All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 6, 2006 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:30
February 6, 2006, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
You know, if you Seahawks fans don't stop writing and belly aching and whining and complaining about the referees, I'm going to set up filters for all of you, sending all of your emails to the deleted folder.
I mean, it's incredible.
What a bunch of babies.
Yeah, I mean, you ought to see the email today.
Thawks playing blaming bling, blaming.
All I remember is the scoreboard.
Greetings, folks, and welcome.
It's the EIB Network and El Rushbow.
We got a short week this week.
We've got today and tomorrow.
I'll be uh going out to uh Mottere Peninsula, the ATT National Pro Am at Pebble Beach on uh Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
If I make the cut, we'll play on Sunday.
Uh and you never know.
I went to I went to Houston Saturday for a golf lesson.
And I'm not going to belabor this because I if if it's I know you people, some of you get mad when I talk about the Super Bowl or football, but when I go into golf, you go berserk.
Um which I understand, but I went to see Jim Hardy.
Jim Hardy is uh is a is a great golf teacher.
When that took took a couple buddies went down there, spent I guess it was three hours in Houston, and I feel reborn in the golf game.
Now I haven't taken what he taught me out to the golf course yet.
Uh just done it on the range.
But I'm uh point is I'm looking forward to it.
It was really exciting.
Uh be playing with Tom Pernice again uh uh starting, I don't even know our tea times yet.
We'll start on uh on Thursday.
You may have been watching Fox uh uh Neil Cavuto promoing uh promoting an appearance uh on his show out there.
I am going to appear on his show Wednesday between four and five Eastern time.
He's gonna be set up outside the 18th Green at Spy Glass, which is one of the three courses in the rotation, and he asked me if I would show up.
Sure, sure.
Little five to seven minute spot.
I can pick the topics, so I'm gonna talk about the Super Bowl.
Uh and I'm just kidding.
But I'm gonna be doing that.
Uh we've got guest hosts, we've got Hedgecock on Wednesday and uh Thursday, and Tom Sullivan of the opinion auditing firm, the Sullivan Group, uh, on uh on Friday.
Telephone number if you want to be on the program today, folks, is 800 282-2882 with the email address rush at eIBNet.com.
What is it, uh, mr. Snodl.
Well.
Well, well, no, no, I don't know.
Snodless, if war breaks out, you'll you'll find a way to get back.
Some might say war has already broken out uh in this country with the way the Democrats are conducting themselves.
As we speak, ladies and as I am speaking to you today, there is a hearing being conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the same committee whose members made fools of themselves during the Alito hearings, in which most of these senators don't seek to learn anything about this NSA National Security Agency spy program.
Instead, they are posturing and hoping to gain political points with loaded questions.
There's no effort to find out what went on here at all.
It's just it's it's more of the same for what we had during the Alito hearings.
In fact, the first 15 minutes today, the Democrats uh uh fought over whether or not the attorney general Alberto Gonzalez would be sworn in because they wanted to make it out like he was lying.
And so they wanted to put him under oath so that if he lied under oath that committed perjury to impeach him.
Uh it is uh we've got some sound bites and some of these posturing bloated in their own minds, self-important people that ought to just try to re-examine what their purpose in life is as a U.S. Senator.
But I want to get some facts on the table about this.
And I want to get these facts on the table first, and I want to walk walk you through some of this.
And I try to do this here in in just plain old English, because this a lot of this is buried in media doublespeak.
There has there's a new lexicon that's developed.
Uh domestic spying, which is contemptible.
It's not what this is all about.
The press has done an intentionally miserable job in explaining this program and the law and the history surrounding the program.
First of all, uh, as the attorney general said today, and others said on the Sunday shows over the weekend, the National Security Agency is attempting to intercept communications to and from Al-Qaeda terrorists and operatives.
There is no broad date gathering effort like the Echelon program.
That's not what this is.
You know, the echelon just gathers data, just mines everybody doing everything emails, phone calls.
That is not what this is.
This isn't about data mining.
The intercepts that we're talking about here are very specific.
And at least one of those involved in the communication must be outside the United States.
Second, the administration does, in fact, use the foreign intelligence survey surveillance act and its secret court to seek approval for the overwhelming majority of surveillance that it does on government foreign and uh foreign agents as well.
But where speed and flexibility is required, it cannot and does not use the foreign intelligence surveillance act.
Now, I know you we've been over this before.
You've you're saying I've heard this, I've heard this.
Well, there's also some new information that uh that bears underscoring here.
Uh I'll get to that here in just a second.
But it is it is uh if you go back to the the foreign intelligence surveillance act was established by Jimmy Carter back in 1978.
Now, yesterday, Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee Chairman said that while President Bush's terrorist surveillance program is a flat out violation, and he's dead wrong about that.
Called it a flat-out violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Specter says it may be entirely legal because of powers granted to the president by the Constitution.
He said there's an involved question here as to whether the President's powers under Article II, his inherent powers supersede a statute.
That's what Spectre said on Meet the Press yesterday.
Uh the Pennsylvania Republicans said that if the FISA statute is inconsistent with the Constitution, the Constitution governs and the Constitutional powers predominate.
It it it what Spectre is saying here in a roundabout convoluted way is that it is FISA that's out of order here, because it is the president that has authority here under the powers granted by the Constitution to act as commander-in-chief.
And Congress cannot, because of separation of powers, impose its will on that executive responsibility, which is what the FISA law did.
Specter said that when the FISA law was signed by President Carter, he voluntarily surrendered his power to conduct independent domestic surveillance without a warrant.
But that's not the end of the discussion, uh Spector said, promising his hearings would explore the issue of presidential prerogatives and the FISA Act's constitutionality or lack thereof.
And Spector, get this, he may call Carter as a witness to explain his thinking on the FISA law.
Folks, I'm gonna I'm gonna tell you something.
If we were to go back, uh uh if we were to investigate those four years of Jimmy Carter, I think that we would find roots to many of the problems we have today in Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Iran, the whole Middle East embroiderio, the way it has evolved, this FISA business.
Jimmy Jimmy Carter was an absolute disaster for this country.
His four-year presidency was an economic malaise.
It was an utter disaster.
His foreign policy was a flat-out joke.
After he failed miserably as a president, he's dis well, he went on his own to North Korea and dealt with the uh the during the Clinton years to broker a deal there that led them to uh take nuclear materials for power plant construction and begin to convert them to uh nuclear weapons facilities.
Uh you know, he he was involved down in Haiti during uh during Clinton's bid to revitalize that kind of what was that, Aristide, Jean Berton Aristreed, uh, the Panama Canal giveaway.
I mean, if if we really looked hard, those four years have set up so much of the doom and misery here, and so many of the problems that we've had, I wish somebody wanted to tell you we ought to do this ourselves, because it's it is patently obvious.
Jimmy Carter voluntarily gave up constitutional powers by signing this FISA Act, which allows Congress to make laws when it comes or uh to establish this court that uh ultimately intercedes and uh Trumps, according to the Democrats today, the president's power, any president's power uh under the commander in chief auspice.
So anyway, I just uh the more I the more I read and hear about uh things that happened during the Carter years, and then you move forward and you see that he's he's he's a Nobel Peace Pies Peace Prize winner with Mohammed O'Barado.
I mean, it is just sometimes you just have to laugh.
It's just an utter, utter joke.
Quick time out.
I want to get some of the new things that have surfaced in this uh in these hearings, uh, well, not in the hearings prior to the hearings that will influence them uh in a positive way right after this brief timeout.
Sit tight, folks.
We are coming right back.
You know, it it seems talking about uh Jimmy Carter, he had the wacko brother out there, Billy.
And now it's a contest as to which was the wacko.
But it seems like every president has some wacko brother who pops up every once in a while to embarrass him.
And now George Bush's brother, Bill Clinton, has come up and done it again.
Well, Clinton, I mean, it's practically been adopted by the family, so I'm just gonna call him Bush's wacko brother now.
Do you hear what he did?
He came and he had to defend Hillary.
He did this on Friday.
You know, Hillary claimed last month that the Republican Congress was being run like a plantation.
And uh and and Clinton said that he thought House Democrats are being treated like sharecroppers.
Asked if he agreed with Mrs. Clinton's comment.
Bush's brother Bill Clinton told WCBS Radio's Peter Mayer, oh, absolutely I do, and and it had no racial overtones.
It was more about the arbitrary, a complete exercise of power and control.
And then we get typical Clinton.
He cited an unnamed farmer-turned congressman from East Arkansas, who told him he agreed with Hillary as well.
Now Clinton quoted this unnamed Congressman as saying, I wouldn't say we were slaves, or more like sharecroppers.
And then uh Bush's brother, Bill Clinton said, and another member of Congress, who worked on a plantation as a boy, came up and thanked my wife for saying that.
Now, folks, I'm so glad this guy's gone because it was like this every day.
It was like this, and we were pulling our hair out.
It's like when he said he saw those black churches burn.
He never saw one.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, another another member of U.S. Congress.
I'm not going to identify who it is.
These people probably speak privately to me, but he worked on a plantation as a boy.
He came up and he thanked my wife for saying that.
Sharecropper plantation.
Ken Melman's out there saying Hillary Clinton is angry and American people do not want angry candidates.
And uh the Clinton camp's all upset about that.
That's just a little sample of what we got coming up.
But first, one one point about Jimmy Carter and the FISA business as I get back to this.
The the the key understanding this is that Jimmy Carter, even in his regal incompetence, cannot give up constitutional authority granted to the presidency.
He doesn't have the authority.
He doesn't have the right, he doesn't have the power.
He cannot give it up for himself.
He can't give it up to Jack Bauer, he cannot give it up for future presidents.
He doesn't have the power to do that.
So I hope somebody will pass along what I've said here to Senator Specter so he too can become educated on this.
Because Jimmy Carter, he might have been trying to be magnanimous, he might have been trying to be a good guy, but he can't just take the Constitution and say, well, uh, you know what, I'm gonna be a big guy.
I'm gonna give that power back to Congress, or I'm gonna I'm gonna share it.
He cannot do that.
This whole FISA business is a is a straw dog.
But look, there's some new information that bears underscoring in all this.
First, the Constitution itself grants the authority to the president and only the president to act as commander-in-chief.
As I've said time and time again, Congress has the power to regulate the military, and that means it has the power to determine salary levels, ranks, medals, and so forth.
But it's the president who determines wartime strategy, which includes not only how and when and where to target the uh bad guys, the enemy, but the gathering of intelligence to make those military decisions.
It's all his power.
Every president has recognized this power and asserted it, including Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War and FDR during World War II.
Even modern presidents from the bungling Jimmy Carter to Ronaldus Magnus.
Ronaldus Magnus to to to Bill Clinton when he was, you know, not in the study off the Oval Office, have asserted this authority in the form of executive orders.
They've said they'll comply with Pfizer to the extent that it does not encroach on their constitutional power as commander-in-chief.
They've made the point that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress can't change the Constitution by passing a statute, folks.
That's not how you change the Constitution, and that's what the FISA Act of 1978 did.
This whole thing goes to the separation of powers.
The president has explicit constitutional power as commander in chief.
If Congress or the judiciary for that matter, seek to limit or modify the power, then Congress is acting without constitutional authority.
Now it's interesting that the critics of the president keep saying that he needs judicial oversight before he can exercise his constitutional power as commander-in-chief, when in fact every federal court that has considered this issue going back decades, has affirmed the president's view.
Everyone, there's there's all kinds of judicial review here.
They've looked at it.
So it's just a political trick, the latest in the bag of tricks, and this is going to backfire on the Democrats like the Alito hearings did, because their objective is all wet.
Their objective is all wrong, and they're going to end up making themselves look like they have more sympathy for terrorists and want to grant terrorists a bill of rights than they are going to appear interested in securing this nation.
Here's the new information, folks.
An attorney by the name of Brian, I'm sorry, Byron, B Y R A N Byron Cunningham, has written an outstanding letter to the committee.
Um Byron Cunningham is a man who served in both the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations, including the NSA, the CIA, and the Justice Department.
He uncovered opinions issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel back in 1994 when Clinton was president and Reno was attorney general.
The Office of Legal Counsel is the office that formulates the administration's positions on constitutional issues.
This office, just to give you some some background, was once headed by William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia.
Well, in 1994, the person who ran that office was Walter Dellinger.
Dellinger's 1994 opinion not only endorsed what is today the Bush administration's position on presidential authority, but it did so even more strongly.
Now listen to what Dellinger wrote in part.
Remember, this was the official position of the Clinton administration.
He argues that the president has a duty not to enforce laws that he believes encroach on his constitutional authority, not to enforce them.
He said that a president's responsibility to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes is usually true.
For example, of provisions limiting the president's authority as commander-in-chief.
Where it is not possible to construe such provisions constitutionally, the president has the authority to act on his understanding of the Constitution.
So basically Dellinger writing for Bill Clinton said he can do whatever he wants to do in this in this case, in these circumstances, it's national security.
In fact, he has a duty not to enforce laws that he believes encroach on his constitutional authority.
Dellinger, writing for Clinton, makes the point, as I did earlier, that there is significant judicial approval for this position because it's been looked at by various courts, and he said that this has been the official position of the Justice Department going back to an 1860.
Attorney General opinion.
Well, you might be stunned to learn now.
No, you won't be stunned.
You'll be you will you will understand this totally.
You might be stunned to learn that Walter Dellinger, the very man who wrote and said these things during the Clinton administration, has actually now signed a letter with others stating he could find no plausible legal authority to support President Bush's exercise of exactly the same authority he said Clinton Could exercise.
This is how intellectually dishonest this entire debate has become.
It is purely partisan.
The Democrats are off again on a wild goose chase, and they are failing to understand that their past work can be dug up, their past strategies can be resurrected, and we can examine them, and we can find out when they're lying through their teeth, when they're acting as the full-fledged hypocrites that they are.
There is no more stirling, shining, blatant example of this uh type of behavior than this two positions taken by Walter Dellinger.
It is just stunning, and this is gonna backfire on these people, and I can't wait for it to happen, and I've told you since the prior to these hearings starting that the uh White House is looking forward to them, that a lot of people looking forward to them because the Democrats got a hand grenade in their hand, they want to toss it at the White House, they pulled the pin, they're still holding it, it's gonna go off.
I only wish I was gonna be there to see it.
Ladies and gentlemen, by the way, Ditto Cam is up and running.
It'll be on a whole program today.
It's available at Rush Limbaugh.com for subscribers.
Um made a mistake.
I got I I misidentified uh one of the administrations that uh Byron Cunningham worked for.
I said he worked for Bush 43 uh and Clinton.
He he worked for Bush 41 and Clinton.
Now I have a reason for making this mistake.
I was talking to the referee from the Super Bowl last night, Bill Levy.
We were talking about this, and he mentioned to me uh uh that uh Byron uh were uh worked at uh at Bush 43 uh instead of Bush 41.
So the ref got it wrong, but it's still ultimately my mistake uh for not double checking.
So uh the here's the here's the thing.
This Walter Dellinger person just to refresh your uh your your memory of my little monologue on this.
Walter Dellinger worked in the Office of Legal Counsel for Bill Clinton.
That's the office that formulates the administration's position on constitutional issues.
And he wrote way back then that Clinton had a duty not to enforce laws that he thought encroached on his constitutional authority.
In other words, if the president had to do something to protect the country and secure the nation, and there's this law out there that he thinks is unconstitutional and hampers his ability to act as commander in chief, and Clinton has a duty to ignore the law.
Could we possibly be talking about the 1978 FISA Act?
Yes, I think we could be.
This same guy who is encouraging Clinton and writing for all time and posterity has now written a letter with some other guys to this committee saying just the opposite, that no president has the power to do this, that Congress trumps the Constitution, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Now, what offends me and should offend all of you is that none of this has made its way into the mainstream media.
Instead, we get to listen to Arlan Spector on Meet the Press make the preposterous statement that the president's position is strained.
We hear him proclaim that the president has violated the law, which he has not.
And yet the historical and legal record are overwhelming that President Bush is doing nothing more or less than his predecessors, which is fully constitutional.
And if I might add, you could go back to that resolution uh that was signed uh in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 by the Congress, House, and Senate gave the president full authority to do whatever it took to prevent another attack.
Now, these same guys are trying to act like that never happened, just like their votes authorizing the use of force in Iraq never happened because the president lied to them.
It's the same thing, it's the same strategy, just worked around a different issue.
And it's it's it's stunning to me that they don't get it.
And I think it's too simplistic to say I really do.
Um this has become, by the way, one of the mantras of the media, Chris Matthew.
Well, here, let's just grab soundbite number two.
This has become the simplistic explanation for this idiotic behavior of these Democrats, particularly on the Judiciary Committee, but all these Democrats, he's on MSNBC Live this morning, is talking with uh some host, and the host says, uh, can the administration defend this program at the same time not use something as basic as why to defend it.
In other words, can they have the shroud of secrecy and still be able to effectively defend the program?
Bush doesn't want to bring in the right witnesses to quell congressional anger.
He wants the liberal Democrats like Glahi to keep angry.
This is a win for them.
They're convinced of it, and the only way you get a win in politics is if you get the other side to fight.
And the Democrats are playing their role.
They're playing to the liberals in this country, the civil libertarians, the ACLU.
They're concerned about the intellectuals of the country who really can imagine themselves being surveilled.
Most Americans cannot imagine themselves on the telephone with somebody from Al Qaeda over in one of the emirates.
So Matthews is saying, hey, look, this is trying to keep the lobbyists happy.
Move on.org.
That's all they're doing.
They're doing this because they got a fundraise.
I think it's getting too simplistic to say this.
I understand it to an extent.
But to say that's the only reason why these Democrats are behaving as they are, regardless of the issue.
national security, judicial nominations, doesn't quite cover it for me.
I think there's something more fundamental going on, and that is they have no clue what to do.
They are impotent and they only can go back to their old playbook.
This is nothing new, the technique.
It's so old and predictable that we spot it miles away.
And it doesn't work.
And yet they keep thinking that it's going to work.
You wait the next judicial nomination, if there is one this year, you wait till Ralph Nees and the people for the uh liberal wave get in get involved.
They do the same thing they did to Alito, only this time it's gonna be nuclear war.
They will this is gonna be this is not gonna be a swing boat.
This is gonna be a liberal seat if there is a vacancy.
And they're gonna do the same.
They're gonna try to rebork, even though it's been shown they can't do it now.
Because they don't know any other way.
They don't have power, they don't have they don't have a leader, they don't have an agenda.
So it just it it if if all that we're gonna do is assign their behavior, well, they gotta please their kooks out in Cooksville, there's there's far more to it than that.
But it manifests itself, folks, in truly dangerous ways.
Because what we have today with these hearings and this about face by Walter Dellinger, who is just committed a bold-faced lie here in the whole context of discussing national security in the Constitution.
What we have here, this is worse than pre-9-11 thinking.
Why?
Well, because before 9-11, it was understood and accepted that a president had the power to exercise his constitutional commander-in-chief duties without approval for some unnamed judge or judges on some secret court.
And yet, ever since 9-11, after we were hit on our homeland, Arlen Specter and others seem to be arguing that the president's power to prevent such an attack should be diminished.
And that it ought to be parceled out, that it ought to be diluted, and that Congress ought to have a full say in the matter.
It's just astounding.
Prior to 9-11, we weren't connecting any Dots because the Clinton administration had constructed a wall that the intelligence agencies couldn't share data with anybody or with each other.
Uh and then at 9-11 happens and all the cat calls, why do we connect the dots?
Why do we connect them?
After 9-11, the Democrats, with some help from Senator Specter, appear hellbent on stripping power from the president that he has in the Constitution.
Such is their hatred for George W. Bush.
Such is their anger.
One day Bush is a bumbling boob, can't spell cat, can't do anything right.
The next day he's so brilliant he's scheming and tricking them into all of these harmful positions.
I'm telling you, the bottom line is they're not playing with something like Medicare reform or social security reform.
We're playing here.
They are playing here with something as important as national security.
And you see this this this ginned up controversy over these uh cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.
I mean, you I'm I'm gonna tell you something, folks.
Two two things.
This this whole cartoon thing has been ginned up.
These cartoons, I'm not sure they ever really ran or were published in this Danish newspaper where they said they were published.
But they if they were, it was September of last year.
September of last year.
Now you tell me that this is just coincidental, and then you see all over television these mobs are torturing consuls and embassies all over the world, the Danish embassy, and they all have Denmark flags.
How do they get Denmark?
You think people are running around the Middle East with flags in their homes from Denmark, somebody have to pass these out.
This is like a move on.org trick.
Not saying they're involved, but it's that kind of strategy.
But the point is you see that, and and you know the target is.
The target is moderate Muslims.
They are gonna make sure that moderate Muslims remain cowering in fear in the corners and don't come out and speak out against militant Islam.
Then you go back to this the sinking of this uh this ferry boat, this cruise ship last week, on its way from Saudi Arabia Arabia to Egypt.
The Israeli Navy offers to assist in search and rescue missions.
The Egyptian government says, screw you, we don't want your help.
So the Egyptian government essentially said our people would rather die than be saved by you.
We would be embarrassed to be saved by the Israeli Navy.
We don't need your help, we don't want your help, and you stay out of this.
Does anybody think that Middle East Pea has a prayer?
If when it comes to a civilian ship that sinks in the open waters, and a country that has a Navy offers to assist Israel, is told to stay out, we'd rather have our citizens die than be saved by you.
Does anybody really think that Middle East peace is possible?
You look at this this this cartoon frenzy over there, and folks, I uh I have to tell you uh in all candor, it's just my personal opinion.
I haven't talked to a Super Bowl referee about this.
It's just my personal opinion that I don't see how that group of people can be acculturated into peaceful societies around the world.
I don't think they're interested.
I don't think the same same outcome, same same theory as after I watched this sinking of this ship and the attempts to amount search and rescue missions.
I don't know that you can acculturate these.
I don't think they have any desire to be acculturated into a peaceful societies.
I I think I think that's why this is a war.
And it's uh you you put those two things together with with that analysis, and then you go to these hearings today and you look at these pontificating blowhards who think they all ought to be president, trying to grab some presidential power.
It's uh it's frightening indeed.
It's frightened.
It's not it's not frightening, it's maddening.
It's not frightening because Bush isn't gonna listen to him.
He's laughing himself silly watching all this stuff because he knows one thing Matthew's got right.
The Democrats are playing their role.
They are playing their they are coming in and they're blowing their stack, as I say, not about Medicare reform or something domestic.
They're blowing their stack and making it look like the biggest enemy this country has to national security, liberty, and freedom is George W. Bush.
And Bush is gonna win that argument every time the Democrats try to make it.
Back in just a second thought.
America's anchor man, L. Rushbo, having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have.
Here's Tom in Denver.
Welcome, sir.
Nice to have you on the program.
Twenty-two-year Navy veteran speed-rush.
Thank you.
The absurdity of Leahy linking no fly lists of nuns and babies to these hearings is what I want to hear you tell me about, Rush.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing.
Uh well, I you may be more informed than I. I have a couple lay he bites.
I must I was I was here uh uh and I didn't have a chance to listen to all of the hearings they were going on this morning.
What did he say about babies?
He came out and he first he pontificated a little about the uh about the nature of the hearings and told him how told uh uh attorney General Gonzalez how absurd it was it was happening, and then he turned around and came up with more absurdity on his own saying that no fly list with nuns and babies have to do with these hearings.
It's just got nothing to do with it.
Wait, are you wait a minute?
I'm are you saying fly lists or spy lists?
Fly list, no fly list.
What that has to do with with intelligence gathered electronically is beyond me.
Uh well, I'm gonna have to uh I'm gonna have to get some uh uh background on what it was he actually said uh before I can give you some reaction to it, but we'll do that.
I'll send Snerdley out to try to find some of it.
In the meantime, uh I've uh I wouldn't I wouldn't get too upset.
These guys are just pontificating, and they're they're trying to reach an audience that is not you.
They're they're just they're pontificating for their own purposes.
Uh well, what is this?
My concern is for peaceful Quakers who are being spied upon and other law abiding Americans and babies and nuns who are placed on terrorist watch.
Oh.
Okay, that's what well, this is just absurd.
Yeah, you want my reaction to it?
There it is.
It's absurd.
There are no babies and nuns.
This this is this is something all cooked up from the left-wing blogosphere or from his staff, as just like Senator Kennedy's staff during the uh Alito hearings sent him this report that Judge Alito had never found for a minority a plaintiff or defendant.
And of course, didn't take half hour and they could produce the results.
Yes, there are at least four instances where Judge Alito had.
So I I think this is just uh classic of the Democrats, and I I don't know that it's really worth your anger, more uh your amazement.
Here, let's do the two Lahey bites that we have.
Um this is how he opens his statement.
Congress has given the President authority to monitor Al Qaeda messages legally with checks to guard against abuses when Americans' conversations and emails are being monitored.
But instead of doing what can the president has the authority to to do legally, he's decided to do it illegally without safeguards.
Okay, so he's opening his statement by declaring the whole thing illegal.
So why have the hearings if we're if they're illegal, let's just put Bush in jail.
Oh, let's impeach Bush.
But they're not illegal, and that's the point I was I was trying to make in great detail uh in the opening segments of the program.
Speaking of uh Byron Cunningham, we have the website where you know I summarized for you what what he has researched about Walter Dellinger and the whole case history of this FISA law and the National Security Agency and how it's been used by previous presidents.
Uh and I'm gonna put the link on the website so you can go read his work yourself.
I just summarized it for the purposes of brevity, brevity being the soul of wit.
Uh and I rather than read what he had written, it's it's some some of it's involved in legal ease.
Uh so I just wanted to, you know, give it to you in in a plain spoken English analysis, but we'll post the link to his website where you can read this, and you'll find that uh Leahy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Not none of them haven't a prayer.
One more bite, uh another portion of his remarks, and I think, I think as I heard this, Senator Leahy was actually speaking or responding to me.
Some Republican senators say that we're talking about special rights for terrorists.
I have no interest in that.
Just like every member of this committee and thousands of our staffs and every member of the House representatives.
I go to work every single day in a building that was targeted for destruction by Al Qaeda.
Of course, I want them captured.
I wish the Bush administration had done a better job.
I wish that when they had almost had Osama bin Laden, they'd kept on after him and caught him and destroyed him.
Rather than taking our special forces out of Afghanistan and sending them precipitously into Iraq.
But my concern is the laws of America.
Uh he's saying these guys are getting censored because now you'll calling their what they're trying to put together the terrorist bill of rights.
And that's starting to reverberate and resonate with these guys.
So he says some Republican senators say that we're talking about special rights for terrorists.
You damn certain are, Senator.
You may not think so, But uh it's plain as day that you may not be intending it, but that will be the result if you ever got your way on all of this.
So what's the difference?
We'll be back in just a second.
We're gonna track down this uh this uh wacko comment from Leahy uh that was mentioned by Tom in Denver.
Because it has some pretty good stuff on it aside from what Tom uh referred to.
And it will give uh me a continued opportunity here to continue to hammer Leahy, which of course we need to do in his Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights.
▲
Export Selection