All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 20, 2005 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:26
December 20, 2005, Tuesday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
Okay, I got a question here for you, folks.
If you are a New York transit striker, you're a New York transit worker and you're on strike, you are probably a Democrat and you are obviously a member of a union.
But you're also in New York, which is a mecca of liberalism, where they love unions.
They love unions so much that they force them out on strike.
What must you be thinking today?
Greetings, my friends, and welcome.
Great to have you.
Rush Limbaugh, The Excellence in Broadcasting Network, and we are rocking and rolling for three hours today.
Telephone number, if you'd like to be on the program, is 800-282-2882.
The email address is rush at EIBnet.com.
We are ditto-camming today, ladies and gentlemen.
We'll be for the entire three hours of the program today.
The Adopt a Soldier program continues.
Once again, we urge, I'm mentioning this in the first hour because this is the hour that is carried on Armed Forces radio around the world.
And we continue to seek as many qualified members of the U.S. Armed Forces as possible to register at rushlimbaugh.com.
It's El Fribo and it's easy to do so that you can be matched with a donor in our Adopt a Soldier program.
What do you get?
You get a full year's subscription to my one and only website and the Limbaugh Letter newsletter.
I mean, there's tons of Americans out there that want to show all of you in the Armed Forces how much you're loved, appreciated, and respected.
And this is one way they can do it, particularly with all the news out there saying you can't win.
We don't deserve to win.
This is a lost cause.
Blah, You don't.
In fact, I saw a story the other day, just this morning doing show prep, reporters are telling people that soldiers are very wary when they run into them over in Iraq.
And one of the things that soldiers are suspicious of is that the reporters are going to try to catch them doing something untoward, unkind, or illegal.
And so they just, they basically shut up and batten down the hatches and don't do much of anything when they see a reporter and camera around.
I know you're going to see stories, too, that quote some soldiers saying, oh, we don't know what we're doing here.
Well, I'm sure you can find some that say that.
But you'll only hear about those soldiers in the mainstream press.
Yeah, I have a couple exceptions to it, but that'll be the general tone.
This New York transit strike, I know the international, what is the name of this outfit anyway?
What's the name of the transit workers?
Whatever it is, what is it?
TWU.
Well, there's an international arm of this outfit.
And the international arm is real upset at the local New York thugs for taking this action.
They think the pay raise offer of 10.5% over three years is pretty good.
At least it's not something to strike over.
It's something you keep negotiating.
So they're moving in and maybe take over the local aspects of this union.
But it just never ceases to amaze me.
You can go look at every one of these special interest groups represented by liberal Democrats.
And the Liberal Democrats are always, forever, my whole life, they're out there talking about how supportive they are of these groups.
The black population, the labor unions, feminists, you name it.
And yet every one of those groups contains angry people.
They never get taken care of according to the promises that they hear.
You would think in the mecca of liberalism.
I mean, here we've got an ongoing national crusade to destroy Walmart because they're not union.
They don't pay people enough.
Now we've got a strike in New York by people in a union claiming they're not being paid enough by the people that run the most liberal city in the country.
So Don't tell me the mayor's a Republican.
He's a rhino.
He's a lib Democrat.
He was always a lib Democrat until he wanted to become governor.
He had to follow Giuliani.
He said to become a Republican, but he's still the people of New York know who they're electing.
It's a liberal city, folks.
There's no question about it.
And, well, okay, they say they're striking for respect and dignity.
They're not getting respect and dignity from the liberal leaders of the mecca of liberalism in this country.
They're not getting any respect and dignity.
And yet, all year long, we're going to hear about how Republicans and conservatives are anti-labor and anti-union and so forth.
Anyway, the strike is illegal.
That's, of course, in certain parts of the country, illegal doesn't matter.
And when you haven't done anything wrong, they claim you have and go after you.
These guys, if somebody ought to play a tape for these guys of Ronald Reagan firing the PATCO workers back in 1981, the air traffic controllers.
Well, I wanted to get that stuff off my chest because the big news today continues to be the week on defense invested in defeat liberal Democrats.
They're reading the paper today and looking at the news.
The left is trotting out, media trotting out John Dean.
In fact, Barbara Boxer has written an impeachment letter.
John Dean says that George Bush at his press conference yesterday was the first president to actually admit to committing an impeachable offense.
So now she wants to look into this to see if they can do so.
They're bringing up John Dean and Jamie Gorelik to attack Bush's national security program.
The Washington Post today has a story quoting Jamie Gorelik, the architect of the wall, which has now been rebuilt because of the failure to reauthorize the Patriot Act.
By the way, the Democrats are running around saying, hey, we didn't kill the Patriot Act.
You most certainly didn't.
Harry Reid led cheers to that effect last Friday when the Patriot Act was killed.
He was all giddy.
He was all excited.
We killed the Patriot Act.
Now you've got, who?
You've got Diane Feinstein out there saying, well, it's not killed as far as I'm concerned.
And Chuck Schumer says, well, it's not killed us for we didn't kill the Patriot Act.
Kent Conrad of one of the Dakotas, or is he from Montana?
I think he's in Montana, regardless where he's from.
They're out there claiming they didn't kill the Patriot.
They did.
And they're happy about it.
And they went to a big gathering of Democrats and they had a little party over it.
Well, let me read you this Jamie Gorellik quote from the Washington Post today.
And this quote, now, if you don't understand the context, you are going to assume that she is supporting the president, but she's not.
She's supporting McCain.
This is an anti-Bush comment.
But what follows this is the piece de résistance.
She says in the Washington Post today, the issue here is this.
If you're John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, why would you think that that limits anything if the executive branch can ignore it by asserting its inherent authority?
So what she's saying is, Bush is a lawbreaker.
Bush, he doesn't have to listen to McCain.
He doesn't have to listen to President McCain of the media.
He can do whatever he wants.
He's just gone out and done whatever he wants.
Anyway, he's violating all these laws.
He's not getting warrants.
He's doing whatever he wants to do.
The man's, he's power mad.
He's out of control.
That's what this quote means.
So she's sympathetic to McCain.
If you're McCain, why would you think that your bill limits anything Bush will do when Bush can ignore it by asserting his inherent authority?
Now, let's go back, though.
Let's go back July 14th, 1994.
Jamie Gurellic quoted by Byron York in a story today at National Review Online.
She said, and this is her testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14th of 1994.
She said, Jamie Gorellik, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
It's important to understand, senators, that the rules and the methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.
So Jamie Gorellik here is basically saying we have a different set of rules when a Democrat's in the White House.
When a Democrat's in the White House, we can do exactly what George W. Bush did because Bill Clinton did it.
But when George W. Bush is in office, we can't let George W. Bush do it because he's a Republican or whatever reason.
So here's Gorelik today in the Washington Post.
The issue here is this.
If you're McCain, you've got Congress to pass your big limits on interrogation techniques bill, what would you think it matters when Bush is going to run roughshot over the law anyway and do what he wants to?
Then she's quoted 11 years ago basically saying, hey, presidents have this authority and they've used it and they've done it before.
Foreign intelligence is far different than domestic criminal searches.
So, I mean, it is just, these people lie through their teeth.
Jamie Gorellik, the audacity for her to step forward and have some sort of authority on this is typical of the mainstream press, but she has just contradicted herself big time inside of 11 years, and it illustrates the entirety of the political aspects of this whole thing.
Quick time, the Democrats don't give a whip, folks.
They don't give a whit about national security.
That's not something that they're even concerned about.
The liberals in Congress and the media are insisting that we as a nation commit suicide.
They want the Constitution interpreted as a suicide pact when George W. Bush or a Republican is president.
They want us to disarm.
They want us to surrender.
Oh, yes, they do.
By calling for us to get out of Iraq, a definite timetable, saying we can't win?
What the hell else are you going to call it?
Of course it's surrender.
They want us to leave it to the enemy to decide when, how, and where to hit.
The hell yes, they do.
When they're trying to kill the Patriot Act, when they're doing everything they can to prevent us from connecting the dots, it means we can't do anything until after we get hit.
We can't take any preventive action.
Preventative action violates the law, violates people's privacy, violates all these.
We can't do that.
No, no, no.
So we got to wait till we get hit again, and then we can go do what we want to do.
There's even a story here that in the stack, this is, well, what Bush wanted to do three months or six months after 9-11.
That made sense then.
But so much time has gone by now.
Why those things need to be relaxed?
So, okay, we got to wait till we get hit again because Bush can't continue.
We as a government cannot continue to take steps to thwart future attacks.
We've got to sit around and wait.
And that's why I say the Democrats, weak on defense and the invested in defeat Democrats, are now demanding we leave it to the enemy to decide when and how and where to hit.
They get to choose it because we're not going to be able to stop them.
If they want to hit Soldier Field in Chicago, we can't do anything to stop them if the Democrats get their way.
And we are at a point of reckoning here, folks.
Either we stop the Democrats now or we will suffer grievously and we will know who to blame next time this happens.
Quick timeout, back with more after this.
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year's Eve, El Rushball America's anchorman serving humanity simply by showing up.
I want to share with you some excerpts here from Byron York's piece at National Review Online today, from which I just quoted the Jamie Gorelic testimony from 1994.
Headline of Byron's piece is, Clinton claimed authority to order no warrant searches.
Does anybody remember that?
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has, quote, inherent authority, unquote, to order physical searches, including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens, for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body, even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court,
that's FISA, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorellik testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee July 14, 94.
She said again, the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the president may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
It's important to understand, Gorelik continued, that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.
Executive Order 12333 signed by Ronald Reagan in 81 provides for such warrantless searches directed against, quote, a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, unquote.
Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Bush has done it.
But once again, history began December or January of 2001.
Nothing before that is relevant.
There is nothing before that as far as the left is concerned.
Now, the reason this is important is not mere hypocrisy, folks.
We're not talking here about the Medicaid bill.
We're not talking about that whopping $40 billion deficit reduction bill.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
No, no.
We are talking about national security at a time of war.
And we've got now Democrats politicizing this whole process.
And the upshot is we can't.
We can't do any surveillance to find out anything about these people in this country unless Bush lets these people know they're being looked at.
Which is effectively the way to kill the whole purpose.
Now, reporting the day after Jamie Gorelli's testimony, and of course this would be July 15th of 94, the Washington Post headline on page A19 read, Administration backing no warrant spy searches.
Here's how the Washington Post story began 11 years ago.
The Clinton administration, in a little noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order.
Capitalize that and put it in bold.
The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers.
So there were, you can't do this, Mr. President.
You got to go get, you got to get a good warrant.
I'm not going to listen to you.
I got Gorelik up there.
We're going to get what we want.
We run this town.
We run this country.
I'm going to get these searches.
I'm going to have to bother with these damn warrants.
Screw it.
That's what happened.
It's exactly what happened.
There's precedent for this.
And the author of it, no less than Slick Willie.
Now, in her testimony, Gorelik made clear that the president believed he had the power to order these warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime.
Even without probable cause, they could do this.
Even without probable cause.
Intelligence is often long-range.
Its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise, said Gorelik.
Information gathering for policymaking and prevention rather than prosecution are its primary focus.
So, I know, how does this square with Gorellic creating the wall later on?
Well, the wall had multiple purposes, and one of the things it was to do was to shield some of the illegal campaign contributions that might just happen to be flowing in from foreign countries.
What have we swerved into here?
So we can't spy on Johnny Chung.
We can't spy on whoever else it was that ended up funneling all those, what were they, travelers checks and other things to the Clinton campaign.
But you see, bottom line here is there was no real national security threat then that the Clinton people were looking at.
This is a smokescreen.
This is a smokescreen to cover up their own activities so that we couldn't connect the dots to find out about their illegal campaign.
That's my interpretation of this.
Because they weren't fighting any war on terror.
Just the year before, in February of 93, we had the first World Trade Center bombing, and they were out there conducting that in court.
And they had prosecutors, and they were doing indictments and so forth.
So, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Let's say they were doing some clandestine foreign agent research here and intelligence.
As I say, they were.
They went out and did what they had to do.
This is necessary.
This is unlike, okay, you get word of a specific crime, and then you go target the people you've heard about might commit the crime, and you tap their phones and do all that, and you go get a warrant, and the judge says, yep, there's enough here to give you the warrant.
Here, take it.
Go find out who's going to do what.
In situations like this, you've got a minute phone call here, a minute phone call there.
Somebody talks about blowing up a bridge somewhere.
That's all you know.
But after 9-11, you hear somebody on a foreign phone, on a foreign conversation or international conversation, talking about blowing up a bridge in New York or Washington.
What do you do?
You don't know who it is yet.
So you have to, and to go to the FISA court, just like any other court, sometimes it can take 10 to 12 days to get all this through there.
This is why this procedure for foreign intelligence gathering was adopted.
It's been the way of the world in this country, at least since the Reagan administration.
But you would never know that listening to Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid and all the rest of the defeatist, invested in defeat, weak on defense.
Liberal Democrats.
Back after this, my friends, stay with us.
Half my brand tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, let's go to the phones.
I'm not through with this subject.
I got a couple more things from Byron York and a great New York Sun editorial today that's just full of facts.
I hope you people are listening to this because it just illustrates, once again, the Democrats lying through their teeth, teeth, ignoring history and engaging in pure partisan politics.
What's at stake here is the national security of the country.
It's Jerry in West Milwaukee.
Nice to have you on the program, sir.
Welcome.
Thanks for taking my call, Rush.
Yeah.
I'm a liberal, and I have to disagree with you.
Liberals aren't endangering.
And they don't, and it's not that they're apathetic.
National security, we care about national security, but we also care about basic constitutional rights and protections.
And we don't believe that the president should be above the law.
See, the president's not acting above the law.
You are ill-informed.
You are listening to your heroes who are lying through their teeth to you, and you're buying it because of your own partisanship.
He's not acting above.
Have you not been listening to the first half hour of the program?
You've been on hold.
Have you not been listening?
He has done nothing that Bill Clinton didn't do, and you didn't care about that.
Nothing that Reagan didn't do.
And coming up next, nothing that Jimmy Carter didn't do.
Judge who they take the actions of people who did something wrong doesn't justify the actions of the current president.
It's not wrong.
It has been pronounced legal if you will stand by.
Why are there many legal states?
I'm going to read to you some excerpts from the FISA court regulations in which they talk about you can do things without a warrant.
People are so ignorant on this, and I don't mean stupid, just ignorant, ill-informed.
You're falling prey to a bunch of heated partisan rhetoric out there.
Rush, you got three weeks after getting to get approval from a judge to get a warrant.
I mean, that's plenty of time.
That doesn't endanger national security.
Let me ask you a question.
Jerry, let me ask you a question.
You say that you, as a liberal, are interested in national security.
Of course.
Well, tell me how.
What are your liberals doing to protect national security?
What are they doing to protect national security?
Well, one, we're making it the ideal to go after people who committed the 9-11 attack.
George Bush said that getting bin Laden wasn't a priority a couple years ago.
To him, I don't know if it's a priority now.
As I thought, you want to totally discount anything in Iraq as relevant to the war on terror.
No, actually, I favor keeping troops to an a certain extent.
But see, you're not answering the question.
You're telling what you would do to protect national security.
You're not going to protect national security alone by going to Afghanistan or Pakistan and finding bin Laden.
No, I don't.
You're not going to do that at all.
You're going to have to.
We didn't connect the dots before the 9-11 attacks, and we could have been traveling all over the world hunting down terrorists and might not have prevented it because we weren't able to connect the dots.
We have a Patriot Act, which allowed us to connect the dots after the fact, and now we've got a president who's connecting the dots accused of spying, and everybody concerned about civil liberties.
You know, you guys and your quest for civil liberties, and I'm very sensitive to that, but that's not why wars are fought.
And that's not what this is all about.
This is about saving lives, as I pointed out yesterday.
Your life is worthless if you're dead, Jare.
You don't have a civil liberty to do anything.
You can't protest.
You can't bomb a building.
You can't go sweep manure into the sewers and neighborhoods that you don't like.
You can't do any of these.
You can't go protest the environment because you're dead.
Your civil liberties are worthless.
And this is all about protecting lives.
And your priorities are wrong.
All of your priorities are wrong.
Besides that, listening to your guys does not inspire confidence that they care a whit.
Your guys don't think we can win the war on terror.
You guys don't think that we have a right to fight it.
You guys think we need to sit around and be hit again before we can act.
You guys hold conferences on why do they hate us?
What did we do to cause this?
You guys are out there saying George Bush created terrorists.
You guys are out there saying George Bush is Hitler.
You guys are embracing people like Cindy Sheehan, a glittering jewel of utter colossal ignorance.
And she becomes a hero to you.
And I will guarantee you that there's nothing heroic about Cindy Sheehan.
There's just a bunch of pure sadness.
But once her usefulness is gone, you know, you spit her out and then you move on to some other hero.
And you've had an endless parade of these brave warrior heroes like Cindy Sheehan and on whom none of us could depend or would invest in our future as Americans.
Because they don't get it.
They are just pathetic.
And I think it's sad that you don't realize the threat.
It's sad that even after 9-11, that you don't see what is out there and you're not willing to do what's necessary to keep it from happening again, all because the guy in the White House might get credit for it, and that dooms you to an out-of-party position.
So go ahead and march for your civil rights and go ahead and play around and talk about how important they are.
People like a U.S. military and people like George W. Bush will save your life and protect your life so you can run around and occupy your time with a bunch of inanities.
Bill in Detroit, welcome to the program.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello.
Yes, sir.
Yeah, you know, Paul W. Smith, who sat in for you last week, interviewed Carl Levin this morning.
Yeah.
And it was an interesting interview.
I didn't get to hear the whole thing.
I walked in on it.
But I heard enough to get the gist of it, which was, you know, they discussed the domestic spying.
And Paul W. Smith kind of caught him off guard by bringing up President Clinton's program, which I forget what it's called, but it was called the Well, anyway, he brought it up.
Here's an intern program.
Intern program.
Yeah, that one, that one.
No, his domestic spying.
And he claimed that he had no knowledge of it.
And if he did, he couldn't discuss it because it was top secret.
But, hey, you know, that was pre-war, pre-9-11.
Yes, it was post-226.
226-93.
It was post-220 of the first attack of the World Trade Center.
And Clinton's minions were out there trying to put that blind chic in jail, and they succeeded in doing that.
Pre-9-11.
See, history began.
History began in 2001.
Well, give me the highlights of this, and so I'll know what happened.
Well, he claimed he had no knowledge of that, and said if he did, he couldn't talk about it.
It was top secret.
But here, why is it okay for the New York Times to expose all of this in a time that we're at war post-9-11, but yet there was no stink about when Clinton was doing it, none whatsoever.
Well, that's, I mean, you understand.
Well, okay, you understand why.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
This is all about politicizing Bush.
This has nothing to do with what they claim it's about.
Nothing to do with national security, nothing to do with civil liberties, nothing to do with all these things they're so concerned about.
They're just in quicksand thinking that this is going to launch them back to power.
And I don't know.
I think they've lost all perspective.
What else did he say that's interesting?
Well, that, you know, by doing what he's doing, that it will lead to dictatorship and just a random.
No, that's what Carl Levin wants.
Carl Levin wants a liberal dictatorship running this country.
Carl Levin doesn't like opposition.
Carl Levin doesn't like the fact there's a Republican Party in the conservative movement because his party loses.
Right.
And he was just complaining about there's no where in the Constitution does he have this right, but Paul W. caught him off guard.
It's called Article II.
It's real simple.
It's called Article II.
Right.
My friend Bill Buckley has a column today.
He says, you know, Constitution oftentimes is said to be so esoteric and so complicated that average people cannot read it and understand it.
It's B.S.
They have lawyers argue the various elements of the Constitution.
We have arguments on both sides.
No, it means this.
No, it means that.
Article 2 is very plain.
There's a reason why the commander-in-chief was given this kind of authority instead of a mindless committee of 535 bubbleheads like Carl Levin.
It's real simple.
The authority comes from Article 2 of the Constitution.
Let me go to the New York Sun editorial today.
Actually, lead editorial from yesterday.
Couple of excerpts here.
But contrary to what you may read in some other newspapers, that law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which, by the way, Jimmy Carter was president then, a Democrat, that law, the FISA law does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court.
Somebody told Jerry in West Milwaukee, the law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order.
As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, subchapter 1, Section 1802, blah, One such provision is helpfully headed electronic surveillance authorization without a court order.
That's the title of the law.
Electronic surveillance authorization without a court order.
It's in the FISA law.
From 1978, Jimmy Carter was president.
What more do I need to say?
Well, I've got a lot more and I'll do it now.
This without court order, quote unquote, was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23rd, 1979, stating, quote, pursuant to section 102A1 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.
He said without a court order in his executive order.
Carter did it.
Reagan did it.
Ronaldo-Magnus did it.
Bush did it.
Bush needs to be impeached.
Now, there is some discussion by the editors at the New York Sun of qualifications and circumstances in Section 1802.
That's what they go to next in the editorial.
And then the argument continues.
If Section 1802 isn't enough, regard Section 1811 of the same subchapter of the United States Code, Authorization During Time of War.
It states, notwithstanding any other law, the President through the Attorney General may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress.
Now, the important thing there is to mark the phrase without a court order.
In the rest of the editorial, the Sun editorial writers expand on the question of whether Congress has declared war in this circumstance by authorizing the use of force in their numerous resolutions.
And they conclude that Congress did formalize a state of war against our enemies after September 11th.
But note the recurrence in the FISA law of the phrase without a court order in the context of intelligence surveillance.
It's all over the place.
All of this is moot, folks.
All of this is literally nothing.
It is legal.
It has been done before, as Jamie Gurelic signified and indicated in her testimony in 1994, Carter Reagan.
It's tiresome.
This is like saying pick any law that has been on the books for a long time that people have utilized, and then just say Bush utilized the same law.
All of a sudden, when he does it, it's illegal.
That's essentially what case Democrats, and this is all a derivative of the New York Times story that ran on Friday that they held for a year.
Interesting note about that.
The Los Angeles Times has a story that the Times did, the New York Times did hold that story from James Risen for a year to be more closely aligned with the publication of his book.
Now, the New York Times is out today with chapter two of this whole thing.
FBI watched activist groups.
New files show counterterrorism agents that the FBI have concluded and conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty, and poverty relief.
Newly disclosed records show.
So what?
This is an ongoing attempt here, folks, to destroy this nation's ability to defeat this enemy.
Now, it may not be with that intention.
The intention may solely be to destroy George W. Bush.
But the net result of this, if they succeed, is the destruction of our ability to conduct war, wage war against this enemy.
And I will lay you a dollar to a donut that this FBI information, the news in this story is not new.
I will lay you a dollar to a donut.
We've read it before.
It's been out there before.
I've been heating these stories about the FBI since the 60s for crying out loud.
They want to make it sound like it's something new, precedent setting, never been done before, just like that NSA article appeared on Friday, and it's all bunk.
It is all lies.
It is the New York Times.
Back after this.
And we are back.
El Rushbo having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
We've had some calls from Detroit who want to tell us what Carl Levin said today, but I'd rather not get this hearsay.
One of the things he supposedly talked about was me and my so-called legal case.
He was on with Paul W. Smith this morning.
Paul sent me a note saying he sent us MP3 files of the interview.
We don't have it.
We didn't get it.
And so we're trying to get them.
And I'd rather play what Levin actually said than get interpretations of it because it'd be easier for me to react to him rather than third party.
No offense, folks, but time to start telling stories, as you know, they change from person to person to person.
But let's talk about Carl Levin for a moment.
This is not what we're talking for you, Libs.
We're not talking about domestic spying here.
And that has been made abundantly clear.
This is spying on al-Qaeda, international phone calls.
This is spying on people about whom we already have some intelligence that they deserve and need to be watched.
Words have meaning.
It's not domestic spying.
It's spying on al-Qaeda.
Now, Carl Levin demonstrated on Meet the Press he doesn't understand the Constitution.
He was utterly uninformed about past court rulings which underscore the president's inherent authority when it comes to national security.
He was uninformed about FISA.
He was uninformed about the things I have just shared with you in the course of the first hour of this program.
He's just woefully unprepared when it comes to national security.
He speaks of the president violating the law.
This is the same Carl Levin, by the way, who is leading the cover-up of the Clintons and for the Clintons of the Barrett report, which reportedly includes evidence of IRS abuses by the Clintons.
And he's put a block on it, doing everything he can to keep that report from being made public.
The same Carl Levin who said nothing about the Echelon program.
And the Echelon program, by the way, intercepts all electronic communications, regardless of source, regardless citizenship, processing the information through supercomputers being analyzed by the evil NSA.
And this program took off under Clinton, folks.
Now, how can that be okay?
How can this be fine?
But what Bush has authorized, limited to al-Qaeda types, and involves communications initiated from overseas, how can that not be?
Well, you and I both know the answer to this.
I'm getting worn out having to repeat all this stuff three days in a row here, having to repeat all this stuff, but do what's necessary.
Quick timeout.
What are you frowning about, Mr.?
I know it's not going to go on because we're going to kill it.
This is not going to go on for eternity, for eternity and in perpetuity because we're going to kill it because I'm fed up talking about it.
I'm fed up.
I'm literally fed up dealing with these mountainous lies day in and day out from a bunch of schlubs on whom we couldn't depend to protect ourselves from our grandmother with a fly swatter.
Back after this.
Stay with us.
I was just checking the emails here during the break.
A couple people said, Rush, why wasn't there a declaration of war from Congress?
Well, I'm not so sure that there wasn't.
It was not something formal.
We, Congress, authorize and declare war, but if you go back to the resolution that they passed right after 9-11, and I've got an audio sound by myself reading from it from August 29, 2002, I'll play that for you as the second hour the program begins in mere moments.
Decide for yourself.
It's not formal, but when you hear what the Congress authorized the president to do, and they authorize the president to do it without having to prove anything to anybody.
Wait till you hear this.
I wrote an op-ed about this, in fact.
Back in just seconds.
▲
Export Selection