All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 27, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
January 27, 2006, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You people who have been watching cable news today, obviously like I have, you can't escape.
There's a camera trained on this protest outside the home of Mahmoud Abbas, his own party.
I mean, it's like the Wellstone Memorial after the election.
They're having a crackup over there.
And in other parts of the territories, whatever you call it now, the Fatah and Hamas supporters are clashing, it says.
I told you yesterday, keep a sharp eye out for civil war.
Friday, it is, folks.
Let's go.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida.
It's open line Friday.
Here's about 2,000 Fatah members rallying, protesting.
They're just angry.
They're just mad they lost.
They're outside the home of Mahmoud Abbas.
And this is, it's exactly how the Democrats felt after the shellacking they took with John Kerry as their candidate in 2004.
These guys, I think they're mad that Abbas ran such a lousy campaign.
They're upset.
This is what the Democrats wanted to do with Kerry, but they couldn't find him.
He had decamped to his wife's ski chalet out there in Idaho.
Great to have you with us, folks.
Here we are, the one and only EIB network in El Rushbo.
And Open Line Friday.
The telephone number is 800-282-2882 and the email address, rush at EIBNet.com.
DittoCam's up and running, and we'll be for the entire program today.
It's a service exclusively available to subscribers and members at Rush24-7.
Our website's rushlimbaugh.com.
You want to be on the program telephone number again, 800-282-2882.
And if you want to go the email route, and I do, as you people who watch on the DittoCam know, I checked the email during our profit centers, profit center timeouts.
Got some fabulous news out there today.
Have you seen the fabulous economic news?
Halliburton's 2005 profit was the best in their 86-year history.
Oh, yes.
I just love this.
After three years of losing money, Halliburton reported a hefty profit for 2005 and announced that all six of its divisions posted record results.
The year 2005 was the best in our 86-year history, said Dave Lazar, Halliburton's chairman.
The company posted a year-in profit of $2.4 billion.
It's with a B, or $4.54 per share, which means Michael Moore made out pretty well because he's a Halliburton stockholder.
Ad revenue of $21 billion.
Halliburton has 100,000 employees.
And let's see what this is.
Houston Chronicle, better known for its high-profile and often controversial Kellogg Brown and Roots subsidiary, a major government contractor that builds and operates bases for the U.S. military heavily entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But that's not the only good news.
Have you seen this?
Chevron's fourth quarter profit soars to a record high.
Big oil making out big time.
Chevron Corporation's fourth quarter profit climbed 20% to $4.14 billion, a company record that continued the most prosperous stretch in the oil company's 126-year history as it capitalizes on high fuel prices that are squeezing consumers and ruffling politicians.
So the profits, who is this?
This is the Associated Press.
The profits are due to capitalizing on high fuel prices, squeezing consumers and ruffling politicians.
I just love anything that makes the day black for Democrats.
Anything, it just brings a dark cloud.
And of course, the best news we could get is that Walmart's profit goes to a sky-high record soon.
You know, the Democrats and the Libs all happy that General Motors took it on the chin in their last quarterly report.
But really, really great news.
And you have to think, I mean, I love these people, Halliburton and Chevron.
I mean, they've got no choice.
They're publicly held.
They have to announce this.
But to sound happy about it when they know that half the country, at least the liberal establishment, hates their guts, you know, they're just poking their finger in their eye out there and rubbing it in.
And I just, I love that.
I got this email from a woman in my adopted hometown.
I'm not going to mention her name, but it's an offshoot of one of the multitude of subjects that we were discussing on yesterday's program, Rush.
My husband was a wimp.
I married my husband 10 years ago, and since then, he's become extremely conservative, loves you, not as much as I do, but he's still a bit wimpy.
I have him killing spiders now and standing up for himself in his job.
He's a doctor.
But thanks to you, he's come a long way.
Reform is possible, Maha Russia.
Keep up the good work.
So this woman, her husband's coming around, she's got him killing spiders now.
I love this.
He's less a wimp.
You people out there that have robbed banks, what do they call the red dye?
What do they call the red dye that banks use?
You know, somebody steals a bag of money and they escape and they open it and the die pack.
That's right.
Mamon knows he's a former bank robber.
Kaboom, you've got red dye all over the perp and all over the money.
It's a red dye bomb.
Is that what it's called?
Pretty, pretty well.
We'll just say it is because it captures enough.
Whatever you call it, the red dye bomb exposed John F. Kerry, John Filibuster Kerry.
I mean, the New York Times planted the red dye bomb in their editorial demanding guts and a spine from somebody in the Democratic Party.
And here's old Lurch.
Here's old Lurch while he's over in Davos with the swimmer, the swimmer probably hanging around at the lodge for the ski bunnies when they come off the slopes.
Who would be the first liberal to obey the marching orders of the New York Times?
It was the New York Times just yesterday planted that red dye bomb in an editorial and kaboom.
John Kerry is covered in the red of embarrassment, but he's not smart enough to know it.
The New York Times called for a filibuster of Alito and kaboom, John Filibuster Kerry called for a filibuster from Davos, Switzerland.
The New York Times said, dance, boy, dance.
And Kerry clicked his heels, which isn't that easy when you're grabbing your knees and bending over, but he was still able to do it, folks.
Now, this is it, it doesn't get any better than this, folks.
It really doesn't.
Does John Filibuster Kerry really believe in a filibuster?
Is he trying to remind America that he has one tough filibuster?
This whole Lido vote has made a mockery of liberals, claiming they're voting their conscience.
As I and the New York Times pointed out this week, if this Alito guy is this destructive, I mean, if what you've said about this guy is true, if he's going to take away women's rights, animal rights,
minority rights, human rights, civil rights, workers' rights, do all this damage to people and humans, and he's going to turn back the hands of time and all of these things that they've said that will happen if this guy gets in the court.
My gosh, if that's true, if you really think that, don't you pull out all the stops?
Yes, you do, but they're not pulling out all the stops.
Who is it?
We've had, well, who's the latest to go on?
Oh, Susan Collins.
Republican has said that she's going to vote for Alito, but they don't have the votes for a filibuster.
And look at Dingy Harry.
Dingy Harry last night and a bunch of other Democrats after this red dye bomb blew up on John Kerry in Davos.
Here's the New York Times headline.
Kerry gets cool response to call on filibuster to filibuster Alito.
Democrats cringed.
This is the New York Times, which demanded somebody do this.
Democrats cringed.
Republicans jeered at the awkwardness of his gesture, which almost no one in the Senate expects to succeed.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senator Cornyn, said, God bless John Kerry.
He just cinched this whole nomination.
With Senator Kerry, it's Christmas every day.
It is.
It's an adult Christmas every day.
Senator Harry Dingy Reed, the Democrat leader, sounded almost apologetic about Kerry's statements.
He said, no one can complain on this matter that there hasn't been sufficient time to talk about Judge Alito, pro and con.
He said this in the Senate floor.
I hope that this matter will be resolved without too much more talking.
Today, Senator Biden Pence, a Delaware Democrat, member of the Judiciary Committee, said he wouldn't support a filibuster.
He doubts that one will happen.
Speaking in a televised interview on CNN, Biden said that he thought the Republicans would inevitably force a decision, so the Democrats ought to use their votes to make a statement without seeking a delay.
And then last night, after Dingy Harry saying, no, it wouldn't be useful.
We don't have the votes for it.
Dingy Harry admitted today that he and Democrats lacked the votes to block the nomination of Sam Alito.
He says everybody knows there's not enough votes to support a filibuster, but he said that he'd vote for such a measure to at least send a message of opposition to the nominee.
The vote will come Monday with final confirmation set for Tuesday.
Harry Reid was talking to reporters after a speech at a Washington hotel.
He says, I think it's an opportunity for people to express their opinion as to what a bad choice it was to replace Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito.
All right, now, it matters not what people on the right think of this because our minds have been made up long ago.
This is an example of exactly what we all know is happening to the Democrats.
They're imploding and they are being taken over by this fringe kook base.
At redstate.org, it's one of the blogs we look at.
One of the contributors over there had this analysis of Dingy Harry.
Is their base, the Democrat base, is their base so pathetic that it'll give credibility to John Kerry from Switzerland?
And now Harry Reid trying to kiss them after a one-night stand of self-flagellation.
Or do Reed and Kerry view their base so pathetically, thinking that with the game lost, they'll still say they're going to filibuster to keep the base happy?
Sort of like, but just keep your eyes closed, honey, because while we make the sounds, you're not actually going to get anything but another kiss.
You may think I'm going to love you, and we'll make all the groans and all the, but that's all you're going to get is a kiss.
How pathetic must they think this base is?
Kerry makes this move.
Dingy Harry is all over the ballpark.
Last night, it won't work.
And Durbin, too.
I mean, a lot of Democrats did cringe.
But today, they must have heard it last night.
They must have heard it from these wacko kooks because now they're out there talking about, well, of course, we don't have the votes for everybody, but I'm willing to vote for one anyway, just, just to make a statement and so forth.
You know what?
Here's the bottom line, folks.
Earlier this week, I said the Democrats have no onions.
Then the New York Times said the Democrats have no onions.
Today, they're in a pick back in the mall.
All right, let's look at the Washington Post take on the John Kerry red die bomb.
Several prominent Democrat senators called for a filibuster.
Several.
Who are the other, who besides Kennedy?
What, a Durbin join them?
Okay, three equals several?
Anyway, several prominent Democrats senators called for a filibuster of Alito yesterday, exposing a deep divide in the party, even as they delighted the party's liberal base.
Well, that's the story, but we will keep reading.
Liberal groups such as People for the American Way have implored Democratic senators to filibuster Alito's nomination, even if it means nothing more than staking their principles and showing that Democrats will fight against a party that controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, as if they haven't been fighting the last five years.
As many Republicans have relished the idea of a Democratic-led filibuster, saying it helps them portray the minority party as obstructionist and beholden to left-leaning groups.
Once again, there's no portrayal necessary.
It is what it is.
It's plain as day for all to see.
And then there's this little paragraph as well in the Washington Post story.
Party sources said that Dingy Harry and others worry that a filibuster, while likely to fail, will nonetheless detract voters' attention from issues that Democratic leaders consider more promising.
Those include Bush's controversial domestic surveillance program, another contemptible lie in the media, the indictments of a top White House official and a congressional leader, and the unfolding scandal centered on former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
That's what they've put their eggs in, that basket, the Abramoff basket, this scandal thing.
Public does.
Wait a minute, I know we're going to get to the poll on this.
There's a New York Times poll that is just, that paper's cracking up every bit as fast and as hard as the Democratic Party is.
But I'm going to tell you why there's not going to be a filibuster.
I'll tell you why there will not be.
The Democrats in the Senate.
Remember when Harry Reid shut down the Senate and whatever, using that procedure?
He did that to cover up the actual impotence of the Democrats to stop Bush on anything.
That was my point then, and that's what this filibuster, that's why they don't want this filibuster.
They've got their base, these lunatics, thinking that if all they do is flex their muscles, that they could stop this one-party rule, this coup d'état that took place back in 2000 and 2001.
The last thing the Democrats can do, the last thing Dingy Harry can afford is for his base to see how truly impotent the Democrats in the Senate are.
Imagine how weak they would look, along with Dingy Harry, if they could publicly muster no more than 30 some-odd votes for a filibuster.
They need 41.
They're not going to do that, despite John Kerry and the red die bomb that was set off by the New York Times and joined by the swimmer.
They're not going to do this.
They're far better for them to go directly to a roll call where they'll have a good chance of holding Alito to less than 60 votes or right around there.
That's why Reed desperately wants to avoid a filibuster fight.
He didn't for these other issues is because he can't afford for his base to see how impotent the party is in the Senate.
That's it, pure and simple.
It's why he shut down the Senate in that one-day little tirade back, toward the end of last year.
Let's listen to some audio here on this.
CBS this morning, Harry Smith talking to Senator Biden says, your colleague, Senator Kerry, interested in putting together a filibuster to block the confirmation of Sam Alito.
You want to help him out?
No, I think that a filibuster is not likely to bear any fruit here.
We already have four Democrats who've announced they're going to vote for Judge Alito.
A filibuster, I think, is not likely to occur.
And here's Senator Turbin from yesterday at the National Press Club.
Having made a count, I have come to the conclusion it is highly unlikely that a filibuster would succeed.
That's yesterday.
Now, today they're all, oh, yeah, well, of course, we'd vote for one if somebody like I was to show support.
It doesn't have a chance.
I will be stunned if they do this because if they try it, not only will they fail, they will demonstrate, and their base doesn't get it.
Well, you think that the base is angry at the Democrats for being impotent and weak, the reason they're angry is because they don't think there's any reason for it.
Hey, if the Democrats would just get some onions, just get up there and, you know, stand for where they believe in and say exactly what the base is saying on these left-wing blogs, and it would shock everybody back into reality, which is exactly what's been going on, and it's only hurting them.
So the Democrats know that it's hopeless.
The base doesn't.
And so as long as the base has hope, the Democrats don't dare tamper with that.
And you would erase hope.
You know, marriage.
Marriage is the end of hope.
You look at it that way.
If they go out there and they actually force this vote, they are going to demonstrate and they are going to show first class just how incompetent, how weak, how impotent they are.
And they won't do that because they need the base fired up.
They need the base thinking that the base is winning things.
They need the base thinking that they are the mainstream because that'll keep the money flowing in.
And they desperately need and want the money.
The truth was articulated yesterday by Sheets Bird.
There's no mystery.
He's running for reelection.
We have some more audio, as I promised, promised you yesterday from Sheets Bird's speech on the floor of the Senate, in which he announced his disgust with the way the hearings on Alito went and announced his support for Alito and how he will vote for him and why.
Even said that he is a man who loves his country and loves his Constitution.
And who can ask for more than that?
So it's a new Robert Bird, and it's also an election year.
So sit tight.
Folks, we have, as always at this time in the program, only scratched the surface.
Be back and continue after this.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
I am America's anchorman.
We are on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network.
It's Open Line Friday.
We'll get your phone call as soon as I can.
We got three sound bites here from Senator Bird.
Yesterday afternoon on the Senate floor, here's the first of three.
Get this first sentence.
Like a majority of my constituents, I prefer conservative judges.
I've been saying that for years and years.
That is, judges who do not try to make the law.
I was once approached by President Richard Nixon to inquire about my interest in being a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
I said to my wife, I don't think I'd like that position.
She said, well, you'd better let the president know that.
I declined so that I might continue to serve the people of West Virginia.
Like a majority of my constituents, I prefer conservative judges.
been saying that for years.
That is judges who don't try to make the law...
Did this guy get off?
Is he alive today?
Did he...
Did he show up for work today?
This is a Democrat saying this.
Here's the second soundbite.
The first three words.
The preamble of the Constitution are, as we all know, we, the people.
The framers ensured that the people, through us, their elected representatives in the Congress, would have the greatest power in our government.
Judge Alito told me that he respected the separation of powers and would not rule in support of a power-hungry president.
I liked that answer.
I liked Judge Alito.
He struck me as a man of his word, and I intend to vote for him.
And here's the last bite.
From his obvious intelligence, from his obvious sincerity, lead me to believe him to be an honorable man, a man who loves his country, loves this Constitution, and a man who will give of his best.
Can we really ask for more?
Yes, we can ask for a filibuster.
And I've been thinking about this, folks.
You know, I know I said, I'm going to flip-flop here like Dingy Harry is flip-flopping.
Like I said the last half hour, I firmly believed it when I said it.
I don't think they'll risk a filibuster.
They'll show how impotent they are.
It would be the stupidest thing they could do.
And that's precisely why they may do it.
They have established a pattern of opening the door right into their nose, right into their face, doing the stupidest that the Wellstone Memorial on.
They have established a pattern of doing the dumbest things they could do, and a filibuster would fit right in.
Now, you got this New York Times story today on, they got a poll, headline, new poll finds mixed support for wiretaps.
In this story today, we learn that the results, this is a quote, the results suggest that Americans' view of the NSA program depends in large part on whether they perceive it as a bulwark in the fight against terrorism, as Mr. Bush has sought to cast it, or as an unnecessary and unwarranted infringement on civil liberties, as critics have said.
Now, the basic summation of this is 53% support wiretaps aimed at terrorism.
However, if you leave out the word terrorism in the question, then you only get 46% who support it.
In other words, if you leave the truth out of the question, you leave the truth out of the question, you'll get the answer the mainstream media wants.
And that's the Democratic strategy.
Leave out the truth.
If they've got an agenda, that's it.
Everything but the truth.
Everything but that.
Leave that out of everything you say, and you'll get the desired result you want.
I'm reduced here to asking a rhetorical question to the New York Times.
You're not kidding.
You mean if Americans think eavesdropping on conversations between al-Qaeda and a terrorist in Wichita is being done to prevent a terror attack, they support that.
But if they think eavesdropping is done simply to infringe on civil liberties, eavesdropping on, say, a conversation between you and your brother to discuss the logistics for the next family reunion, they oppose that.
Well, that's stunning.
It is mind-boggling that the American people would actually, what the hell is striking about this?
They call these results striking.
What's striking about the fact that a clear majority of the American people think eavesdropping on conversations between al-Qaeda and sleeper cell members in this country is a good thing.
But, my friends, there's more.
We also read this.
In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported email and telephone monitoring directed at Americans the government is suspicious of.
That is striking?
To who?
Is it just as striking to editors at Time and Newsweek when they learn that boys and girls, men and women are actually different?
It is striking, a striking finding.
Respondents overwhelmingly supported email and telephone monitoring directed at Americans that the government is suspicious of.
They overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at ordinary Americans.
Striking?
Shocking?
Surprising?
It stands out like a sore thumb?
B.S., folks.
Barbara Streis, this, all this does is make total sense.
And I'll tell you what else it does.
It underscores the fact that if the media simply reports the truth of this story, that we're talking about a limited program whose purpose is to intercept conversations between people who want to kill Americans, the American people overwhelmingly support that position.
But if the media presents a distorted view of the program, for example, if they insist on referring to it as domestic surveillance and domestic wiretapping, the numbers go down.
So you leave the truth out.
Leave the truth out, and you get the result that you want.
I'd also point out that the wording in this poll is intentionally misleading.
For example, one question is phrased this way.
Quote, after 9-11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants, saying this was necessary to reduce the threat of terrorism.
Do you approve or disapprove?
Now, that's a simple joke, but even with this biased question, a majority of the public supported the president.
Why didn't the Times frame the question more accurately like this?
Quote, after 9-11, President Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls between a member of al-Qaeda or an affiliated group and someone in the U.S.
They did so without a court warrant, and they based their decision on Article 2 of the Constitution and the war powers granted to it by the Congress.
Do you approve or disapprove of this?
That's the question.
That is the question.
It's in the Constitution.
There's no law-breaking.
Well, you know, you don't ask the question that way.
It's much more accurate.
The numbers would be overwhelmingly in support of this, were that the question.
And there's another sample question from this brilliant poll.
Quote, after 9-11, George W. Bush authorized government wiretaps on some phone calls in the U.S. without getting court warrants.
Do you approve or disapprove of this?
Period.
No context whatsoever.
This question makes it sound like we simply went to wiretap conversations.
We want to wiretap phone conversations between innocent people.
And even at that, only 50% of the public disapprove, even with a context-missing question, loaded as it was.
Only 50% of the public disapprove.
Now, the good news in all this is that liberals in this country are going to read this story and are going to take false comfort in it.
It'll have the effect of making them more inclined to debate us on the merits of this issue.
And that in turn will end up hurting them on the most important issue in America today, which is protecting our country from attacks.
The liberals are going to read this poll and think, ha ha, ha ha, we got him.
Bush is lying.
The American people know it.
And so this is going to have the effect of adding a spine and perhaps even an onion or two to these Democrats to really ratchet up this issue.
They're going to misread this because the Times has given them the results they want by leaving out the truth.
You take the word terrorism out of one of these questions.
Still, the support's 46%.
And the Democrats doing everything they can to make it sound like this has nothing to do with al-Qaeda, nothing to do with terrorism.
Bush wants to spy on you.
Bush is the threat to national security.
And the more these liberal Democrats think they've on the winning side of this issue, the bigger trap is being set for them and the deeper hole they will fall in.
This is a terrible debate for the liberals to have.
But they're too stupid to know it.
They still believe that a majority of Americans want us to lose the war on terror, lose the war in Iraq, come home humiliated.
They do believe that.
And this little story accompanying this poll makes it more likely that they'll want to have the debate because they'll think they're winning it.
So I want to thank the New York Times for the poll and the story.
I recognize a gift when we've gotten it, when we've received it.
And you have just given us with this cockeyed, left-wing blog lunatic poll story, further ammunition, and you have just tightened the noose around your neck one more time.
And we haven't had to even touch the rope.
Back in a second.
Open Line Friday, Rush Limbaugh, half my brain tied behind my back.
Just to make it fair, this is Jill in Ithaca, your first today on Open Line Friday.
Nice to have you with us.
Hello, Rush.
How are you doing today?
Fine, thank you.
Okay.
Who was in power, who was in office or power, synonymous these days, when we were attacked on 9-11?
Which administration was it?
Oh, that would be the Bush administration, Jill.
That's correct.
And did they not have foreknowledge it was going to happen from August 6th when Georgie was at the ranch?
Yeah.
He knew it was going to happen.
Look, you and I both know he let it happen because he needed a crisis to submit his presidency as a great leader and a great cowboy.
Clinton himself, Clinton people after the attack said, gee, why couldn't this happen when we were in office so we could have a chance?
The administration warned those people.
They did not choose to listen.
But that doesn't matter.
I'm just saying that.
It does matter.
People are dead.
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
Joe, you're missing.
I'm.
I'm agreeing with you here, honey.
I'm not a honey.
Please don't do that.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Dear, I'm agreeing with you.
Bush knew.
Everybody knows Bush knew.
Whether Clinton warned him or not's irrelevant to me.
He still knew.
I'm just saying that the Clinton administration was wishing something like this had happened on their watch so they too could have a chance for greatness.
Every president needs a big crisis.
They could have let it happen on New Year's Eve 2000.
They stopped something like that from happening.
Well, and that guy, I have to disagree.
The Clinton administration had really nothing to do with that.
That was an alert customs agent.
It was still under the Clinton administration who put their efforts into producing the city.
Okay, well, if we're going to say that, then we're going to have to say that the new phenomenon that oral sex is the most popular high school activity in America today got start during the Clinton administration.
What did you have to do with it, Rush?
Well, I'm just using your logic.
If an alert customs agent, not the Clinton administration.
It was the Clinton administration.
They didn't let it happen.
I lost someone in 9-11.
Thank you very much.
I'm sorry to hear that.
Well, thank you.
I'm sure you are.
I very am sorry.
I'm not perpetuating this 9-11.
How many lies has Bush told the American people?
Now, let me be serious with you for a moment.
We all lost someone on 9-11.
We lost 3,000 of our fellow citizens.
Now, do you actually believe, Jill?
Do you actually believe Bush knew this was going to happen and let it happen?
I didn't believe he.
I believe he let it happen.
History will prove us he knew it.
You really?
You really believe this?
Yes.
And he's not been honest with the American people.
He's done nothing.
Listen, I believe Scott Ritter.
I listened to Scott Ritter since day one that they didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Right.
And I'm not a nuclear scientist.
And I knew in my because I trusted him.
He said that.
Hold on a minute.
Hold on a minute.
You're changing the subject.
Scott Ritter's got nothing to do with 9-11.
Why did Bush let it happen?
Why did he let it happen?
Yes.
Why did Bush want 3,000 Americans to die?
So he could turn around and convince the American people, as he did with part of them, that we could attack Iraq.
Oh.
So he allowed that to happen.
Do you know the poet laureate of New Jersey?
What was his name?
I honestly don't know.
His name is Amahboud Baraka or something like that.
He takes it even a step further.
He said that it was a Jewish plot, that all the Jews in the 9-11 towers in New York, the World Trade Center, got out because they knew it was coming.
Well, he can be, you know, that can be disproven because Kantowitz's firm, they lost a lot of people who were very probably Jewish.
Wait a minute.
The poet laureate of New Jersey is a brilliant man.
You want to distance it.
You want to distance him.
I mean, if Bush knew, Bush knew.
And if Bush knew, Bush supporters knew.
And Bush got a lot of Jewish supporters.
I mean, it all fits, Jill.
If you just think about it, just be consistent with the way you're thinking.
It all fits.
Listen, Rush.
You know, he's lying.
He's even not even admitting to knowing Abramoff.
Now, come on.
Abramoff helped him put his interior cabinet together.
So come on.
The man has not been honest since day one.
Why would I believe him at all?
Jill, let me ask you a question.
Do you approve or disapprove of the president's wiretapping program?
Are you going to include the word terrorist or not?
Ask the question the way I intended to ask it.
Do you approve of the wiretapping program?
That's the way it's being conducted, no.
Well, so.
There was a CIA agent.
So you want it to happen again, then?
You want it to happen again.
Here's the thing.
The president who let it happen the first time, and now you don't want him to connect the dots this time.
So you want it to happen again, Jill.
That's the logic of your thinking.
Jill, you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance, and I feel so sorry for you that you actually believe what you believe.
I'm not a drug addict, at least.
It is very sad that you think what you think.
It is so sad that you're not afraid of it.
Jill, you're sounding like both my ex-wives now.
Would you shut up for a second?
No, I'm trying to say something.
I'm trying to talk to your soul and your heart.
And I don't know how deep your soul or your heart are because your mind has got you so clouded.
But we live in a serious time in the world today, and people who think the things that you think are an impediment to the security and safety of the country.
And I don't know who's responsible for putting all this pollution in your head, but I can't tell you how sorry I feel for you.
You have an intellectually indefensible position.
You are living and breathing and dying in conspiracies.
Oh, then you're not.
Of course not.
No, and you believe Bush.
How many, you know, he's lying to your face and you believe him?
How can you defend you're believing this man?
How can you defend that?
Very simply, I know him.
I know his heart.
I know his soul.
I believe him.
He's a trustworthy individual.
You don't know him.
You don't have the chance to have the chance to know him because you're not going to give any alternative view other than this poison that's coursing through your veins any chance whatsoever.
I really, I feel sorry for these people.
You're taking the people that you believe in down the tubes with you because it's people like you, Jill, who want to hear, you want to hear Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer say the same stuff you're saying, and then you'll send them money.
And they're getting closer and closer and closer to sounding just like you.
And you wonder why you've lost the House, the Senate, and the White House with no hope of getting them back.
It doesn't matter.
You're not listening anyway.
Back in just a second.
Our last caller told the screener she wanted to talk about Quakers and vegans.
Unfortunately, we never got there.
Folks, that was Jill from Ithaca.
Was it Cindy Sheehan's sister?
Anyway, quick timeout.
Remember the call I got yesterday complaining about the voice I was using to sound like a liberal?
▲
Export Selection