indicate they had quite a bit of knowledge about that.
And they're going to be called.
And this is going to raise an interesting First Amendment question because the media, their press companies, these CEOs, are not going to want testimony in this trial any more than they wanted Matt Cooper and Judy Miller to testify during the investigation.
And Libby's lawyers are going to subpoena everything.
And the government's going to say, well, you can't have some of that because that's classified or some of that is privilege.
And Libby's lawyers are going to say, well, my client can't get a fair trial.
My client can't get a fair trial.
And the judge may concur at some point.
If the defense can't put on a defense because the people involved either won't release what they did and knew and say, and some of the media people are reluctant to talk about it as well, who knows where this is going to go as far as its final outcome is concerned.
But I'll tell you, the press is going to end up in a situation here that they didn't foresee.
And only now some are beginning to foresee it.
And they're not excited about it.
And you just watch.
The press that's covering this trial has this whole notion that it's going to end up being a trial on the war in Iraq.
And of course, Libby's lawyer saying that the trial will involve national security.
What he means by that is reporters' role in national security as well.
Who knew what?
One of the things that I read this morning, and I unfortunately don't have a transcript right in front of me here, but it is clear that from one of the transcripts, I think on the CNBC show, that Andrea Mitchell may have known the same thing Robert Novak knew and just didn't report it.
But she knew it at the same time Novak did.
Somebody was out there telling these people who it is, and it was not Scooter Libby.
Because if it was Scooter Libby, he would have been indicted on that charge if there was, and there's no crime there in the first place.
But, you know, I think Joe Wilson will probably get subpoenaed by the defense.
He'll have to come in and testify.
This is going to be fun to watch out there.
A couple more bites on this same subject, weapons of mass destruction.
Who knew before we went to war that Bush was lying and who didn't know?
And the Democrats changing position on this.
Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace talking to Senator Schumer.
He says, as we noticed, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session last week to try to force her, get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House.
And Wallace concluded his comments leading up to a question of Schumer with this.
I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force.
Here it is.
It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts in organizations that make him a danger to the people of the United States.
Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same conclusion the president did.
Yeah, the bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9-11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong.
Come on, Chuck.
You weren't as sure as the president was?
It sounded like you were to me.
I mean, that sounds pretty serious.
We have to remember all these bites come from 2002, October 2002.
That's when the Kerry statement came.
What was going on then?
What was going on then?
We were leading up to the midterm elections.
In November of 2002, the Wellstone Memorial was yet to happen, but it was right around the corner.
And the president had already secured from Congress a resolution authorizing him after 9-11 to take whatever action he felt necessary to stop another attack like that from happening.
He didn't need another resolution to go to war in Iraq, but the Senate Democrats were reading the polling and they found that the vast majority of the American people were with the president on this, vast majority, and they had not been on the right side of this, so they demanded the opportunity to debate another resolution.
And that started, I think, probably in August of 2002.
Democrats were demanding this, and Bush sort of delayed for a while.
He said, okay, if you want, because he was trying, you know, the new tone, trying to unite everybody.
I'd love to have you on my side.
Go ahead and debate it, you guys.
The Senate Democrats debated it, and that's where the Kerry statement comes from, and this little bite played for Schumer that he made, and there was one, all of them.
I mean, we've given you the quotes verbally on this program.
And it was all because they were just trying to get elected in 2002.
They were trying to win the midterms.
They had polling data, which said this mattered to the American people.
For the months leading up to this, they had opposed a resolution using force in Iraq.
They were trying to stop it, but they had to get on the bandwagon.
And they needed a new debate and a new resolution so that they could get current statements on the records.
They could play them during the campaign season of 2002.
And that's what the media is now turning around and playing back for them.
Oh, well, it sounds to me, Senator Schumer, you had the same intelligence President Bush said.
Well, yes, but he meant it more than I did.
Yeah, he believed it more than I did.
But in the post-9-11 world, the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong.
What is Schumer was caught, and he's just not as adept at some of these others as slithering out of it.
On late edition, Wolf Blitzer, Wolf played a soundbite from October 10th of 2002 of Jay Rockefeller, when all these guys were debating this on the floor of the Senate.
And that tape for Rockefeller, and he's sitting there as a guest, said, this is Rockefeller speaking, there is unmistakable evidence that Saddam is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.
Wolf Blitzer says, you want to revise and amend those words?
Of course.
I mean, I was dead flat wrong.
And as soon as we, since I am on the Intelligence Committee, and as soon as we did our report on weapons of mass destruction or before we completed it, I realized that I had just been living off this information, this false information intelligence.
We blasted the folks who created the intelligence.
And I went down to the floor of the Senate and I said, look, I'm wrong.
I would never vote for a war, knowing what I know now.
But the point also is, Blitz, that the Senate of the United States doesn't take us to war.
It's the President of the United States that takes us to war.
It's the Vice President of the United States that takes us to war.
Blitz?
He called him Blitz.
It must be Wolf's nickname to his buds in Washington.
That's the question I have.
If the president's the only one that can take us to war, then why do these guys demand to participate in another debate and vote on a new resolution?
These guys, let me tell you, here's the dirt.
If this thing were going in a way that everybody wanted to raise the flags of success, I'm to the Democrats that'd be out there saying they're the ones that do or deserve all the credit because they gave the president permission to go.
So now they're slipping.
Oh, I was dead wrong.
The president lied to me.
I was dead wrong about all this.
I don't remember him saying it, but if he went to the Senate floor and said it, and he says he did, I guess it can be found.
We must take a quick break.
We'll be back and continue.
Just a second.
Okay, so Rockefeller, I love this.
Rockefeller says he's dead flat wrong.
They realize that he's just been living off this information.
This false information is false intelligence.
He said, we blasted the folks who created the intelligence.
I went down to the floor of the Senate and I said, look, I'm wrong.
So what Rockefeller has just admitted here is that he's a useless tool of the CIA.
CIA feeds him some bad intelligence and he'll just walk right out to the microphones with it.
He'll just walk out to the cameras while he's serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Now, if he's not going to take his job seriously, then who needs him?
This gets back to a point that I was making during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath.
Many of these members of Congress get to run around and act like bystanders.
They get to pretend that they were spectators, that they had nothing to do with any of this.
I mean, they signed and voted for the war.
They debated the resolution.
And now they want to act like they had nothing to do with it or that they were lied to about it.
And they think, the funny thing is, they think they're getting away with it.
They think, I mean, I got a story here in the stack that there's some polls out to show 06 is going to be big for the Democrats.
It's just more media creating the news they want to report rather than report what is happening.
Scott in Daytona Beach, Florida.
I'm glad you called, sir.
You're on the air.
Welcome to the program.
Yes, Rush.
Last time I talked to you was about 16 years ago.
Listen, you did a very good job today of pointing out how things that are now being discussed indicate that what was done to Iraq and to Saddam Hussein was unjust.
But then you say, we can't make that conclusion.
And then you start attacking the Democrats by pointing out that they were agreeing with Bush before this whole thing happened.
I'm not sure how that justifies it.
Is that what this is?
Is that what you think I was doing?
That I was making a brilliant case for the whole Iraq war was unjustified.
You seemed to be making that case.
You were trying to do it in a mocking manner, but that's what you were doing.
And actually, I agreed with what you were saying for the most part.
This is scary.
This is one of the scariest moments that I have ever had behind a golden EIB microphone.
This is heart-stoppingly scary.
Good grief.
We'll be back in just a moment.
Folks, I have an interesting little story here.
The New York Times, they're saying that the nation, a far-left liberal journal of opinion, has finally turned a profit for the first time in its 140-year history.
It began turning a profit in 2003.
Its circulation's gone up since two things happened.
Bush became president and Katrina Van den Hoovel became the new editor-in-chief.
So the nation has Hurricane Katrina Van den Hoovel as the new editor-in-chief, and at the same time, the nation is showing its first profit, which has to be a terribly conflicted moment for Katrina van den Hoovel as As an unabashed socialist and admirer of communist countries in the past, for her own enterprise to be showing a profit, why, how embarrassing.
What went wrong?
This is not supposed to happen.
Now, there are ways around this.
You could raise wages in the mailroom.
You could start paying people more money, but then that would upset the balance of worker equality within the four walls of the nation.
They couldn't find the Democrats to rail against Bush.
Cable TV went to their wacko file, and Katrina was in business.
And that then has elevated the stature of the magazine and the kook left, the kook fringe of the American media, the American population, and they've made this a profitable enterprise.
Now, I don't know if she's going to have the courage to show herself on television anymore.
Might have to ask all hosts not to mention that her magazine has shown a profit because a profit exploits the people, folks.
The least she could do is donate it back to the subscribers.
And she started as an intern.
One great thing.
She started as an intern in 1980 at the nation, and now she's the man.
So congratulations, Katrina, but we feel your pain over your profit.
We'll be back in just a second.
▲
Export Selection