All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 23, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
January 23, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of The Rush 24-7 podcast.
Yeah, I'm just I'm just sitting here.
I don't believe this.
I'm reading the soundbite roster.
The Democrats on television yesterday.
I was the Steelers game yesterday.
So I didn't.
I wouldn't have watched this garbage anyway, even if I weren't home, but I'm reading the transcripts and I've read the New York Times.
I just can't believe this.
The Democrats are just I I don't know how else to say what I've always been saying.
They are literally imploding and cracking up.
It is mind-boggling to watch this.
Hey, greetings, folks, and welcome and Rush Limbaugh back in the saddle once again after a week away in uh in Palm Springs, California, the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic.
I want to uh thank I I tell you, the the people out there, I told you people when I left that uh one of the reasons I was excited to be going out there was that uh those are my people.
That is a that is a red enclave in a blue state, and it's just uh people out there were just fabulous, had one heck of a good time.
The last two days in a golf course were a bit challenging because I didn't play well, but uh galleries made up for all of that.
They they were just I mean, I uh at some halls I'm walking up and the galleries applauding me like I'm leading the tournament.
You know, it's just I really appreciate it.
Everybody was just uh as as as nice as they could be, met a lot of great people out there as well, and uh look forward to many more of those in the future.
Also was in Pittsburgh yesterday or Denver yesterday for the Steelers.
I stopped there on the way back on uh on Saturday night.
I got a little story here.
It's amazing to me that the media will always go out and find what do you mean how did I get tickets?
How did how did I how did I get tickets to a football game?
Snerdly!
Where have you been for 18 years?
How do I get tickets for the owner of the Broncos invited me to watch the game from his box?
Uh and I should thank Pat Boland, too.
He was gracious yesterday.
The uh, you know, he's got a lot of family from Canada.
They were talking to me about the elections in Canada today, and then they're very excited about the fact that uh 12-party liberal rule may bite the dust up there.
Uh but nah, they they were so excited when the game started, uh, because you know, they're they think they're going to the Super Bowl, like the Steelers people think they're going to the Super Bowl.
It just didn't pan out.
And uh I I just I want to thank he was he was very gracious in allowing me.
He knows I'm a Steelers fan.
And uh there was just there was just and I sent him a gift earlier in the week uh as as thanks for the invitation.
Um but I went in with a with a friend of mine from Hawaii who also knows Pat from Hawaii, uh, where Pat lives uh in the offseason.
And uh Pat's executive assistants named Lisa, nice, nice woman, and so I I call her told her a gift was coming, it's coming from New York, it's gonna have this name on the label, so that it's for me when you get it.
Thank you.
So uh when I got there, I said I'm just gonna shut up.
I want to watch this game, and I'm gonna contain myself.
I'm not gonna do it, but I lost it one time.
Deep the the Steelers had appeared to have executed a brilliant punt coverage, nailing the Broncos on their two-yard line, and uh, it was eventually overturned by replay.
But when it happened, I couldn't help myself.
I'm standing next to Terrell Davis and Rod Woodson, who are in there from the and I go, all right.
And she was standing and she looked at me with eyes wide like I have never seen eyes wide.
And I thought I might get thrown out of there at that moment.
And I got so sheepish.
I said, Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
You didn't know, Lisa.
You well, it was uh you know, this is they people take this stuff seriously.
We all do, but uh especially because I'm uh big Steelers fan, they invited me in to watch anyway, and I had a great time there.
Got back last night about 11 o'clock and did some show prep.
Uh went to bed, got up, and I got stuff.
We get ready to go here, folks.
For example, I what I was gonna say before Snerdley asked me this ridiculous question.
How do I get tickets?
The media will find anybody, they'll go find anybody to come up with a doom and gloom scenario on virtually anything.
You remember one of the last things that we talked about the Friday uh of last week before last.
I mentioned that the Democrats and Liberals Are a death culture.
And a woman called, what do you mean by that?
I said they're obsessed with death.
They're obsessed with abortion, euthanasia, uh, and and uh and and killing uh innocent people.
But boy, if you if you want to go out there and be harsh on criminals, then all of a sudden their attitude on death changes.
But they're totally surrendered, they're just they're they're they're they're preoccupied with death and doom and gloom.
So here we are.
This is Monday, January 23rd.
And according to Cliff Arnold, a health psychologist at the University of Cardiff, specialized, this is over in the UK, specializing in confidence building and stress management.
He told the French news agency that his prediction that today, January 33rd, is going to be the unhappiest day of the year was the result of some grueling mathematics.
Post-Christmas blues, the return to work after the holidays, mounting bills to pay for the parties, the challenge of keeping New Year's resolutions, the slender prospects of fun in the weeks ahead, and chilly winter temperatures for those in the northern hemisphere all add up.
These factors, which he combined in a complex formula, came out showing that the Monday closest to January 24th would be the most dismal of the year.
He quizzed several hundred people for the investigation.
Now, would we not have been better off without this bad news?
Not at all, according to this researcher.
Those in the know are in a better position to beat the blues.
Because if somebody tells you that today is the worst day of the year, you can then go out with with you can be armed and prepared to um to deal with it.
According to his uh uh same mathematical formula, June 23rd is the happiest day of the year.
January 23rd, June 23rd, saddest and happiest days of the year.
Well, you know, this it's this is all relative.
How do I not miserable?
A, I'm back behind the golden EIB microphone.
B, the Steelers are going to Super Bowl.
Uh C, another episode of 24 uh airs tonight.
Uh episode 5.
What did you people think of the first four?
Oh, man, oh man, I now already people say, well, do you have an advanced copy of tonight's no, folks, and they only set out the first four.
I don't I, you know, I want to watch it like everybody else does after the first four.
I just I got those first four along with the rest of the critic media uh to look at.
But and I I didn't want to I didn't want to oversell it because I didn't want to raise people's expectations.
But I I'll tell you what I think's happened with this show.
Everybody was saying, boy, how how are they gonna how are they gonna meet their expectations?
They got everybody so built up.
I think they're redefining it now.
I I like they've gone beyond what meeting expectations are, and uh they're they're they're setting new standards for themselves.
So uh, and I a lot of people have watched it.
I'm getting emails uh from people about it.
So the other night said that 35 million people is uh it's a ratings killer.
There's no there's no question it's uh it's all that.
All right.
Now, uh the audio soundbite roster here uh is just incredible with all these Democrats still stuck on this NSA business, can't get off of that uh it's as though nothing happened while I was gone other than Hillary and that and that plantation remark and school bus naked and some of that stuff.
And we got all that, you know, that we at the back end of the soundbite roster, if we have time to squeeze all that stuff in today.
There's a New York Times story today by Adam Nagorney, Delicate Dance for Bush in depicting spy program as asset.
I'm gonna parse this thing a little bit because it it really needs to be because it's it's it's one of the most you know, I don't read the New York Times much, but this was called to my attention today, so I read it and I'm gonna share my thoughts with you on it.
Uh there was a story, didn't have a chance to talk about before I left in the New York Times.
And uh who wrote that one?
I'm not sure who wrote it uh, but it it said it all.
Glum Democrats cannot see halting Bush on courts, concede strategy failed.
Alito hearing underscores conservative gains on federal judiciary.
And the opening paragraph in that story reads this way.
This back on January 15th thing, disheartened by the administration's success with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Alito, Democratic leaders say the president is putting an enduring conservative ideological imprint on the nation's judiciary, and that they see little hope of holding off the Tide without winning back control.
No kidding, without winning back the White House or the Congress or the Senate.
And I told you before I left, folks, that it that I think it's finally settled in.
They don't run things anymore.
They are losers, and they're not in control.
And that New York Times story of a week ago pretty much sums it up.
Let me take quick timeout.
We'll get to some of this uh uh security stuff because the head of the NSA has made a speech today, the National Security Agency, and he hit a slam dunk grand slam.
Hear what he said?
He said if this current program had been in place prior to 9-11, we might have been able to more readily identify the hijackers and perhaps do something about the 9-11 attacks before they happened.
And the Democrats are all running around out there after after Carl Rove's speech.
Carl Rove went out, made speech, and and and said, and I hate I mean, I things we've been saying on this program for how how long?
The Democrats are defined by dip vi by defeat.
They're invested in defeat.
America's always wrong.
America's the bad guy.
America's the cheater.
America is unfair.
America's too big, or what have you.
And so Rove goes out and says, you know, it's clear, and he's laying out an electoral strategy for 06.
Is it's clear we're on the side of national security.
Democrats aren't.
Democrats, what do you mean we're not for national security?
You can't say that.
You can't find one person.
You can't find one Democrat.
And this is N'Gurney makes it point in the New York Times today, which we will skewer here in a moment.
You can't make one fine one comment where one Democrat said he's against national security.
It's sort of like going back to the 1980s when the Democrats voted against all of the weapons buildups to deal with the Soviet Union and the Cold War during the Reagan years.
They may not have gone out and said anything, but their actions were clear.
It was clear they were voting against U.S. supremacy, not only in the Cold War, but in Nicaragua as well.
And so the retort to them, okay.
Well, tell me, how would it be any different?
If you had come out and said, if your vote didn't say what you didn't haven't said, how would it be any different if you had said it?
Your vote says it all.
So we will we will skewer this because the Dems are trying to make a big thing out of this national security agency business, and they're just flailing away.
It's it's it's embarrassing to watch.
It's getting easy, folks, to deal with these people, just like I thought it was easy to get a leader confirmed.
And they're still, there's still these these whacked out activists on the left on the blogosphere out there still trying to get a filibuster.
Still trying to get these people of the Democratic side to filibuster this, and uh Novak has a column about that.
So lots to do today.
Sit tight, we'll be back and continue in just a short second.
And how about the latest tape supposedly from Osama bin Laden, full of Democratic National Committee talking points, calling for a truce.
If you rebuild uh Iraq and Afghanistan, we'll call a truce, we won't attack you anymore.
I mean, that's I mean, that and and and some Bush's poll numbers are down, uh, way down, and uh you need to take advantage of that.
Uh the president's destroyed two countries.
It was just it's just classic.
And uh, and and the Democrats, I think, when the Osama tape comes out, you tell me, were they were they I'll bet they played it like, aha, he's still alive, we don't have him yet, we haven't captured, he's still making battle plan C. Bush has failed.
Rather than recognizing, hey, you know, it's probably a Carl Rove put-up job to make bin Laden sound like you.
That would be the second choice I would think they would make in interpreting it.
Anyway, here is Adam N'Gurney's piece, Delegate Dance for Bush and depicting spy program as an asset.
This is all brought about by Carl Rove's speech to the uh Republican National Committee.
And all during the Sunday talk shows yesterday, John Kerry and a number of others uh uh went on to to respond to Rove uh in his effort to make the national security issue the top partisan issue in the November midterm elections.
Uh Rove's speech on Friday basically outlined a blueprint for Republicans to prevail in the midterm election, suggesting that Democrats have undermined anti-terror efforts by questioning Bush's authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.
And of course, this is essentially saying you Democrats once again soft on terror, soft on crime, soft on war, invested in the defeat of the United States, and so now they're coming out squawking in this N'Gurney piece is a uh is part, I think, of the package that the left has put together.
With a campaign of high profile national security events set for the next three days, following Carl Rove's blistering speech to Republicans on Friday, the White House has effectively declared that it views its controversial secret intelligence program not as a political liability but as an asset.
A way to attack Democrats and re-establish President Bush's standing after a difficult year.
Really, everybody thought that uh the Bush White House ought to be cowering in fear in the corners, thinking, uh oh, they uh they only got Libby last time, they might get Bush, they might get Cheney, might get all of us in jail this time because we broke the law.
And then they're surprised to find that the Bush administration is secretly feeling good about this, thinking they can win elections on this.
And they're genuinely surprised.
Why, the White House is is viewing this uh this program not as a liability but as an asset.
And then it gets even better.
Whether the White House can succeed depends very much on its success in framing a complicated debate when the country is torn between its historic aversion to governmental intrusion and its recent fear of terrorist attacks at home, excuse me, Adam.
But I don't think that this is complicated to the American people.
I don't think it's complicated at all.
It's complicated to people like you because you can't figure out how you can't win on any issue you come along with you see as a scandal.
Take a look at the polling data on this.
The American people are clearly aware of the fact that we are at war.
Rove made the point, as we have all made here.
And if you listen to Democrats, they clearly want to take us back to a 9-11 world.
And in fact, make us think that we're living in a 9-11 world now, that none of what's happening is necessary.
And the American people don't look at it that way.
As the White House and Democrats are well aware, the issue can draw very different reactions depending on how it's presented.
These next few days could prove critical, we hope, as both Mr. Bush and Congressional Democrats move aggressively to define what is at stake.
Americans may be willing to support extraordinary measures, perhaps extra legal ones, if they are posed in the starkest terms of protecting the nation from another calamitous attack.
They are less likely to be supportive if the question is presented as a president breaking the law to spy on the nation's own citizens.
Well, what do you have to do to present the question as though the president is breaking the law to spy on the nation's own citizens?
You have to lie about the program.
You have to totally misrepresent what the program's all about in order to present that view to the American people.
And sadly for the left, you can't lie to the American people and get away with it nearly as much as they used to be able to.
Now, this next paragraph, ladies and gentlemen, is the piece de resistance.
Viewed from the perspective of the battles over the Homeland Security Act or the USA Patriot Act, this White House holds a tactical edge.
It has repeatedly proved highly effective in defining complicated debates against the Democratic Party.
Applying the campaign lessons of simplicity and repetition, Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove have systematically presented arguments in accessible, if sometimes exaggerated terms.
And they have regularly returned to the theme of terrorism since the attacks of September 11th.
Wonder why.
Mr. Rove's speech on Friday to the Republicans was a classic example.
He said, Let me be as clear as I can be.
President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it's in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why.
Rove then said some important Democrats clearly disagree.
Democrats, and though Mr. Rove made no mention of this Friday, some Republicans too, have indeed challenged the administration for eavesdropping without obtaining warrants.
They argue among other points that the White House is bypassing legal mechanisms established in 1978 that already allow law enforcement agencies to move rapidly to monitor communications that might involve terrorists, yet it is difficult to think of a Democrat who has actually argued that it is not in our national security interest to track QA calls to the United States, as Mr. Rove contested.
He did not offer any examples of whom he had in mind.
All right, well, let's let's tackle this.
Because the story reveals quite a bit.
It is not difficult to think of Democrats whose actions would make tracking Al-Qaeda calls to the U.S. much more difficult, if not impossible, and that's the fundamental issue at stake here.
Forget what they're saying.
Look at their actions.
You I've always said this.
Forget what they say.
Watch how they behave.
If you are paying attention to this, you have got to have come to the conclusion that the Democrats don't want any phone calls in this country monitored, whether they are from Al Qaeda overseas or anywhere else.
That's the impression.
If they they have to take that position in order to uh stake out a difference between themselves and President Bush.
So anyway, I've got a break here coming up.
Known in the media business is a hard break.
I can't move it.
It doesn't float, but we'll continue with this in uh in an LGO, a little Spanish lingo there.
Redefining hip on the radio have been doing that for 18 years.
America's anchor man, America's truth detector, L. Rushbow here behind the golden EIB microphone.
You see where West Wing has bitten the dust.
West Wing bites the dust in May.
Last episode in May, Martin Sheen will not be re-elected.
He's gonna have to go out and get a real job now.
You know, uh the i i it's been said liberals watch that show and think they're actually watching a real president.
Same thing with this commander-in-chief show with Gina Davis, and it's going down the tubes fast too.
So both liberal fantasyland shows with them in power, uh down the L tubos.
I don't think they're gonna be able to save Commander in Chief.
And of course, that that show was uh I'm I have no doubt the purpose of that show was to uh uh get everybody set up for the general acceptance of the concept of a woman president.
And of course, what other woman is there uh in America?
There's only one woman, and that's Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Uh which name I think might irritate her more than anything else you could call her.
Mrs. Bill Clinton.
Ha ha ha.
Not Ms. Hillary Rotterdam, but misses Bill Clinton.
Anyway, here's the bottom line, folks.
It is not difficult whatsoever to think of Democrats whose actions would make tracking Al-Qaeda calls to the U.S. much more difficult, if not impossible.
That's the position they're staking out when they oppose the president on the program.
There can be no other way to look at it.
Democrats cannot argue, well, they can try, but I mean they can't get away with it.
They can't argue that they want the end.
I mean, you can't run around and say, well, we we certainly do.
Uh we want Al-Qaeda phone calls to monitored, or we want to find out what well, you gotta support the program it allows that to sort of like you if you're gonna say you support the troops, you damn well better support what they do rather than try to undermine them.
Same thing here.
They can't argue they want the end result if they are unwilling to support the means to achieve it.
I mean, you can Democrats can say we are all for tracking Al-Qaeda calls to the United States.
Fine.
Here's the program or no, we don't support that pro we don't support spying on innocent Americans.
We don't support spying on Americans, period.
Well, then, I don't know how we're gonna accomplish what you claim you're for.
I mean, I suppose that they can say they agree with what the president's trying to accomplish, but then profoundly disagree with how he's going about it.
Isn't that one of their time-honored techniques?
Well, of course we support the president's uh war on terror, but uh uh Kerry, I support the war on Iraq, and I voted for it before I voted against it.
But I think we need to be smarter.
Same thing here.
Yeah, they they can they can uh say they agree with what the president is trying to accomplish, but then profoundly disagree with how he's going about it, except that in the real world, going through the Pfizer courts, as we've discussed in length here, would not allow the president to do what he's done.
Otherwise, the president would have gone through the FISA courts.
Obviously, the Pfizer hurdles meant that a lot more needed to be done.
It was an obstacle.
We don't need obstacles here.
The uh president took the actions he did in a way that is constitutional and lawful and made us safer, and the Democrats clearly disagree with it.
I mean, there's no they can hem and haul all they want, but they have placed themselves, again, on the side of the issue that makes it look like they are opposed to U.S. success.
And why are they doing this?
Because they're looking at virtually everything in the news as a potential scandal in the making, folks, and because of that, they stake out positions that rely on one thing that Bush is a lawbreaker.
Bush is a liar.
Bush is a criminal.
Bush is a cheater.
Of course, they all believe that because he stole two elections from them.
He somehow outmaneuvered them and cheated to get two conservative not well, Alito's not there yet, but he will be, and there will be other nominees that the president will probably have to be able to make that'll make it to the court.
I mean, this is this is easy, and you look at this Nagurney piece and they make it out to be um that the Republicans have to come up with a simplistic uh uh approach because people are so stupid.
Republicans have to simplify everything.
No, the Republicans just have to tell the truth.
The President just has to tell the truth about what's going on and what he's doing.
And don't forget, that I out of the printer here.
Here's a powerful statement for you.
This is from um the uh former chief of the National Security Agency, uh General Michael Hayden, the former director.
He said today at the speech National Press Club, had this program been in effect prior to 9-11.
It is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States.
Okay, let the uh let the Democrats come out and attack that.
Let him come out and attack them.
I mean one of the reasons we couldn't was because of the walls that one of their deputy attorney generals had put up.
Uh uh that would be Jamie Gorelic.
Now, I think the Democrats uh may try to portray their opposition to the NSA program as simply procedural.
But um we view it as substantive.
I mean, their their their their opposition is of substance since their objections are de facto obstacles to intercepting Al-Qaeda phone calls.
As I said in the opening half hour of the program, this whole argument reminds me a lot of the Democrats who consistently voted against weapons systems in the 70s and eighties and complained if Reagan said they weren't strong on national security issues.
Of course we are strong on national security issues, they said we're we're as much in favor of a strong national defense as you are.
Show us a single quote from a party leader who says we are for a weak national defense.
Of course, there's no party leader that's gonna go out and explicitly argue for a weak national defense, but they clearly voted for it time and time and time again.
Actions, folks, actions.
Pay attention to actions, not the words.
We all understood this admission was largely beside the point because it's reasonable to draw conclusions based on what they did, not simply on what they said.
It's reasonable to make real world judgments on what they proposed and the outcome that follows from their proposals.
And this Times articles, I say it's very condescending.
We we, the Republicans, conservatives only win debates when we simplify these very complicated questions.
We speak in accessible or exaggerated views, uh, which ways, which, in the view of the Times, is the best way to appeal to the unsophisticated, uneducated, stupid mass of people known as the American public.
And I I would be remiss if I didn't also share with you that I think there's something totally disingenuous in this Nagurney article in the New York Times, or at least in the protests of the Democrats.
Are we really, my friends?
Are we really supposed to believe that they strongly agree with what the president's attempting to do, and they're only troubled by the process?
I ask you, is that what we are supposed to believe?
Well, we didn't just fall off the turnip truck.
We are not a bunch of idiots here.
They're only troubled by the process.
Are we supposed to believe that based on their incessant complaints that they're passionately committed to intercepting Al-Qaeda calls?
If that were the case, the Democrats would stress their common ground with the president, rather than focus almost all their attention on his quote unquote law breaking.
The fact is that in the aftermath of the Times story, the statements by Democrats are almost entirely critical of the president, since they said almost nothing supportive of the president in terms of what he was attempting to do, intercept communications between Al-Qaeda and people in this country.
That's obviously it's fair to draw the conclusion that they are not as supportive as we are on this matter.
We really supposed to believe Democrats are committed to intercepting calls from Al Qaeda to people in this country when all their statements and actions make that more difficult, not less.
Nope.
We're not.
We're I'm not going to sit here and accept this at all.
This th th and by the way, this simplistic and excessive language.
Did you hear about the the uh blow-up on the Washington Post's blog last week, Deborah Howell?
Deborah, what were you doing last week, Snerdly?
Everything I'm talking about, you have wide-eyed surprise on your face, like you don't know anything about it.
Well, I know we have vacation too, but I mean, you generally you're up till four in the morning watching C-SPAN.
What would what were you what?
Well, this Miss Babe Deborah Howell, she wrote a piece on Abramov, and she made a mistake in it, and in it she claimed that Abramov had given money to Democrats and Republicans as well.
And she was descended upon by the blogosphere on the left, the Democrat underground.
She was called all kinds of names and you words uh used against her in emails that she's had never been called, and she was just stunned.
She said the mistake that she made was that um money didn't come directly from Abramov, but Abramov's clients did go to Democrats as well.
And and but she ends up saying that sh she is shocked.
She is shocked.
Is this what political discourses come to?
Why, why is this any way to run our governmental affairs?
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
And I'm asking myself, here's a here's a reporter, babe for the Washington Post.
Where have you been?
Are you not paying attention to what the people that are in charge of what your party's doing are saying the last two and three years or five?
Bush equals Hitler, the National Guards.
Where have you been, Ms. Howell?
How can this come as a as a surprise to you?
I'm telling you these people live in their own bubble.
They have this parallel universe, this alternative reality.
And and anything that happens outside this little cocoon that they've built for themselves in which to live, they don't have any clue except when somehow they happen to her, the cocoon gets penetrated.
And she's just she was she's stupefied.
I I I sit here and I continue to marvel over how uninformed most of the national journalists in this country are, particularly those inside the Beltway in Washington and New York, how dramatically uninformed they are about events and people uh in their own country.
Quick time out, folks, sit tight, we'll be back.
Your phone calls, sound bites coming up.
Stay with us.
All right, let's go to the audio sound, but just to help make my point establish the point I've been making about the way the Democrats are reacting, because what Rove's speech has done uh is flushed them out.
The worst thing that can happen to a Democrat's if somebody tells the truth about what they're doing publicly.
You're not supposed to do that.
That's not supposed to happen.
Not supposed to call them on the carpet, be it the Alito hearings, uh, and the way they trumped up a bunch of non-stories into attempted scandals, and now Carl Rove going out and saying these people are actually not in favor of us winning the war on terror, is said in his own words.
Man, they're flushed out.
They democrats are coming out of these mouse holes in the in the corners here to defend themselves, and John Kerry, and this is fabulous, too, of all the people who show up here and make a statement on behalf of the Democratic Party and myself, keep it up.
The more he's out there the better.
He's on the the uh Stephanopoulos's show.
And uh Stephanopoulos said uh Carl Rowe was back out on Friday defending the program, being very aggressive.
Here's what he said, and he plays a bite of Rov saying that President Bush, if he believes Al Qaeda's calling somebody in America, it's in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why.
Some important Democrats clearly disagree.
Stephanopoulos says he must have had you in mind, Senator.
Uh you've called the program a clear violation of the law.
It is a violation of law, and we don't disagree with him at all, and this is exactly what Karl Rove does.
Let me tell you something.
Osama bin Laden is gonna die of kidney failure before he's killed by by Karl Rove and his crowd.
And all he does is divide America over this issue and exploit it.
And what he's trying to pretend is that somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop Appropriately to protect the country.
That's a lie.
We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make uh America safer, but we put a procedure in place to protect the constitutional rights of America.
Okay, so there you go.
It's like, oh, we we totally agree with the president.
We we just we just need a procedure that protects the constitutional rights of Americans.
Oh, we just want to we we we want to eavesdrop appropriately.
What is that?
And what Rose tried to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriate.
Once again, Senator, we simply look at what you do and uh and combine that with what you say.
This is not about killing car uh Osama bin Laden.
Uh it's a violation of the law.
We don't disagree with him at all.
This is exactly what Carl Rolfe does, goes out and divides the country.
You people are dividing the country.
Senator, and it's more and more obvious each and every day.
And of course, we're prepared to eavesdrop whenever and whenever necessary.
Yeah, of course.
The IRS, you'll send them out against your enemies.
Uh these guys will eavesdrop all over the place if they have to.
Um, we're gonna do it appropriately.
So you see, it's the to them, oh, we're just uh we're just as tough on terror and just as tough on spying as Bush does.
We just want a different procedure.
Well then, why don't you come out and start striking the band up on your common ground with the president on the objective?
If you just did that, Senator, then we could probably accept some of this sound bite as reasonable.
But you won't do that.
You won't come out and say you've got a common objective with the president on this.
You just say, well, we're for it, but we just want a different procedure.
Uh and it's it's getting old and tired and and uh and worn out.
Uh let's go back, though, shall we?
September 30th, 2004, presidential debate, Coral Gables, Florida, between Kerry and George W. Bush.
Listen to this.
The President just said the FBI have changed his culture.
We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over a hundred thousand hours of tapes unlistened to.
On one of those tapes, maybe the enemy being right the next time.
And the test is not whether you're spending more money.
The test is are you doing everything possible to make America safe?
We didn't need that tax cut.
America needed to be safe.
So what is he doing?
He's he's he's getting on Bush for not spying enough.
He's getting on Bush for not listening to the enemy enough.
Well, we've got a hundred thousand hours of tapes out there, unless they don't need that why we need to be safe.
Somebody needs to remind him of what he said back in that debate because these I tell you, it is this is getting easy.
This is getting you just go back to what they've said previously.
I did voted for it before I voted against it.
Go back to what they all said in 98 about the threats posed by Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction and so forth.
It's uh it's fun, folks.
It's fun to bring this to your attention and point it out to you because these people are just quite simply whacked.
And it's what happens to you when you become obsessed with rage and hatred.
Uh you you just you lose all perspective.
And that's what's happened to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.
Quick time out, we'll be back in a moment.
Let's grab a quick call here, have a minute and a half, Mike in uh Selkirk, New York.
Welcome to the program, sir.
Nice to have you with us.
Russ, when you say Democrats, and I'm I am a Democrat, want us to lose the warrant.
What you're really saying is that you want us to be hit again, that we want to be hit again.
Now, I worked at Windows on the World as a breakfast waiter and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in the World Trade Centers.
And New York State's a democratic state.
I cannot imagine a single person that wants to be hit again.
What we want is for the president to follow the law.
And if you're listeners are having trouble understanding that, imagine if Bill Clinton could tap their phones or your phone.
I mean, I think you've got some privacy issues too, without a warrant.
What if he tapped your lawyers' phones without a warrant?
Well, you know, I think most Americans' privacy rights uh are violated by what they have to turn over to the IRS every year about themselves than whatever this NSA project is gonna show about most people's privacy rights violated right there.
Um but I think it's a straw dog.
I think, oh, well, well, we just want the president to obey the law.
We would you're you're you're You're unfortunately falling into a trap.
You're assuming the president has broken the law, and you're assuming it because your Democrat buddies say so.
The president says he hasn't broken the law, that he's totally legal in doing so.
And furthermore, he welcomes the hearings into this because he knows it's going to end up like everything else the Democrats have tried to scandalize.
They're going to have egg on their face and they're going to be embarrassed all over the all over the country about it.
If you don't want to get hit again, you've got to get serious about preventing it.
▲
Export Selection