All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 5, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:10
January 5, 2006, Thursday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
I'll tell you, folks, I am fit to be tied today.
I am, I am, I am irritated.
Well, I'm not at fit to be tough, but I'm irritated.
Because I am coming down with a flu.
I am getting the flu.
And I know why I'm getting the flu.
Anyway, greetings.
Yep, yep, yep, yep, yeah.
And all that.
Uh EIB Network and Rush Limbaugh.
Here on the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, 800 282-2882 is the number, and the email address is Rush at EIBNet.com.
So it was well, I'll tell you why I'm getting the flu.
I haven't had the flu in 20 years.
I have not had a flu in 20 years, maybe longer.
I don't get colds very often either because I smoke.
I am convinced nicotine wards off the common cold virus.
At least it does in me.
Because every time I I used to smoke cigarettes, and when I quit, I had a cold for four years.
At any rate, this is not about a cold, it's about the flu.
Back in December, when I uh when I had my gastrointestinal problem, I had to go to the doctor.
Nice guy, love this doctor.
Happy I met this guy.
I will not mention his name because law enforcement officials may track him down.
Nevertheless, the guy says, Well, you know it's a time of year you need to get your flu shot.
I've never gotten a flu shot.
I don't want a flu shot.
I don't get the flu.
No, no, no, no.
You gotta, you gotta get a flu shot.
He's an infectious disease doctor.
I said, Well, uh you worried about the bird flu.
Oh, no, no, no.
We don't have anything for that.
Yeah, we're not on a bird flu.
This is just a regular flu.
You know, we got swine flu, pig flu, cow flu.
It's all over the place out there.
You gotta get a shot.
I said, No, I don't want the shot.
I've never had a flu shot, and I don't get the flu.
He insisted.
He said, I'm pulling rank.
I am a doctor, and you're not.
Darn it, I need a clean exit attempt.
Oh, oh no.
Just found one of the Ah, now it fell off the floor and I can't reach it.
So he gave me the flu shot, and now I've got the flu.
I got a flu.
And I asked him about this.
I said, now wait a second.
Isn't there a risk that if you get a flu shot that you get a flu?
No, no, no, no.
Flu shots aren't that way anymore.
Well, you're not, you're not gonna shoot me up with a with a with a strain of the flu to get my immune system used to it to work.
No, no, no, no.
These are not that way anymore at all.
So I woke up today, and you know, achy joints and the and the and the whole thing.
So I went and got grabbed some Zycam.
I've been swabbing my nose a couple times a day just uh just to make sure.
But that, you know, the the flu is different to common cold virus.
So I said, I I'm just I did.
Folks, trust your instincts.
Just always trust your instincts.
So I'm gonna I'm gonna go home this day.
I'm gonna get in a steam shower.
I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm just gonna.
No, it's not arthritis sturdily.
Don't try to don't I you I know what the flu because I hate the flu, and it's been a long time since I've had I know what it is.
Another thing.
I I gotta tell you this.
I meant to tell you this yesterday.
I watched March of the Penguins on Friday night.
I bought the DVD a long time ago, but I scheduled myself so crazily I didn't have time to watch it until Friday night.
I got a thing back in November and watched it on Friday night.
Have you seen March of the Penguins?
Well, uh it's an it's amazing.
It's the most amazing thing.
I I don't I'm not even going to attempt to describe it.
Those of you have seen it know what I mean.
But it the things that these emperor penguins do to procreate uh and the things they go through.
Just but I'm watching this thing, and I got I'm watching it with and there's some liberals in the group that I'm watching it with.
And so after what we're watching this and say, wait a minute now, it's 35 below for a high down on Antarctica.
The high temperature is 35 below.
Who are these people filming this?
Well, it was National Geographic uh the French people.
The French started this originally as a documentary, and then somebody decided, well, you know, we're gonna make a story out of this.
Make a movie out of it.
So they they put it together in a certain order and got Morgan Freeman to narrate it, and it became the March of the Penguins.
So, but who are these guys?
Where are they living?
Where that we we we see what they're shooting with the cameras, but 35 below is the high.
Where are they staying?
Well, on the on this on the the special edition uh DVD or the DVD, there's a there's a couple extra features where they show you how they made the movie.
And so you get to see that these guys, they've they floated cameras up on balloons uh to get shots from high above, uh, but they're in the middle of the weather and they've got tents and so forth.
But at one point, and this is the this is the story.
At one point in the making of the March of the Penguins, these documentarians, these French people stumble across a break in the ice where three or four penguin chicks have fallen in.
It's just three feet.
I mean, you can just you could reach down and pick the chicks up and put them back on the surface, everything would be fine.
So I'm saying, I'm watching the thing on the screen.
Pick them up.
Just just don't tell me that they're gonna die there.
That's what they were telling us.
These chicks have no way out, and they will die.
Well, pick them up.
Just go down there.
You have three feet.
It's your waist will be above this.
Just go to pick them up and bring them up.
No, no.
And some liberal in the crowd said that's not their role.
So what?
It's not their role.
No, they are here documenting nature.
Now the premise, the premise of this whole March of the Penguins thing, is that man-made global warming is making it even tougher for these birds to survive an Antarctica.
So the premise is that man is killing the penguins and making it tougher for okay.
I'm saying if if that's your premise, then go in there and save them.
They're three baby penguins.
Just pick them up, move them out and save.
It's not their role.
They are recording.
Oh, so you want them to die to be able to prove man is responsible.
They are responsible in this case.
Men, women, whoever filming this thing have a chance to save these birds and are not going to do it simply because it's not their role.
No, it's not their role.
I said, You sound like a journalist, stumbling across a robbery or a murder, and you won't do anything to stop it because it's not your role.
Well, that's a good point.
I said, look at what's happening here.
Here I am, ostensibly the cold-hearted, mean spirited, animal hating, racist, bigot, sexist homophobe, demanding those guys go save these birds, and you're telling me no, it's not their role.
They must die because this is what man is doing to their environment.
I just total disconnect.
There would be no risk, there was no danger in going down there and saving those birds.
I don't know if they ultimately did or not, but the impression left by the special features, a thing I watched after the movie, well, they just left them there.
Chronicling, see what happens when the ice warms, it breaks apart, and these little penguins don't know it's there, and they're waddling along and bam, they fall into a three-foot ravine.
And they're just little babies.
I'm not sure even these were emperors.
They might have been a different kind of penguin that they were they were looking at.
But uh, other than that, I mean, it is a just fascinating.
You will you will be fascinated with this, snurdly.
You will not believe it.
What these birds go through.
Their whole life is procreating.
Nine months of the year, and they go three, four months without eating.
I I'm not even going to begin to describe it to you because I couldn't, I couldn't do it justice.
Oh, you know what else they did?
They got a caller.
They had they had footage of the penguins underwater, because these these are the birds, they don't fly, they actually are home is the water.
And they would grab a penguin, an emperor penguin, and they'd strap a camera on its back and wrap it around its belly and secure it, and then they'd send the bird back into the water, and then they would get footage of what the penguins do underwater and how they feed.
And we well, no, they call it the critter cam.
It's a it's the it's a history national geographic with a critter cam.
And they put they put cameras on snakes, and they that's how they get them in their natural habitat.
Yeah, of course not.
No, no, that's not interfering with their natural existence because that's educational.
We are learning how they feed.
We also got to see penguins eaten by sea lions.
Uh and they showed us that, and they didn't try to stop that.
Oh, look at nature, isn't this wonderful?
Here comes a sea lion's going to shred that penguin right here with your kids watching.
And uh, and and uh by the way, here's the cameras now inside the sea lion belly, and this is what a sea lion belly looks like.
No, that didn't happen.
But I'm just I'm I was sitting there amazed.
Here are these animal rights people, these big libs, uh and and they're content to have these three little chicks die unnecessarily just to prove the point that men are killing them, in which case they were right.
Okay, uh I have a uh a brief time out here to take, and uh oh.
Did I call the USC Texas game or did I call the US C Texas game?
I called it.
I call I got so much to say about that.
Uh we'll take a break here.
Got a lot of C I told you so's today.
Plus, we got some so-called whistleblower who's been sending letters to uh members of Congress uh used to work with the NSA, he got fired.
He wants to tell them about all these violations of the law.
Turns out he's a member of a group that has ties to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.
There's a lot to tell you today, folks.
And even though I'm getting the flu, I am here.
Back in just a moment.
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
El Rush Ball here, your host for life.
Behind the golden EIB microphone...
On the Excellence and Broadcasting Network, you know.
I'm right.
See, I told you so, number one from yesterday.
Playing golf on no was Sunday.
And then two guys that was playing with.
Do you think Texas stands a chance against USC?
Well, of course.
They're only going to be on the field.
The game starts zero zero.
Of course, Texas has a chance.
Well, you know, the media, the the media is already proclaiming USC the third time, whatever they are, national champion.
It's the game's over.
It's just a formality.
And I said, let me tell you something about sports media.
They're no different than anybody else.
They report the news that they want to be.
The game hadn't even happened yet.
It's silly to talk about who's winning it.
It hadn't started.
Of course, most of the media, USC got it in the bag.
Texas may as well not even show up.
So I said, based on that thing at Texas going to win.
You know, whatever the media says in mass, I go the other way.
Of course, uh yesterday, folks, Reggie Bush, number one draft choice, the only guy on the field.
Maybe Matt Liner, quarterback USC.
After the game last night, those two guys didn't matter.
It was all Vince Young.
I mean, uh, you talk about front runners and homers.
It just it's amazing to watch these people and listen to this.
Sports media is no different than uh than anybody else.
And now, you know, Mike Vick, look out because you don't exist anymore.
Vince Young is you now.
Uh Vince Young is Mike Vick.
Mike Vick may as well hack it up, pack it in, because the new hero, the new number one draft pick, Vince Young.
They're urging him to give up his senior year in college.
I think he should.
What's he what's he majoring in?
Dominoes.
I mean, these guys are gonna his signing bonus will, he'll make more in one year in that signing bonus than his the four-year college degree is ever going to net him out there in the real world.
And besides, if he plays his senior year and doesn't do as well next year, then the blooms off the rose.
Uh go away while your iron is hot.
You know, that's also the the specter of possible injuries.
See, I told you so, number two.
You wait.
It won't be long before we get stories of why didn't Bush care.
Why does Bush not want to change this?
Even though there are stories out there about how there have been improvements in mine safety, you wait.
In order to get the attention of their their disastrous reporting of last night off the front pages and off everybody's focus.
They'll find a way to turn this into an examination of Bush policies.
How Bush doesn't care about union people.
I don't know how it's going to manifest itself, but it will at some point.
Because every event that takes place in this country is used to promote their agenda.
Last night, Hannity and Combs, Fox News Channel, a guest is former director of uh uh national mine safety, Jack Spadaro.
Uh he's on the phone.
Alan Colm says, in terms of safety, Jack, what do we know about this mine and its relative safety and how it should have been operating?
Should this mine not have been opened?
This mine should have been closed, and there were too many serious violations uh and the record is very clear.
Why was it open then?
If you've if if you as a safety expert feels it should not have been, why was it open?
I think it's because of the uh uh current uh Bush administration's uh policy toward mine operators.
And uh they're uh reluctant to take the strong enforcement action that's sometimes necessary, and that often involves closing a mine.
Do I know these people or do I know?
I mean, I know these people like every square inch of my glorious naked buddy.
Yes.
Less than 24 hours after 12 of the thirteen workers trapped in the mine explosion of West Virginia were found dead.
Critics already politicizing the disaster with at least one mine safety expert blaming President Bush, Jack Spadaro, uh Spadero, not sure how he pronounces it.
That's who you just heard on the uh Fox News channel.
And if you want to, if you want to roll on the floor and laugh a little bit more, Democrats called yesterday for congressional hearings into mine safety.
And the Bush administration's enforcement of mine regulations after the explosion and collapse.
I'm not joking.
This is a Boston Globe story.
Congress wants to investigate the Bush administration's policies here on mine safety.
I I kid you not.
You know, there let me tell you something.
There's a great point made by uh a guy in North Carolina's name escapes me right now, got a got his piece here in the stack.
How long were the networks on the scene after news broke of the explosion and the accident and what, 40 hours were they on the scene there?
Not once, not once that can be found.
Did we get a human interest story on who these guys were?
Who are these people trapped in there?
We didn't get any exposes, we didn't get any interviews with family members.
Who are these guys?
What we got was the media doing what they always do, pointing the microphone in the faces of disgruntled and distraught family members and putting emotional tearjerker stories on the oh, it's so horrible.
Oh, we didn't learn one thing about who these guys are, how long they've worked in this business, why they worked in this business.
Well, we don't they don't need to ask that because they know why they work in this business because America sucks, and it doesn't provide enough opportunity for people.
And so they have to go into these mines.
They have to risk black lung.
They have to go down there with the canaries because they've got no choice because America's not the land of opportunity because Bush sucks.
So forth and so that's they don't need to ask the question why they were down there.
We all know why they're down there because America's rotten and doesn't provide anybody with a decent opportunity to earn a living.
Now the media's media's all over itself here uh blaming the desire for a happy ending.
Uh as the reason for their screw up yesterday, U.S. news outlets defended their coverage, saying misinformed authorities, not the media, were to blame for erroneously reporting that twelve victims had miraculously survived.
Some critics suggested the media were driven by a mix of sloppy journalism, a herd mentality among celebrity anchors, and the irresistible allure of a happy ending.
The irresistible allure of a happy ending would somebody tell me when the media is interested in happy endings.
The happy ending after Katrina, the happy ending in Iraq.
A happy ending ending on the forged documents.
Well, what happy endings do they invest themselves in?
I maintain that they were stunned when the news hit that the people were alive because they'd already figured out it's not possible.
You go into a mine, you're gonna die.
That's what happens in America.
Coal miners die.
Who would do it?
Nobody but has no other opportunity, blah, blah, blah.
Let's go to the audio tape.
Let's move up to audio soundbite six.
This is a little excerpt here of uh Wolf Blitzer, who I like.
You gotta understand this.
Not picking on Wolf, but this is Wolf talking to Jack Cafferty, an old curmudgeon on uh on CNN yesterday about the media coverage.
Listen to this.
Jack, uh it's I don't know.
I've been a reporter for more than 30 years.
You've been around for a long time as well.
Do you remember a story like this where bad information, uh heart-wrenching the people are alive, and then three hours later they're told they're dead.
I don't remember a story like this, but maybe something pops up in your mind.
Uh, not right off the top of my head.
The only thing I can remember is Dewey defeats Truman, the erroneous headline published as a result of the uh presidential election when in fact Truman won.
Obviously, the emotional implications of that mistake uh pale in comparison to the emotional implications of this one.
No, they can't recall any such examples of botched reporting like that.
Well, let me help out.
How about calling Florida for Algore?
How about Dan Rather and his forged documents?
You can't remember anything more botched than this.
The question is, when is this gonna stop?
It is so frequent, it is so often botched reporting.
Well, it was my point yesterday.
This is a business that relies on truth and fact, and they are woefully incompetent.
They are they're they've become disreputable.
They're not serving their customers, consumers of news, if you will.
How about the carry exit polls?
Botched reporting?
They they botched that so bad that when the carry exit poll showed him winning, they wanted to question the real vote.
Wait a minute now.
Something's wrong with the actual vote count here.
The exit polls have our guy winning.
Remember that?
And then the botched reporting of Hurricane Katrina.
You know, I don't think they even think that was botched reporting.
And the only reason this is evidence of botch reporting is because it only took three hours for the botch to show up.
It took about two weeks for the botch to show up in Katrina.
But this took three hours.
There's no hiding this.
But to think Dewey versus Truman?
Don't make me laugh.
And we're back.
Great to have you with us here, uh, folks, as we're already.
What is this Thursday already?
Fastest Week in Media.
800-282-2882.
All right.
Now listen up on this.
This is Bill Gertz's story in the Washington Times today.
Former National Security Agency official wants to tell Congress about electronic intelligence programs that he asserts were carried out illegally by the National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
His name is Russ Tice.
He's a whistleblower who was dismissed from the NSA let means fired.
He stated in letters to the House and Senate intel committees that he's prepared to testify about highly classified special access programs or SAPS.
What an appropriate name for some guy like Russ Tice to be associated with, that were improperly carried out by both the NSA and the DIA.
He said, I intend to report to Congress probable, unlawful, and unconstitutional acts conducted while I was an intelligence officer with a National Security Agency and with the DIA.
This is a letters he wrote in December 16th, copies of which were obtained by the Washington Times.
Letters were sent the same day.
The same day.
The same day that the New York Times revealed that the NSA was engaged in a clandestine eavesdropping program that bypassed the secret FISA court.
The FISA court issues orders for targeted electronic and other surveillance by the government.
All right, now this smells from the get-go.
In the first place, good old boy Russ Tice is not a whistleblower.
May I read to you what a whistleblower is.
As legally defined, a federal agency violates the whistleblower protection act if it takes or fails to take or threatens to take or fail to take a personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant because of any disclosure of information by the employee or applicant that he or she reasonably reasonably believes evidence is a violation of law, rule, or regulation.
The bottom line here is that...
A whistleblower does not go public.
There are mechanisms for whistleblowers to follow.
They do it internally.
This guy not only went to Congress, he went to the media.
He is not a whistleblower.
He something else.
Whistleblowing procedures are designed to promote good ideas and promote the waste of time.
And I that this whole folks, there's something about this that really smells because I don't I don't believe that Tice is actually this big a player in all this.
I've done a little research.
Clarice Feldman today at one of our favorite blogs, the American thinker, uh, has done a little research too on this and has found out that this guy Tice is uh part of a group called the National Security Whistleblowers.
This group was formed in August of 2004.
And if you look up the the group, the National Security Whistleblowers Group, you'll notice that the founder, director, and chief spokesperson of the group is Sybil Edmonds.
She is she's faced a real uphill battle in her struggle with the FBI, which fired her.
Her story about why she was fired in the FBI has a number of variations, although she, like uh Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, numbers among the darlings of the people that hate George W. Bush.
Also other members of the National Security whistleblowers, Daniel Ellsberg, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Schaefer, Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson.
These are members of Vips, VIP is the group that encouraged intelligence agents to leak.
This is the group that shopped Joe Wilson and his story.
And the guy, and this uh if you're wondering who Larry Johnson is, he was in the CIA with Valerie Plame, is close to her.
They seem to have been behind much of the Plaim Wilson story.
This whole Vips N uh NSW group has ties, it appears, to the Valerie Plame Joe Wilson story.
And so it appears, and you with this guy's letters go to Congress on the same day the New York Times James Ryzen story appears about all of this.
It seems to me that we have an orchestrated premeditated campaign with the media as willing accomplices and participants.
But I'm going to tell you what I think.
I think this is all an attempt to divert our attention.
Because I don't think Russ Tice is the guy leaking all this stuff.
I don't think Russ Tice is.
I think the leakers are in Congress.
I think the leakers are in the Senate.
I think they I think that they they probably feel that they're going to have some sort of protection because of their positions, but whoever the leakers are, we're going to someday find out.
We're going to find out who leaked all this stuff to James Ryzen.
We're going to find out who his sources are.
One way or the other.
That is going to happen.
And it is not going to be Russ Tice.
Now I'm not going to name any names because I don't know.
But I'm just, my guess is that these leakers are part of a coordinated plan in the Democratic Party because we know of the Rockefeller memo from 2002 or 2003, which spelled out this very strategy that the Democrats are unfolding right now.
You just wait and see if this is not the case.
Rick in Malibu, I'm glad you called, sir.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hey, Rush, thanks for taking my call.
I I know I could always rely on you to get the full scoop of what's going on.
Um just to take what you said one step further, and I'm glad it's finally coming out.
In Gertz's story, he says that Tice is going to testify under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.
And you heard all this stuff that, you know, how do you get the story out?
How does somebody who knows there's an illegal conduct get it out?
Well, that's what the Protection Act was for, and it's to report it to the Inspector General for internal investigation, and it made it a crime to make it external investigation.
So exactly this Gert's story that's a very good thing.
That's why this guy's not a whistleblower.
He is not a whistleblower would have kept this internal and would have hoped for his own protection.
This guy's been fired.
He's got an axe to grind.
They've all in this group been fired or replaced.
They've got access to grind.
They're politically oriented and motivated.
There's no question.
And going public is certainly not whistleblowing.
Of course not.
Otherwise, there would be nothing confidential because every single employee can determine for themselves what they think is illegal and go public with it, which is the purpose of the act, but you're not supposed to do that.
No, exactly right.
Whistleblowing is supposed to be done in uh in in coordination with the department head and uh as you say the inspector general, these investigations are supposed to take place.
There are protocols and protections in this act.
Uh and I'm just gonna tell you if you were a patriot, if you were a patriot and you really saw something in your agency that has fired you going on that you really thought was unconstitutional, the last thing you'd do is go to the New York Times.
You would you wouldn't want to take care of it.
You would want to make sure it gets fixed.
This is clearly an attempt to pile on so that the damage accrues to President Bush.
And it's not going to work just like everything else they've tried is not going to work, because we're going to find out who the real leakers are, and we're going to find out that this whole thing with this Gertz story today with Russ Tice is just a diversion.
It's to take our attention away from who the real leakers and what the real sources of all this are.
Absolutely.
We're all fortunate to have you out there, Rush.
Well, I appreciate that.
I'm fortunate to have all of you out there too.
I mean, I could I could make the most sense in the world, but if nobody heard it, what difference would it make?
But you're there and I appreciate it, love you for it.
Wilson in Dayton, Ohio, you're next on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, Rush.
Uh megadiddles from the Heartland.
Yes, sir.
And we are listening to you, and we love you.
Uh my comment, uh, the mining official who uh wanted to immediately uh blame our president for the sad uh happening in the mine.
Uh why not uh blame the Democrats then for refusing to open Anwar.
That's putting pressure on us to have more coal.
Why not why not open Anwar, get more oil out of our own country?
Uh well, you know, so that that that's that's a great point, but but a lot of our coal is uh is distributed internationally.
I don't I uh there's there's uh there's no question that uh if we we we do not engage in more efforts to provide ourselves our own sources of oil, we're gonna be far more dependent on elder uh foreign sources for it.
Uh and it will increase the need to keep mining coal.
Um but you know that the whole point that this profession is somehow dishonorable and it's lousy uh it's a lousy choice, and it's because there are it is a coal mining is a tradition in this country, and the families engaged in it are proud of it, and they consider themselves uh heroic.
Uh they the and they are paid well.
It's n there they're not these hick hay seeds making minimum wage and so forth.
They're they're paid well and they know the dangers going in.
You can't possibly not.
Uh, particularly if you come from a long-standing uh mining family.
Uh quick time out here, folks.
We'll be back.
Uh there's a there's a story, you know, but McCain's torture bill.
Bush says, screw it.
I I mean, I I I I can bypass this.
I I I don't even have to pay any attention to it.
And that's exactly what Jamie Gorellick said.
Jamie Gorellick said it too.
She she was worrying about it.
She said it that same story that we learned what she said back in 1994 about Clinton's inherent authority to have wireless or warrantless wiretaps and so forth.
She also said in that article that if you're President Bush and you think you have this inherent authority, you can just ignore McCain's bill.
And Bush has pretty much said, yeah, I can ignore the bill.
And of course, McCain and the other they're fit to be tied over this.
The details are coming up.
Hi, welcome back.
Great to have you, uh folks.
L. Rushmore here coming down with the flu, but still serving humanity behind the golden EIB microphone.
I I need to need to provide a little disclaimer here.
The following following message or thing I'm going to say is not intended to absolve Jack Abramov from any laws that he broke.
We know he broke laws because he's admitting to it.
I I say this merely to differentiate between personal greed and damage to the public good.
A lot of people are focusing on the laws that Abramov broke.
Others are focusing on the influence he bought, and still others are asking, will it affect just one party or both parties?
And I'm going to say it's going to affect both parties.
In fact, Republicans are scrambling to give the money back.
Harry Reed and Dingy Dingy Harry and uh a bunch of Democrats are going to hold on to the money they got from Abramov.
They're not they're not going to give it back.
But if you know the Democrats aren't crowing much about this, the the media is.
But the Democrats aren't, and the reason Democrats aren't crowing, because if you look at a list of all the people that got money from Abramov, it is chock full of Democrats.
I mean, the best estimate, the minimal, minimum estimate of how much the Democrats got is a million and a half bucks from this guy.
And that's minimal.
So that'd be there, they're they're everybody's quaking their boots in their leaks from the DOJ sources close to the investigation.
And I've dealt with sources close to the investigation.
I can tell you that they lie all the time.
Um I will I'll tell you they're putting out that it may impact as many as twenty people.
They're interested in talking to 20 people, meaning members of Congress and so forth.
Well, I will guarantee you they're not all gonna be Republicans, and the Democrats know it.
But there's another issue here.
Besides all of these, the laws Abramoff broke, uh, the influence he bought, uh how many in which party or both parties will be affected.
That is the harm to common good.
What harm to common good took place here?
Whatever Jack Abramov did, he did not block Anwar.
The oil exploration that we so desperately need, that that was other lobbyists on the other side of K Street, the left side.
Jack Abramov did not affect the stalling of the Patriot Act and the national security we so desperately need.
That was other lobbyists on the other side of K Street, the left side.
And Jack Abramov did not shut down social security reform.
That was lobbyists on the other side of K Street, the left side.
And that's nothing but a financial ticking time bomb out there that we need to defuse, but oh no, no, no, we couldn't do that.
A whole lot of other lobbyists have stopped a whole lot of good for this country.
Abram, whatever he did, didn't block Ann Ward, didn't affect the stalling of the Patriot Act, and did not shut down Social Security reform.
Again, my disclaimer I am not excusing anything or absolving Abramov from anything he did.
I just like to bring added perspective to the one-sided presentation of the news that we get out there.
All right, from the Boston Globe today, Charlie Savage headline Bush could bypass new torture ban waiver right is reserved.
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a signing statement.
That's an official document, in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law, declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security.
That means that Bush believes he can waive the restrictions.
This, according to White House and legal specialists.
The executive branch shall construe the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the president as commander in chief, said that's what Bush actually wrote, adding that this approach, quote, will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.
I he's being too generous.
The point of the terror law that the torture law that McCain passed has nothing to do with protecting the American people.
It had nothing to do with that.
Hate to wake you up if you're asleep on this, but uh the McCain's torture law had nothing to do with protecting the American people.
Bush said, Well, I know that's what Senator McCain's doing, and I joined with him as I sign this waiver saying I don't have to pay attention to his stupid bill.
Now, some legal specialist said yesterday the president's signing statement uh, which had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't at all.
Now, three Republican senators have blasted Bush because of this.
This is also a Boston Globe story.
Three key Republican senators yesterday condemned Bush's assertion that his powers as commander-in-chief gave him the authority to bypass the new law.
John Warner, Virginia Republican, Senator John McCain of the Media issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against the detainees to protect national security.
Their statement said, We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing by very large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees, the senators said.
Congress declined when asked by the administration officials to include a presidential waiver of these restrictions, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Who do you think third senator was that that joined them after the fact?
Who do you think?
Well, guess.
No, no, no, not the wine.
No, it wasn't Hillary.
Come on, put on your thinking cap.
Who was the third senator to join Warner and McCain?
It was Vice President Lindsey Graham.
Yes, Vice President.
He got in on this later separately.
Senator Graham told the Boston Globe in a phone interview he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said, and he would go a little further.
I don't believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified.
Graham said, You can't threaten Bush, folks.
You j I mean, I don't care what they do, you can't threaten him.
He's gonna do what he's gonna do to follow his oath of office.
We will be back in mere moments.
Not enough time here to be fair with a caller or even make a uh sensible comment in brief time, although I got a great quote from Les Moonvis, CBS president over who's watching the evening news and how he doesn't like it.
Basically, if you're s you're well, I'll just I will get to it with the uh top of the hour break is over.
Sit tight.
The EIB network and L Rush Ball with a fever and a flu coming on.
Roll on.
▲
Export Selection